Steve'sDigicams

swiftsl · Feb 1, 2005, 11:20 AM

My husband bought me the D70 for Christmas and I just love it. I take alot of sports photos of my children. I was wondering if anyone can recommend a lense that is good for sports. The lens that came with my camera doesn't seem to do the job very well. Thanks.

Morris · Feb 1, 2005, 12:52 PM

Please precise a few points

Indoor or outdoorsports?

Do you have the 18-70 kit lens?

What specifically is wrong with your pictures?

How much do you want to spend on a lens?

Agood zoom lens for sports will cost at least $700 usd

swiftsl · Feb 2, 2005, 9:24 AM

Sorry and thank you for replying. I usually take sports pictures indoors and outdoors(soccer and basketball). I really don't want to pay more than $500 for a lens. Also, the lens than came with my camera is the AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm.

Thanks for your help.

bugshutter · Feb 2, 2005, 12:06 PM

The kit lens should handle your outdoor shots, providing you're roaming the sidelines and tracking your kid. The 50mm 1.8 will handle normal lighting indoors, again if you're going to be near the baseline for closeup shots.. The 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8Nikon, you can get together for less then $500.

murphyc · Feb 2, 2005, 4:44 PM

The el cheapo setup, the one I started with, would be the Nikon 50 1.8 (about $100) for indoor sports plus the Sigma APO Macro Zoom II 70-300 (about $200) for outdoor sports. I find the Nikon 85 1.8 much better for sports since it is faster focusing, but it's probably about $350. You can also get various used versions of the Nikon 80-200 2.8 for around $500.

Wannabe · Feb 4, 2005, 12:43 AM

Still learning about lenses, I'm surprised people recommend such short focal lengths for sports. I can understand the need for the 1.8 I think, but I'd think a 50mm would produce a shot that contained 3/4s of a basketball court with a bunch of random kids spread out all over it, instead of something with a specific kid as the large subjectfor a shot.

Tell me why I'm wrong so I can laugh at myself.

bugshutter · Feb 4, 2005, 1:37 AM

Although these arent the sharpest shots, because of lack of something:G, but they were shot with a50mm lense. You know its cool whenyou have a halfway professional looking camera or camera setup, you get redcarpet treatment to get closer to the action:G. But seriously, im just stressing the composition that the 50mm can work.

murphyc · Feb 4, 2005, 1:40 AM

Wannabe wrote:

Quote:

Still learning about lenses, I'm surprised people recommend such short focal lengths for sports. I can understand the need for the 1.8 I think, but I'd think a 50mm would produce a shot that contained 3/4s of a basketball court with a bunch of random kids spread out all over it, instead of something with a specific kid as the large subject for a shot.

Tell me why I'm wrong so I can laugh at myself.

When I use a 50, I'm on the baseline and sometimes right under the basket so players fill the frame nicely. If in the stands, you're correct that a 50 wouldn't be tight enough.

bugshutter · Feb 4, 2005, 1:48 AM

Another 50mm shot. Murph,you're exactly right. When im in the stands I will use the 85mm 1.8. One thing about basketball, the action is constant, so if you're changing lenses you probably still get an action shot if not as good better.

Wannabe · Feb 4, 2005, 2:31 AM

Thanks for the replys and pics.

I understand a little better how the 50mm can work well in circumstances where you are on the floor. I was thinking more in terms of a high school game basketball game where you are in the bleechers a maybe 30 feet from the floor or worse.

I also had it in my mind one of these rabid soccer moms knocking kids out of her shot so she couldget an "pele" poster shotof her cute5 year old chewing on a stick somewhere at mid field (lol).

Seriously, when I think of sports photography I still think in terms of some pretty substantial zoom. I'm beginning to realize in some cases it's not necessary, and if you really want to go all out with the nice big zooms you need a good relationship with a banker that drinks heavily, cuz them things can get down right nasty expensive.

It's also obvious, from reading several of the threads, you really need something in the 1.8 range because even the 2.8's sound like that might not work well enough.

Anyway, thanks again for the replys.

Feb 4, 2005, 1:37 AM	#7
bugshutter Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 106	Although these arent the sharpest shots, because of lack of something:G, but they were shot with a50mm lense. You know its cool whenyou have a halfway professional looking camera or camera setup, you get redcarpet treatment to get closer to the action:G. But seriously, im just stressing the composition that the 50mm can work. Attached Images

Feb 4, 2005, 1:48 AM	#9
bugshutter Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 106	Another 50mm shot. Murph,you're exactly right. When im in the stands I will use the 85mm 1.8. One thing about basketball, the action is constant, so if you're changing lenses you probably still get an action shot if not as good better. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Feb 1, 2005, 11:20 AM	#1
swiftsl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2	My husband bought me the D70 for Christmas and I just love it. I take alot of sports photos of my children. I was wondering if anyone can recommend a lense that is good for sports. The lens that came with my camera doesn't seem to do the job very well. Thanks.

Feb 1, 2005, 12:52 PM	#2
Morris Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 113	Please precise a few points Indoor or outdoorsports? Do you have the 18-70 kit lens? What specifically is wrong with your pictures? How much do you want to spend on a lens? Agood zoom lens for sports will cost at least $700 usd

Feb 2, 2005, 9:24 AM	#3
swiftsl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2	Sorry and thank you for replying. I usually take sports pictures indoors and outdoors(soccer and basketball). I really don't want to pay more than $500 for a lens. Also, the lens than came with my camera is the AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm. Thanks for your help.

Feb 2, 2005, 12:06 PM	#4
bugshutter Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 106	The kit lens should handle your outdoor shots, providing you're roaming the sidelines and tracking your kid. The 50mm 1.8 will handle normal lighting indoors, again if you're going to be near the baseline for closeup shots.. The 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8Nikon, you can get together for less then $500.

Feb 2, 2005, 4:44 PM	#5
murphyc Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 269	The el cheapo setup, the one I started with, would be the Nikon 50 1.8 (about $100) for indoor sports plus the Sigma APO Macro Zoom II 70-300 (about $200) for outdoor sports. I find the Nikon 85 1.8 much better for sports since it is faster focusing, but it's probably about $350. You can also get various used versions of the Nikon 80-200 2.8 for around $500.

Feb 4, 2005, 12:43 AM	#6
Wannabe Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 167	Still learning about lenses, I'm surprised people recommend such short focal lengths for sports. I can understand the need for the 1.8 I think, but I'd think a 50mm would produce a shot that contained 3/4s of a basketball court with a bunch of random kids spread out all over it, instead of something with a specific kid as the large subjectfor a shot. Tell me why I'm wrong so I can laugh at myself.

Feb 4, 2005, 2:31 AM	#10
Wannabe Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 167	Thanks for the replys and pics. I understand a little better how the 50mm can work well in circumstances where you are on the floor. I was thinking more in terms of a high school game basketball game where you are in the bleechers a maybe 30 feet from the floor or worse. I also had it in my mind one of these rabid soccer moms knocking kids out of her shot so she couldget an "pele" poster shotof her cute5 year old chewing on a stick somewhere at mid field (lol). Seriously, when I think of sports photography I still think in terms of some pretty substantial zoom. I'm beginning to realize in some cases it's not necessary, and if you really want to go all out with the nice big zooms you need a good relationship with a banker that drinks heavily, cuz them things can get down right nasty expensive. It's also obvious, from reading several of the threads, you really need something in the 1.8 range because even the 2.8's sound like that might not work well enough. Anyway, thanks again for the replys.