Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2009, 9:57 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
Default

Hi I purchased a D300 and I am trying to decide on lenses. I shoot outdoor and indoor sports such as football and basketball. I'm not sure if I should go with Nikon or Tamron. I welcome any suggestions. Thank you.
Chuckf is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 25, 2009, 6:56 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Why not Sigma?

-> They have a fantastic 120-300 f/2.8 with HSM, no VR though, but for sport this feature is of limited used anyway
... and you can stay with Nikon for the fast primes
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2009, 9:21 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Chuck,

A lot depends on your budget. While the D300 does have a built in focus motor, Nikon realizes lens-based focus motors are more effective. For that reason I would not recommend Tamron lenses for sports work. They simply don't focus fast enough. The least expensive option would be the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ($800). Realize though you'll be shooting at ISO 3200 + for both sports but the D300 does well at 3200. TheNikon80-200 2.8 is bright enough, but it's not AF-S so again you've got the issue of notas fast focusing. The 70-200 2.8 VR is, by all accounts, a great lens. But you're paying a premium for the VR which won'thelp your sports photos much if any.

Also realize, you are a bit limited in reach with the 200mm for football - it's good for about 25 yards of reach. However, if you need to shoot varsity under the lights you really need the benefit of 2.8 so the next step up the ladder is the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which NHL suggested followed by the big 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 Nikon primes. I use one for football in Canon mount and it's a fantastic lens. BUT, the lens isn't a good fit for basketball from the floor where most basketball is shot from.

If football is the only outdoor sport than you can certainly get by with the 70-200. If, however, you add soccer and baseball it's a poor fit. Then you'll need a 300 or 400mm lens because the distances are too great.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2009, 11:28 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The D300 does have a powerful motor so I wouldn't mind buying motorless short prime such as the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 as they focus quite fast (albeit more noisy)
Bigger lenses with larger elements are the one which really benefit from AF-S


BTW Nikon does have an 80-200 with AF-S, you just have to buy them used:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm
-> It's also a sharper lens than the VR
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2009, 11:24 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
Default

Thank you guys. The bulk of my business is video, the photography side is a smaller part which also includes portrait, team shots and candids. If I went with the 80-200, what would be a good lens to handle the basic stuff?
Chuckf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2009, 12:03 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Chuckf wrote:
Quote:
If I went with the 80-200, what would be a good lens to handle the basic stuff?
I use a Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 on my D300: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=65
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2009, 11:20 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks NHL, I found a used Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 lens for sale locally. I read some reviews which looked favorable, except it was heavy. How does this compare to the 80-200 with AF-S you suggested?
Chuckf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2009, 11:56 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10
Default

It depends on which 80-200 it is... Nikon has revised the lens several times over the past few decades.... the older models are push/pull models, and tend to have a slower autofocus. The newer ones are ring based zoom and focus faster. There is even a Nikon 80-200 AF-S lens which is quite nice as well.

They all have great glass, regardless.
pbook4g5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 6:04 AM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

any 70/80-200 2.8 will be heavy. Expect the ED to focus slower than the af-s. Again, the focus motor in the lens makes a huge difference for sports photography where continuous focus is used.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 6:59 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Chuckf wrote:
Quote:
I found a used Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 lens for sale locally. I read some reviews which looked favorable, except it was heavy. How does this compare to the 80-200 with AF-S you suggested?
You'll want the AF-S, IMO if it's still on the market today it will take sales away from the 70-200 f/2.8 VR...
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Produ...;GBC=&GCC=


-> The other alternative is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM which also has the ultrasonic silent drive which is quite reasonable: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=3
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:07 AM.