Action sports

[MRW]

Posted this in the Photo tips but thought I would try here.

I am just getting into photography and will be taking pics of action sports. I am looking at getting the Nikon d5000 but what lens would be best for these types of sports? any suggestions would be great.

[John Godwin]

Which sports, what type of photos, how close you can get, daytime, nighttime or indoors along with other parameters will all have a lot to do with which lens would be needed for the style of shots you are looking to get.

Saying all of the above a 70-200mm f2.8 lens is a workhorse for many.

BTW I consider 70-200mm to be my wide angle lens!

You may get a better response in the sports section.

[KenJulio]

If you're on a budget and need length, the 80-200 af-d f2.8 2 ring version is a good bang for the buck. Unless you can find a used 70-200 VR I at less than 1400.

How close to the action will you be? What sport?

[MRW]

Hey thanks guy's. The sports I will be doing is wakeboarding, Motocross, bmx. moto and bmx I will be relatively close. Wakeboarding I would guess about 65-80'. All will be outdoors in the blazing Texas sun!

As for the types of photos since I am new to the game I was thinking some close ups but mostly with background does that make since?

[MT Stringer]

You might decide to shoot something different once you start checking the lens prices.
I am not familiar with Nikon, but the principle is the same
70-200 f/2.8
200-400 f/4 (Nikon only)
300 f/2.8
400 f/2.8

BTW I consider 70-200mm to be my wide angle lens!

ha ha ha, yeah, he's told me that a time or two also. :-)

Honestly, the 80-200 f/2.8 and a 1.5x TC would probably be your best and most economical option.

Shoot tight, crop tighter.
Good luck.

[chemisti]

Well, lets see - I believe that the lens must have an internal motor to focus (Nikon AF-s), so I believe that eliminates the 2 ring 80-200 f2.8 D.

I currently own the AF-s 80-200 f2.8 and love it. But...

Let me argue that for the situations described, the 70-300 VR just might be the ticket:
a. AF-s that is nearly as quick as the "pro" lenses.
b. AF-s that will AF on the D5000.
c. Very good/excellent optically to 200 mm - good to 300 mm.
d. Light weight and well built for a consumer zoom.
e. VR not useful for sports, but an added bonus for other uses.

I have shot a boatload (many thousands) of competitive softall shots with this lens and it does a very good job in bright light.
Examples:

[KenJulio]

Jeff - you're right, AF-S is needed for the D5000. So the 80-200 AF-D is out of the question, though the 80-200 AF-S is still in the mix. :)

[brewercm]

There's also the Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6VR that is around half the price of the 70-300 which is also DX that will work with the D5000. Build quality may not be quite up to that of the 70-300 but depends on how much reach you're wanting and money to spend.

Just a thought to throw out there.

[chemisti]

Telephoto zoom lenses that I have shot with (some rented, some owned):
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D
70-200 f2.8 VR I
80-200 f2.8 single ring push-pull
(Old) Tamron SP 70-210mm f/2.8 LD
Tammy 70-200 f2.8
Nikon 55-200 DX (Ver I)
Nikon 70-300 VR
Sigma 120-300 f2.8
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO


I am making several assumptions (which may or may not be valid)...
(Admitted camera snobbery in advance)
A D5000 shooter who is asking this questions implies that the shooter may well be new to the hobby and is probably not going to jump right in for something like a 70-200 VR.

My first camera/lens combo was the D50 and the 55-200 DX.

My recommendation assumes a path similar to my own. The first lens I owned that I found truly satisfying was the 70-300 VR.

My observations:
200 mm is too short even for softball - even on the small field. Outfield shots are quite distant from either foul line.

I love my 80-200 AF-s and am willing to put up with it for the outstanding optics and when shooting in twilight/night situations. But if you have to hold that thing for 5 - 6 hours it can wear you out.

For my money, the 70-300 VR was a huge amount of capability packed into a light-weight package. More than a few pros use it for their "light" kit long lens. If I were looking for the most versatility possible in a single long zoom - it is hard to beat. As folks build a lens collection, one of the key "wants" is versatility.

If it sounds like I like the lens - you're right.

Will shut up now.

Good luck.

[Tom]

More than a few pros use it for their "light" kit long lens.

I guess. I spend a ton of time with other pros and I don't know a single pro with a 70-300 variable-aperture lens.

As folks build a lens collection, one of the key "wants" is versatility.

And as they get more advanced, one of the key needs is quality. And you don't get that from a 70-300. You get that from the 70-200, the 300 2.8, the 400 2.8, etc.

[shaggyrockmer]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I guess. I spend a ton of time with other pros and I don't know a single pro with a 70-300 variable-aperture lens.


And as they get more advanced, one of the key needs is quality. And you don't get that from a 70-300. You get that from the 70-200, the 300 2.8, the 400 2.8, etc.

I have to agree. at first I used the 70-200 but the 400 just took my shooting to a whole nother planet.

[Dobick]

the good thing about wakeboarding -- if you are sitting in the boat, the plane of focus should not change too much (as they are going to be on the end of a fixed length rope), so for that sport, the focus speed of the lens will probably not be all that critical.

With the others though, you will want focus speed. A 70-200 will get you started, but if you get close to some of the launches in the motocross, then you will probably want wide as well.

If I was shooting nikon -- the three lenses I would "want" would be 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Regardless of subject matter, I would probably get these three first, and then build from there.

[Daniel W.]

I too agree with Thomas. The quality of the 70-300 is good, for a 70-300 lens. I used Canon's 70-300IS for a bit on loan, and a good day with that lens is like a bad day with the 70-200/2.8.

I know plenty of "advanced amateurs" who started out on sports with a 70-300, and then bought a 70-200/2.8. Where does the 300 sit? On the shelf, collecting dust. However, Jeff has some very nice photos, and it shows what that lens can do in the right conditions - I know a few semi-pro wildlife shooters who will turn to a 70-300 when their focus is more wide angle and they don't want to waste space with a full 300/2.8 or 300/4, but they're semi-pro. A professional, or one who relies on getting images for income, will say "shuck comfort, I'll bring it even if it's heavy." If your goal is to make professional pudding, you don't bring a plastic spoon and a box of instant to the party, but if you're just making images for fun (and nothing wrong with that), maybe the biggest and baddest isn't really necessary. I keep a 70-300 that i got for free in my trunk, because I don't always haul the 300/2.8 around everyday and some day I may find myself in need of the reach for a breaking event that, and newsprint makes even soft focus and chromatic abberation acceptable to a minute level. It's a "use in case of fire" tool for me only.

My personal recommendation: Sigma 70-200. It's cheap, prosumer friendly, but I wouldn't used it for everyday work. I did, and it quickly found it's way into two separate pieces. If you find yourself in a "200 isn't long enough" situations, Nikon does make a good 2x teleconverter, that I've been told pairs well with a 70-200/2.8. But I haven't used it personally and as always, ymmv. In the time that I was not working day to day and mostly just for kicks, it wasn't too awful. I prefer it a little since it focuses closer than the Canon, but it can be soft depending on the copy and like I mentioned, I'm not a big fan of Sigma build quality on their longer lenses.

Edit: not sure if there's a version that's AF-motor compatible. Not sure if you've bitten the bullet on a body yet but how do you Nikon guys think a used D200 would compare, AF-speed wise?

[tertius]

Originally Posted by Dobick

If I was shooting nikon -- the three lenses I would "want" would be 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Regardless of subject matter, I would probably get these three first, and then build from there.

Yeah, that *would* be nice, if only....

[chemisti]

Hey - can't disagree with anything said here...

The holy trinity of Nikon pro lenses - every person here wants that.

Me too (I'll pick up two of everything, please. And one of those nice tents over there - 'cause I will be sleeping in it once the wife finds out!)

Who wouldn't?

How many D5000 shooters start out with that? Really?

Yep - most pros don't work with a 70-300 VR as their lens of choice. Never implied that (at least I didn't mean to). We all know that most serious pros use the best they can afford/obtain and the 70-300 VR ain't it! Started to try to find examples of articles I've read where "Pros" use the 70-300 VR, but quickly abandoned the effort - not worth it. The examples I have found deal with pro photogs who have decided to make compromises based upon the shooting conditions and requirements - examples would include backpacking (Do I really want to lug along a 300 f2.8? And a tripod? And a tent? And a sleeping bag? And a ???) or travel to remote locations (Shooting lizards in the rain forests of Australia).

The point is not to recommend the best lens for the job. Rather, the point is to recommend the best lens for the job that is attainable for the OP.
(NOTE: See my original post about some assumptions that may or may not be true.)

Stop the conversation right here and save time if (a) the OP has a generous budget and (b) the OP wants the finest lenses. Go with the Holy Trinity + a 300 f2.8 and a couple of TC's and be done with it! You can shoot anything from weddings to portraiture to sports!

It seems to me that the real conversation is about what compromises we all have to make with all lens choices. The equation includes cost, capability, quality, requirements, usability, size, weight, filter size, et. al. In fact - the same goes for the camera body.

My assumptions would include the fact that someone who has already committed to high level sports/action would likely have a more advanced body with a quicker frame rate and better AF capability. I have never even handled a D5000 so I may be grossly uninformed and underestimating the camera's capability (If so, I apologize...). The same assumptions apply to the lenses. (Yes, yes, yes. I know about the whole "better to put your money into good glass" argument rather than a good body. Just an observation that most "pros" or advanced amateurs would most likely not be shooting sports or action with a D5000, OK?)

So, I perceive that the OP most likely is "sticking his toe into the water" to see if he/she is really interested in this kind of thing. Thus, my recommendation for reasons already stated. I maintain that someone in this situation and under the conditions already stated can get a lot of satisfaction, learn a lot, and produce some pretty stunning prints up to 8x10 with the lens recommended. If they really "get into" this genre - the camera and lens is merely a "bridge" to moving up in both skill and gear.

I subscribe to a couple of beliefs
(a) actually shooting with any lens and camera that you have always beats not shooting with the lens and camera you don't have or can't afford, and
(b) shooting with the lens and camera you'll actually take with you beats not shooting with the lens, monopod, and TC you left at home.

NOTE: Author here is guilty of generally carrying too much gear most of the time, much of which often doesn't get used. I have recently began to appreciate economy in this area.

SECOND NOTE: I generally avoid these kind of "mini rants". I have just read too many "Go get the $2000 lens" advice posts and which ignore the alternate path (and often more realistic view) of "growing into" more advanced gear and ignores the "cost" of missing shots while you save pennies to buy the ultimate lens. I have rented and owned many lenses along the way and made more than a few mistakes. In the end - I was shooting and capturing images along the way. And learning.
Not sure that the awesome 70-200 VR (had it been available then) would've made much difference to me the first day I took out my D50 (set to the little sports guy setting with terrible white balance and poor framing) and 55-200 DX to shoot my daughter's softball practice and caught the bug. I wasn't ready for such a lens, if you know what I mean.
But I was shooting - not wishing.

THIRD NOTE: The author's kit is full of compromises. But the emphasis has been on two areas that interest me - lighting and sports. Thus the D300, three SB flashes, and the 80-200 f2.8 AF-s. The author's kit sometimes (and in spite of) the photog has produced results that have pleased the author and even sometimes the subjects.

Great conversation and great advice posted here.

Good luck.