Best Nikon DSLR lens for soccer games?

[Analog]

My daughter has graduated to a full size soccer field, and my old camera's 10x optical is just not adequate.

I have a Nikon DSLR with the standard 50mm lens and I am willing to spend some bucks to get a decent telephoto with VR or whatever you guys with experience recommend. It must be fast and be able to zoom in on action. Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

If you want to spend some SERIOUS cash, the undisputed king is the 70-200 2.8 VR.

A decent second choice is perhaps the this Tamron, but I have not personally researched it: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-7...qid=1244423311&sr=1-15

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
If you want to spend some SERIOUS cash, the undisputed king is the 70-200 2.8 VR.

A decent second choice is perhaps the this Tamron, but I have not personally researched it: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-7...qid=1244423311&sr=1-15

Hmm, that's serious $$$.

the 70-300 is less than half that, would that be adequate for action?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

70-300 is going to be a quite a bit slower. During the day time, it would be fine. At night, the 2.8f will be needed/wanted.

The 55-200vr is a good lens as well if this is during the day time.

 

[tdawg]

A used 80-200 AF-D for around $700 would be great. Not as big a reach as the 70-300, but probably an all-around better lens choice for sports.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
If you want to spend some SERIOUS cash, the undisputed king is the 70-200 2.8 VR.

A decent second choice is perhaps the this Tamron, but I have not personally researched it: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-7...qid=1244423311&sr=1-15

Hmm, that's serious $$$.

the 70-300 is less than half that, would that be adequate for action?

70-300 has slower auto focus, which makes a big difference in action sports. If you can't afford a 70-200 (or any of the secondary brand versions), then you must improvise with the slower lens. Don't focus on where the ball is now, focus on where the ball will be. Also, turn on continuous shooting and blast away. That should give you pretty good results.

Can you expand on why your old camera's 10x optical isn't enough for you? Is the focal length not enough reach? I dunno what your old camera specs are, but if your base focal length is 30mm, then at 10x that means you are at 300mm. So you might not get the extra zoom that you are expecting from your DSLR, unless you get a real zoom lens. Does the small aperture require a longer shutter speed which causes blurry pictures? Get a 2.8 or faster lens, and/or better camera body with better high ISO. Does the camera focus too slowly at max zoom? Get a faster af lens. Or is the vibrations from your hands causing the camera to produce unacceptable pictures? VR or a tripod.

Like most problems in life, these problems can all be solved by the all powerful $$$. But that doesn't make you a better photographer. I suggests staying within a reasonable budget, and working with what you have. Personally, if budget is a big factor, I would get a used Nikkor 70-300 2.8 and improve my skills with manual focusing.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: OulOat
70-300 has slower auto focus, which makes a big difference in action sports. If you can't afford a 70-200 (or any of the secondary brand versions), then you must improvise with the slower lens. Don't focus on where the ball is now, focus on where the ball will be. Also, turn on continuous shooting and blast away. That should give you pretty good results.

ditto.

Can you expand on why your old camera's 10x optical isn't enough for you? Is the focal length not enough reach? I dunno what your old camera specs are, but if your base focal length is 30mm, then at 10x that means you are at 300mm.

i am reckoning it is the focusing speed that's displeasing OP.

 

[jpeyton]

While the 70-200/2.8 is the best standard telephoto zoom Nikon makes, the 70-300VR is no slouch. Let's make the obvious point: in low light (indoors or at night), the 70-200/2.8 is a much better lens. In the daytime, the 70-300VR is a stunner at 1/3rd the price.

Originally posted by: OulOat
70-300 has slower auto focus, which makes a big difference in action sports.

Where did you get that idea?

Thom Hogan:

But in bright light this lens focuses almost as fast and sure as the 70-200mm.

Ken Rockwell:

Autofocus is as fast as my super-fast 80-200 AFS.

If the OP is just shooting a kid's daytime soccer match, the 70-300VR will work out great for him. As mentioned earlier, the 55-200VR is also a great daytime lens, but that extra 100mm of reach will come in handy for sports.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
If you want to spend some SERIOUS cash, the undisputed king is the 70-200 2.8 VR.

A decent second choice is perhaps the this Tamron, but I have not personally researched it: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-7...qid=1244423311&sr=1-15

The Tamron's AF is loud, and not fast (a big factor when shooting sports).

A better option in the $600 range (not much more than the 70-300) would be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro. Not only does it have a f/2.8 constant max aperture and close focusing, but the ring HSM is comparable to Nikon's silent wave motor in AF speed and noise.

 

[theYipster]

Don't forget size and weight considerations. The 70-200 2.8 AF-S VR is the standard bearer, but it's five pounds and looks like a mini bazooka (compared to smaller lenses.) It's a large professional lens, and it balances best on large professional cameras like the D3/D700/D300. If you're going to consider this lens, I recommend you first seek out a copy to try in a store. Make sure you like the balance on your particular camera and that you don't mind the build.

Alternatives like the Tamron or one of the 80-200 AF-D models will not autofocus as quickly or as quietly as AF-S alternatives. They will also not autofocus at all on the D40, D40X, D60, or D5000 bodies. If you have one of these smaller Nikons, you need an AF-S lens or a 3rd party equivalent (i.e. Sigma HSM.)

I also recommend you take a look at the 70-300 VR. It's a great lens and is more than capable at handling sports in daylight. Many copies are a bit soft from 250-300mm, and you'll need to stop down a bit to match the 70-200's IQ, but then in daylight this shouldn't be a problem. It's VR in my experience actually works better than the VR mechanism on the 70-200 (it's newer,) but then again this won't be too much of a factor in shooting sports (as you won't be shooting slow enough to need it.)

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Analog
I have a Nikon DSLR with the standard 50mm lens

What model? Does it have a focus motor?

Originally posted by: 996GT2
A better option in the $600 range (not much more than the 70-300) would be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro.

The Sigma goes for $800 new, the Tamron is $120 less. There is also a census that the Tamron is slightly sharper wide open, FWIW.

Originally posted by: Analog
Hmm, that's serious $$$.

Reach + speed = lotsa $$$$$

Here is another alternative that gets you to 300mm, but only F4.

Originally posted by: Analog
the 70-300 is less than half that, would that be adequate for action?

Depends on how much sunlight you have. No problem on bright sunny days, but when the clouds come out, its a different story.

Originally posted by: tdawg
A used 80-200 AF-D for around $700 would be great. Not as big a reach as the 70-300, but probably an all-around better lens choice for sports.

This gets my vote.

You can choose the $1700 70-200 2.8 VR, the $1200 80-200 2.8 AF-S, the $800 80-200 2.8 AF-D, or the $500 Push-pull 80-200 2.8. All made by Nikon, so you know there built like a tank.

 

[Munky]

Nothing wrong with the 70-300 or even the 55-200. In fact, I would recommend you try those before dropping serious cash on the heavy expensive lenses everyone seems to be recommending.

 

[twistedlogic]

I agree that the 55-200mm F4-5.6 would be a good start, give the OP an idea of how fast of a lens and focal length would work without breaking the bank.

The problem with the 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR is that it is $590 brand new, where you can pick up a used 80-200 F2.8 for $665. I guess he could always buy the 70-300 VR and if its too slow just resell it for just a few dollar lost.

 

[jpeyton]

A two-ring 80-200/2.8 is around $800 used; that's what I just sold mine for.

The 70-300VR will focus a lot faster, especially if the OP is using a consumer body.

The one thing I like about the 70-300VR is that it just "works". Shoot it wide open, it locks focus fast and accurately, and the results are very sharp.

 

[Analog]

Thanks for the replies. I have a Nikon D50 that I would like to fit the new lens on.

My older superzoom is the Nikon 5700. Its 8x optical says its supposedly equivalent to a 280mm 35mm camera zoom. My problem with that is that it is a bit slow to respond at those magnifications.

 

[gar655]

Full size soccer field = 400mm or longer lens. So I would recommend the Nikon 400/2.8 VR. The 300/2.8 + a 1.4 or 1.7 TC for day games would work well also. Anything less than that and your going to end up with teeny, tiny crops. 200mm is good for about 15-20 yards, maybe a little more with adult players.

Gene

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: gar655
So I would recommend the Nikon 400/2.8 VR.

$9000

The 300/2.8 + a 1.4 or 1.7 TC for day games would work well also.

$5500

Just curious, how many parents do you know buy $9000 lenses to photograph their kid's soccer games?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: 996GT2
A better option in the $600 range (not much more than the 70-300) would be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro.

The Sigma goes for $800 new, the Tamron is $120 less. There is also a census that the Tamron is slightly sharper wide open, FWIW.

According to Photozone review the Sigma is only slightly less sharp than the $1600 Nikkor 70-200mm VR at f/2.8, so unless the Tamron is better than the Nikkor, I'm not sure that it would be noticeably better than the Sigma.

However, the difference in AF speed is dramatic. Multiple sources that the Tamron's DC motor (the same kind used in cheap kit lenses) is too slow and noisy to keep up with sports. The Sigma might cost a little more, but I think the much faster HSM focusing with full time override is worth that difference. On the Tamron, you have to pull a clumsy focus clutch back to MF, and sometimes it'll get stuck in an intermediate position that messes with AF.

 

[Deadtrees]

Considering your camera is D50 and assuming you're serious about this, you might as well get a new camera.
How about D700? It will give you faster + more accurate AF, superior high ISO performance, and a lot faster FPS.

 

[jpeyton]

Sigh.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/n...uss/72157603995861051/

http://www.moosenewsblog.com/2...kons-best-kept-secret/

http://www.lesjones.com/2009/0...kons-70-300mm-vr-lens/

 

[soydios]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/...m_Nikkor_70_300mm.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._f_4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Considering your camera is D50 and assuming you're serious about this, you might as well get a new camera.
How about D700? It will give you faster + more accurate AF, superior high ISO performance, and a lot faster FPS.

It would be helpful if you explained why.

 

[theYipster]

I have a D700 and it is by far the best SLR I've ever owned and in my opinion the best and most well rounded high end (sans built in vertical grip) dSLR ever made. However, I don't see how a $2500 camera body will serve you in taking better shots at soccer games. If anything, the wider FoV of the full frame sensor will be a negative, as all of your lenses will have less reach.

Again, I second everyone's attempt to promote the 70-300 VR. When switching to Nikon from Canon, I looked closely at the 70-200 2.8 VR and decided to pick up a 70-300 VR and an 85 1.4 AF-D instead. I seldom shoot events or in conditions that necessitate a 2.8 telezoom, and while it's an exceptional lens for fast action and has very nice bokeh for portraiture, the 70-300 VR is a better choice as a general telezoom walkabout (and actually provides better corner to corner IQ for landscapes on full frame sensors.) For action in daylight, the 70-300 holds its own to the much heavier 70-200. At the end of the day, you really can't tell the difference in the images between the two (with the 70-300 stopped down a bit.)

If it's arena soccer, then yes, you'll want to take a look at a 2.8 telezoom -- but keep in mind that the Tamron or AF-D models will focus considerably more slowly than an AF-S (or Sigma HSM) model. However, if you're shooting outdoors, the 70-300 will likely serve your needs very well at 1/3 the price (and at 1/3 the size and weight.)

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
According to Photozone review the Sigma is only slightly less sharp than the $1600 Nikkor 70-200mm VR at f/2.8, so unless the Tamron is better than the Nikkor, I'm not sure that it would be noticeably better than the Sigma.

The lens in that review is out of production. You can only buy the newer HSM version II. And yes, its known that the first generation is sharper and a lot prefer to buy the older one used rather than the new one.

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Considering your camera is D50 and assuming you're serious about this, you might as well get a new camera.
How about D700? It will give you faster + more accurate AF, superior high ISO performance, and a lot faster FPS.

It would be helpful if you explained why.

Why what? Why get the D700 or why isn't the D50 enough?

The D700 would allow you to shoot at high ISOs with little noise, letting you use the 70-300 VR lens stopped down to F8 (maximum sharpness) and still get fast enough shutter speeds to stop action.

Problem is there $3000 for body alone.

 

[imported_Irse]

Three things that we need to know.
1) All day games or will there be some during the evening?
2) How far will you be from the action?
3) Do you mind used lenses?

A good used lens would be the 80-200 AFS lens. It goes for about $1000 used. If you need more reach, you could add a 1.4 TC. The 70-300 is a nice lens but it will have more things in focus since it's at 4.5-5.6. You won't get nice isolation of your subject like you would get with a 2.8 lens. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is also a pretty nice lens. It's slightly shorter than the Nikon counterparts. It also has an internal motor so it will be compatible with your camera.
If you're always going to be far from the action, I would get a 300 f4. That one is fast focusing and sharp.