Best Nikon DSLR lens for soccer games?

[jpeyton]

This thread is turning into a mess of confusion mainly because the OP failed to state a budget.

That's why half the replies in this thread are useful, and the other half are pie-in-the-sky recommendations for $3000 bodies and $2000-$9000 lenses.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This thread is turning into a mess of confusion mainly because the OP failed to state a budget.

That'll teach him,

In everyone's defense, the OP did state "It must be fast and be able to zoom in on action", lol.

IMO, size is the biggest issue. Even with an infinite budget, Miss soccer mom isn't going to want to tote around an expensive, massive honking lens and/or body.

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Yeah, the lack of a budget is really a killer.
If all the good lenses mentioned to this point are too expensive, one option might be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. It's slower (f/4-5.6), does not have HSM nor vibration reduction, but at $200, I think it's a pretty good value, provided that you have good lighting. Additionally, because of the aforementioned downsides, it's relatively compact and lightweight.

I picked one up for my vacation to spring training earlier this year, and while it's certainly not perfect, I'm happy with the results, particularly given the cost.
A few samples (Nikon D70s):
Spring training 1
Spring training 2
Spring training 3
Spring training 4

 

[imported_Irse]

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
Yeah, the lack of a budget is really a killer.
If all the good lenses mentioned to this point are too expensive, one option might be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. It's slower (f/4-5.6), does not have HSM nor vibration reduction, but at $200, I think it's a pretty good value, provided that you have good lighting. Additionally, because of the aforementioned downsides, it's relatively compact and lightweight.

I picked one up for my vacation to spring training earlier this year, and while it's certainly not perfect, I'm happy with the results, particularly given the cost.
A few samples (Nikon D70s):
Spring training 1
Spring training 2
Spring training 3
Spring training 4

But he has a D50. Doesn't that require a lens with a AF motor or the OP will be manually focusing? When the OP stated fast, does that means 2.8 type fast or focusing fast?

 

[theYipster]

The D50 has an in-body focus motor. Only the D40/D40X, D60, and D5000 do not.

 

[imported_Irse]

Thanks

 

[996GT2]

It's too bad that Nikon has no equivalents to either the Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM at around $175 or the Canon 70-200mm f/4L at around $600. Both of these lenses are fast, sharp, and have extremely quick USM focusing at a reasonable price.

Nikon's lens lineup seems very heavily segregated to me, which is a bit sad considering how good their camera bodies are. On one end of the scale, there's the low end stuff like the 18-55mm and 55-200mm, and on the other end there's the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 70-200 f/2.8, etc. There isn't really a mid-range as there is with Canon, so choices are lacking, especially in telephoto zooms with ultrasonic focusing.

 

[theYipster]

I agree to a large extent -- the absence of well built constant aperture F/4 zooms leaves a noticeable hole in Nikon's line-up. However, in my experience (having owned both Canon and Nikon's consumer and pro glass,) the upper-range of Nikon's consumer glass is better than the upper-range of Canon's consumer glass.

The 70-300 VR in my opinion is a markedly better lens than the Canon 70-300 IS. The Nikon's IQ is superior, it's VR/IS system is newer and arguably more effectively, and most importantly, the Nikon has an internal focusing system allowing the use of polarizers. It's not a 70-200 F/4L IS, but it's closer in IQ to that lens than to other consumer-grade 70-300s. (Also, when it comes to distinguishing a Canon L lens from a regular Canon lens, the Nikon 70-300 VR meets all criteria: it has ED glass and comes with a hood and pouch.)

Similarly, the 16-85 VR (DX) has a very useful range (for crop sensor cameras) and has a reputation for excellent image quality (besting by some accounts the Canon 24-105 F/4L, despite the variable aperture.) Canon does not have an EF-S equivalent (the 17-85 EF-S is an adequate step up lens from the 18-55 kit, but nothing spectacular.) It's unfortunate that its full frame counterpart, the 24-120 VR, has such a poor reputation.

 

[imported_Irse]

Originally posted by: theYipster
I agree to a large extent -- the absence of well built constant aperture F/4 zooms leaves a noticeable hole in Nikon's line-up. However, in my experience (having owned both Canon and Nikon's consumer and pro glass,) the upper-range of Nikon's consumer glass is better than the upper-range of Canon's consumer glass.

The 70-300 VR in my opinion is a markedly better lens than the Canon 70-300 IS. The Nikon's IQ is superior, it's VR/IS system is newer and arguably more effectively, and most importantly, the Nikon has an internal focusing system allowing the use of polarizers. It's not a 70-200 F/4L IS, but it's closer in IQ to that lens than to other consumer-grade 70-300s. (Also, when it comes to distinguishing a Canon L lens from a regular Canon lens, the Nikon 70-300 VR meets all criteria: it has ED glass and comes with a hood and pouch.)

Similarly, the 16-85 VR (DX) has a very useful range (for crop sensor cameras) and has a reputation for excellent image quality (besting by some accounts the Canon 24-105 F/4L, despite the variable aperture.) Canon does not have an EF-S equivalent (the 17-85 EF-S is an adequate step up lens from the 18-55 kit, but nothing spectacular.) It's unfortunate that its full frame counterpart, the 24-120 VR, has such a poor reputation.

I agree also. I wish Nikon would have a f4 line. I do have the 16-85 and really like it. I also have the 70-300 but will use it mostly for trips. Just won a 10.5 fisheye on ebay so we'll see how that lens is.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

No. No exotic crap. Op tell us you upper pricelimit or we can't help you. You want a 55-200 or 70-300 nikkor. If you need low lightspeed your best bet is a 70-200vr or used 80-200.

End

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: theYipster
However, in my experience (having owned both Canon and Nikon's consumer and pro glass,) the upper-range of Nikon's consumer glass is better than the upper-range of Canon's consumer glass.

Agreed; Nikon's trinity of professional zooms is hands-down better than Canon's equivalents. The 14-24 and 24-70 are much sharper than Canon's 16-35II and 24-70L. And despite the occasional knock people give to the 70-200VR, working pros swear by it (it's tack sharp wide-open from my experience, even with a TC attached).

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Irse

Originally posted by: theYipster
I agree to a large extent -- the absence of well built constant aperture F/4 zooms leaves a noticeable hole in Nikon's line-up. However, in my experience (having owned both Canon and Nikon's consumer and pro glass,) the upper-range of Nikon's consumer glass is better than the upper-range of Canon's consumer glass.

The 70-300 VR in my opinion is a markedly better lens than the Canon 70-300 IS. The Nikon's IQ is superior, it's VR/IS system is newer and arguably more effectively, and most importantly, the Nikon has an internal focusing system allowing the use of polarizers. It's not a 70-200 F/4L IS, but it's closer in IQ to that lens than to other consumer-grade 70-300s. (Also, when it comes to distinguishing a Canon L lens from a regular Canon lens, the Nikon 70-300 VR meets all criteria: it has ED glass and comes with a hood and pouch.)

Similarly, the 16-85 VR (DX) has a very useful range (for crop sensor cameras) and has a reputation for excellent image quality (besting by some accounts the Canon 24-105 F/4L, despite the variable aperture.) Canon does not have an EF-S equivalent (the 17-85 EF-S is an adequate step up lens from the 18-55 kit, but nothing spectacular.) It's unfortunate that its full frame counterpart, the 24-120 VR, has such a poor reputation.

I agree also. I wish Nikon would have a f4 line. I do have the 16-85 and really like it. I also have the 70-300 but will use it mostly for trips. Just won a 10.5 fisheye on ebay so we'll see how that lens is.

Not to hijack this thread, but the 10.5 f'n rocks! Have fun!

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This thread is turning into a mess of confusion mainly because the OP failed to state a budget.

That's why half the replies in this thread are useful, and the other half are pie-in-the-sky recommendations for $3000 bodies and $2000-$9000 lenses.

$3000 might be nothing if OP is serious about what he intends to do.
At least, my buying $3000 camera wasn't that much of a deal because it fit into my intension.

Anyway, to complicate the matter even more, how about video recording function?

 

[Analog]

Thank you for all the replies. Since I want to use my D50, it would be plainly evident that a multi-thousand dollar lens would be a ridiculous suggestion. My daughter is 12 and since shes playing on a full sized field, and I'm on the sideline (outdoors), the many suggestions on the 70-300VR seem to be where the recommendations are headed. She does not play inside, so low light is not an issue. I hope that made sense.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Analog
Thank you for all the replies. Since I want to use my D50, it would be plainly evident that a multi-thousand dollar lens would be a ridiculous suggestion. My daughter is 12 and since shes playing on a full sized field, and I'm on the sideline (outdoors), the many suggestions on the 70-300VR seem to be where the recommendations are headed. She does not play inside, so low light is not an issue. I hope that made sense.

Then the AF-S 70-300mm VR is your lens, if you can afford it. If not, then the AF-s 55-200mm VR DX.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: Analog
Thank you for all the replies. Since I want to use my D50, it would be plainly evident that a multi-thousand dollar lens would be a ridiculous suggestion. My daughter is 12 and since shes playing on a full sized field, and I'm on the sideline (outdoors), the many suggestions on the 70-300VR seem to be where the recommendations are headed. She does not play inside, so low light is not an issue. I hope that made sense.

Then the AF-S 70-300mm VR is your lens, if you can afford it. If not, then the AF-s 55-200mm VR DX.

What this guy said.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: Analog
Thank you for all the replies. Since I want to use my D50, it would be plainly evident that a multi-thousand dollar lens would be a ridiculous suggestion. My daughter is 12 and since shes playing on a full sized field, and I'm on the sideline (outdoors), the many suggestions on the 70-300VR seem to be where the recommendations are headed. She does not play inside, so low light is not an issue. I hope that made sense.

Then the AF-S 70-300mm VR is your lens, if you can afford it. If not, then the AF-s 55-200mm VR DX.

/thread