Nikon zoom lens for sports question: I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying...

grberg

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying to get good action shots at the grandkids’ soccer and little league games. I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 teamed up with a d500 and I’m very happy with the results. I can get close to soccer fields so the 70-200 would likely always be the lens for soccer. But my grandson plays travel ball baseball and many of the fields are set up where you must stand much farther away from the action to get an unobstructed shot. Sometimes I’ll use my old trusty 18-300 and manage to get some good pics, but because I often have to crop in I think I’d like a little more reach. The 80-400 would be more versatile, so maybe it comes down to how well these lenses AF on moving subjects. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I just purchased, and gave a workout this weekend at a soccer tournament, the Tamron 150-600 (Not the G2). I am cheap and decided the weather proofing in the more expensive model is unnecessary for my purposes) Coupled to my Nikon D800 it produced admirably sharp images until it gets soft at the extreme. I found the lens, used, with a one year warranty, on UsedPhotoPro.com, for what I believe to be a real bargain. Their rating was very conservative, and service was excellent. I had previously used Nikon glass (70-200) and love it. The extra reach with the Tamron makes it well worth the investment.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

grberg wrote:

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with... (show quote)

The Nikon 200-500 is a really nice lens. I've got a friend with the D500 and the 200-500 and he loves it. He had a Tamron lens before but says the Nikon is much sharper.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

grberg wrote:

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with... (show quote)

I shoot high school sports. I also have the Nikon D500 coupled with the 80-400. A very good lens, sharp and fairly fast auto focus. Enclosed are a few shots taken with it. I also have just purchased the 200-500 5.6. The reach is better of course, soft at 500mm but pretty darn good also. A new 80-400 is about $2700.00 and the 200-500 $1250.00. Maybe rent both and see which one you like better.
Good luck.

Nikon 80-400
Nikon 80-400...

(Download)

200-500
200-500...

(Download)

sandiegosteve Loc: San Diego, CA

The 200-500 is a great lens when the light is good. I do think my Nikon lenses with internal AF are faster at AF that third party, but it varies by lens. If you are far away, then pre-focus and it won't need to hunt much and AF speed won't be a huge issue.

The one knock on the 200-500 is that you can't really zoom easily from one end to the other in a single play, so you need to pick a range. That isn't a big deal, but plan your shot. Weight on all the big, long lenses is a factor, no different here.

I'll leave you with the thought of a prime and a teleconverter. I've used a 1.4 TC I (first gen) on both a 300/4 and 300/2.8 and it is a great combination. You loose 1 stop of light, but if you are talking about the other lenses, you are there already anyway. All the Nikon 300s are super sharp.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I would never claim these are as sharp as shot with the Nikon lenses, but I paid less than $600 for the Tamron. It all comes down to what you want, need, and are willing to spend. The group shot was taken at 550mm, the shot of the three boys at 150mm.

(Download)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

grberg wrote:

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with... (show quote)

My preference is for my 200-500 Nikon, Sharp the whole range.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

PixelStan77 wrote:

My preference is for my 200-500 Nikon, Sharp the whole range.

Not really that sharp at 500mm for action. Up to that great.

grberg

Jules Karney wrote:

I shoot high school sports. I also have the Nikon D500 coupled with the 80-400. A very good lens, sharp and fairly fast auto focus. Enclosed are a few shots taken with it. I also have just purchased the 200-500 5.6. The reach is better of course, soft at 500mm but pretty darn good also. A new 80-400 is about $2700.00 and the 200-500 $1250.00. Maybe rent both and see which one you like better.
Good luck.

I’ll likely opt for the 80-400 mainly because I don’t want to carry both a longer reaching lens and my 70-200. Like so much in life it’s a trade-off. Thanks for the feedback and sending the photos. Greg

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

sandiegosteve wrote:

I'll leave you with the thought of a prime and a teleconverter. I've used a 1.4 TC I (first gen) on both a 300/4 and 300/2.8 and it is a great combination. You loose 1 stop of light, but if you are talking about the other lenses, you are there already anyway. All the Nikon 300s are super sharp.

Prime + TC gives just two focal lengths, and a certain amount of time is required between the two. Zoom lens gives the photographer nearly instant access to many different focal lengths, so s/he can get just the framing s/he wants.

picsman Loc: Scotland

I have a 80-400 which I have used for winter sports, canoeing and mtb. Its a bit heavy for all day handholding or just carrying in a backpack. I sometimes use a monopod for the more active sports but also find a gimbal really useful for canoeing and sometimes slalom skiing events. I cant comment on comparatives but I do like the image look and the AF is fast enough.

However I tend to go with my 70-200 for most mtb events.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The 70-200mm f2.8 is your best bet for action sports, outdoors or indoors. The current version of Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 is considered the very best of all 70-200mm lenses. There are some very good third party options though. A friend bought a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2. He paid about $1400 for It, and does very well for Sports action photos. Sigma has a new 70-200mm f2.8 sports lens. I've never seen that lens, but the reviews for it are very good. I use a Nikon 50mm f1.8 for kids outdoor soccer games. I have used my Nikon AF-P 70-300mm lens for outdoor High School football games. It does OK. It' doesn't compare to a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. Including third party lenses of that same focal range.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

grberg wrote:

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with... (show quote)

When I went to the FIELD OF DREAMS in Cooperstown Pennsylvania, I was privileged to have the opportunity to photograph my Grand Nephew pitching for his team. I prefer the Nikon 200-500 to the Nikon 80-400 for two reasons.
The 200-500 is a E lens, that means the aperture is electronic, meaning that when I am shooting 10 fps I know every exposure is going to be the SAME, not the same with the 80-400 which is not an E lens.
The second reason I like the 200-500 is because IMHO it is sharper throughout it's range especially at it's high end at 500.
Lets add a third reason, the 200-500 has more reach than the 80-400, on your D500 the 200-500 gives you a 750mm field of view compared to 600mm with the 80-400. And yes, this makes a real difference.
The image below is entitled, "Concentration", take a look at that tongue.

ELNikkor

The Nikon 200-500 is the best bang for the buck.

clemente21

grberg wrote:

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with... (show quote)

My kids play travel ball too and shoot with my d500 and 18-300mm or the 80-200mm. However, I stay close to the action either by using a step ladder and shooting over the fence by 1st or 3b, or just asking the umpire to shoot inside the field. This gives you greater flexibility. Umpires usually don't mind as long as you stay clear. Make sure to take your gear when you approach them so they know you are serious.

The only time I wanted a longer lens is when shooting behind the center field fence to home plate. I have yet to handle a 200-500mm lens, but the 18-300mm allows me to be mobile enough to shoot double plays and anywhere else the ball goes. But hey, if a long lens is in your crosshairs, by all means don't let me discourage you. I just wanted to share that using the smaller lens and a better shooting position you could probably do as well.

If you get the long lens, still try to get access to the field. Shooting closer to the grass gives you a great angle of the plays.