Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Sports telephoto lens...
Oct 28, 2011 07:00:16 #
Looking for a good telephoto lens for shooting mainly baseball games (nephew in college) mostly daytime with some games under the lights at night. Currently have the Nik 79-300 VR on a D3100. Problem is lens too soft at 300mm. Not too worried about built in focus motor as I will be stepping up to a 7000 by the time the season opens up again in April. Any suggestions would be appreiciated... Oh yea - most importantly budget?? hopefully <$1000. Are primes with teleconverters an option - Tamron 180mm... -- Nikon 180...?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Oct 28, 2011 08:33:50 #
Wel I was going to suggest the 400 2.8 for baseball until I saw your budget requirement. So at $9,000 I guess the 400 isn't going to fly.
You don't have a lot of choices in term of quality telephoto lenses for sports action (especially in low light) in the under $1,000 range.
You don't have a lot of choices in term of quality telephoto lenses for sports action (especially in low light) in the under $1,000 range.
Oct 28, 2011 09:02:49 #
Any decent 3rd party telephotos, sigma, tamron, tokina, comparable to the Nik 70-200 2.8? Well, I know not comparable, but again budget! Actually most of the games will be during the day.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Oct 28, 2011 09:20:19 #
Hi, well in what I have read from other postings, the 70-200 2.8 seems to be a very popular lens for sports shots, Sigma and Tamron do make them for under 1k, though they don't have an image stabalisation function, Sigma does have one, buts its about 1400. I have used a Tamron 70-300 for shooting sports shots, including baseball, I've rarely needed to go out to 300mm, and my lens is also somewhat soft at 300mm, this maybe common in many zoom lenses, at least the affordable ones.
Oct 29, 2011 06:10:24 #
Oct 29, 2011 07:13:15 #
jplofvt wrote:
Hi, well in what I have read from other postings, the 70-200 2.8 seems to be a very popular lens for sports shots, Sigma and Tamron do make them for under 1k, though they don't have an image stabalisation function, Sigma does have one, buts its about 1400. I have used a Tamron 70-300 for shooting sports shots, including baseball, I've rarely needed to go out to 300mm, and my lens is also somewhat soft at 300mm, this maybe common in many zoom lenses, at least the affordable ones.
One of the things I learned here at UHH, was that with a telephoto, on a tripod, you should turn OFF the I.S. I forgot why...brain f__t! So, in that case, buying the Sigma or Tamron w/o I.S. should be just fine with a tripod.
Oct 29, 2011 07:28:55 #
I use the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with the IS and I've not regretted the expenditure! If you can push your budget the extra few hundred (or add it to your Christmas wish list), it's truly worth having the IS. It's as if I hear the "I wish I would have gotten the other lens" lament already.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Oct 29, 2011 09:13:44 #
I also have the Sigma 79-200 2.8 lense. I am veru pleased with it. Check out Amazon.com. You can get them for around $800.
Oct 29, 2011 09:26:36 #
Wildmallard
Loc: Virginia
I up-graded to a Canon 7D to get the "burst mode" for college baseball (I follow UVa). Let me first say that I am NOT a professional so I couldn't see spending thousand of dollars on a lens. I choose the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for the games and I am very pleased. I have since purchased 1.4 tc but find for college baseball I don't use it very often. I must also admit that I still use the Tamron, I have purchased several Canon L series that I love for other "stuff".
Oct 29, 2011 09:51:01 #
sbesaw
Loc: Boston
I have a slew of Nikon lens including 28-300 and the 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 6 others including 1.4 G lenses. For the outdoor for games I go to the Tamron 18-270 PZD lens. if I use the D3s body is shoots as specified but if I throw it on the D 7000 i'm at 27-405. It is incredibly sharp. I have recommended it to 2 friends who bought it and also love it. You should be able to find it from $ 629 to $ 699. With the ISO capabilities that you will get in your new D7000 you should never have a lighting problem.
Now if it's Basketball the 24-70 2,8 and 70-200 2.8 cannot be beat
Now if it's Basketball the 24-70 2,8 and 70-200 2.8 cannot be beat
Oct 29, 2011 10:38:14 #
Have you considered the Sigma 150-500? This lens seems to give the most bang for the buck at $1069. It has had a few mixed reviews but most every one seemed to think it was great for the price.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150-500mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001542X64
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150-500mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001542X64
Oct 29, 2011 11:02:19 #
Mike Little
Loc: Ozark, Missouri
I shot with a 200mm telephote for years and loved it, wish I had it back along with the Nikon F2a photomic body.
Oct 29, 2011 12:18:07 #
I use a Canon 7d and 70-200 2.8 Canon for night football and
am generally please. Very challenging up here in the northwest
with the rain at night. I shoot at 320-500, 2.8 and have had
the best luck at iso of 1200. Shoot a lot of burts shots which
is assume with the 7d. Use a monopod of course
am generally please. Very challenging up here in the northwest
with the rain at night. I shoot at 320-500, 2.8 and have had
the best luck at iso of 1200. Shoot a lot of burts shots which
is assume with the 7d. Use a monopod of course
Oct 29, 2011 12:58:26 #
Oct 29, 2011 13:19:46 #
Hey, coco1964... beautiful shots! All crystal sharp and that desired frozen action. In order to help out Heymoose who posed this question, what were you shooting with to get these shots?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.