Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I had the same question, and after lots of reading, I'm saving for the 200-500 Nikon, FWIW.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I'm not sure you will have enough light available for the above suggestions. I might suggest you consider at what I think MT Shooter would suggest -- the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 . It's more expensive than the 150-600 and 200-500 class lenses, but it may well be necessary to get more light to the sensor.

dyximan

I userf both the Tamron and the NICOR lenses of which you spoke. On my Nikon D 5300 primarily handheld and found the NICOR 200 to 500 to give a much better and clearer image when printed

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

There ought to be plenty of light at those venues. Football games are outdoors, and even night games have lots of lights. Gymnastics are inside, but tend to be well-lit because the gymnasts need to be able to see well so they don't "miss" and suffer a fall. f/2.8 is always preferable, but if the problem is with distance more than it is with light, that should be the primary factor to consider when deciding on which lens. All depends on how much reach is needed.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I have yet to see a 14 or 15 EV Gym or night game that would allow fast shutter speed at small aperture without image quality killing high ISO. So what lens do you use and/or recommend?

wolfman

Sigma 150-600 Sport.


Bob

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I wouldn't get too long of a lens. I was just at my photography club meeting Tuesday with some airshow photos. Another member said he took a 150-600 to an airshow and got like, a portion of a wing, the pimples on the pilots' noses. I rented a 70-400G2 for Oshkosh in July and found it was long enough. I have another topic I just put up about a metal print I'm thinking of and just looked at the file info...it was shot at 160mm on a crop body and was probably good enough. If I shot at 400 I wouldn't have been able to get the formation (Blue Angels) in the frame.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I have not taken pictures of those kind of events at night or in a gym with a long telephoto lens, so I may very well be off base. Perhaps when I manage to buy one of these long lenses, I will get schooled! It does make it more difficult to get a quality image with a DX camera. But shooting in a dark auditorium with just the speakers illuminated, I got some very decent photos. Camera D7000 [DX], lens 70-300mm f/4 [FX]. I shot the images mostly at varying FL, using 1/125 sec at f/5 and ISO 800, no flash. Yes, they have noise in them, but I kind of like the slightly grainy texture in these.

165mm, 1/125 sec at f/5


270mm, 1/100 sec at f/5.6

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Since you are using a D810, you can rule out any recommendations for a DX lens. Things like the Tamron 18-400 are DX which will not let you use all of the sensor, and F6.3 at the longer end, which may not be enough light. I would consider a lens that offers a max aperture of F4 or smaller, throughout it's range, so you have more options, better focusing performance and better image quality. You may consider a Nikkor 1.4X TC III, which does a very nice job with the 70-200 F2.8 VR II, and gives you a useable F4 max aperture. I think the 200-500 may be a bit overkill in a dimly lit gym, though if you have other uses for it outdoors it's a pretty good lens. I found the Sigma 150-600 Sport and the Tamron 150-600 G2 to be noticeably sharper - I ended up getting the Sport after using the 200-500 for a couple of weeks last summer. Most lenses including those that are F5.6 or F6.3 generally have to be stopped down another stop to get maximum sharpness anyway, so by starting out at F2.8 or F4 you have 1-2 stops more light.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Since your daughter is fairly young and will be doing gymnastics for some time, I am going to suggest a different route. Rather than a low-light lens, I am going to suggest that you go with a proven low light camera, the D500. I would also suggest combining it with the 80-400mm VRII. On a DX camera you don't need the larger and heavier 200-500mm. The lowlight capabilities of the D500 will be able to not only handle the lighting of the gymnasium but offset the higher apertures of the 80-400mm. Total cost, app. $3400, camera plus lens. If money is no problem, you could also go with the D850 and the 80-400mm. The advanced focusing features of both cameras are phenomenal. If possible, ofc, I would suggest renting the lens before purchase to test how fast it focuses under your conditions. Once focused, however, with the tracking focus system of the D500 or D850, you would be able to shoot bursts of your daughter's performance.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First thing I'd recommend you do is buy a DX camera such as the D7200 or D7500 or D500. For sporting events, a DX camera is better than FX (such as yours), because it allows you to work with much smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses. With a DX camera an smaller lenses, you'll be able to hand hold reasonably easily, which leaves you more mobile. Keep your D810 for other things, but use a DX/crop sensor camera for sports.

For indoors such as gymnastics, a fairly fast (i.e., large aperture) lens is useful, but distances usually aren't that great. On a DX camera a 70-200mm f/2.8 might be a good versatile, zoom choice. I also might use fast short to moderate telephoto primes such as 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2. (To use an FX camera, for the more distant shots, instead of the 70-200/2.8 you'd need a much bigger, heavier $5500 300mm f/2.8 or $3600 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma zoom... Among primes, the same 85/1.8 and 135/2 primes would work... but with FX also add a $5700 200mm f/2.)

Outdoors and on larger playing fields, with crop sensor cameras similar to DX I rarely need to use longer than 300mm. Occasionally for greater distances such as a baseball outfield shot from around home plate or motorsports where I can't get close, I might need up to 400mm on those cameras. I mostly use the same 70-200mm, a 2.5 lb. 300mm f4 (with 1.4X teleconverter sometimes) and a 3.5 lb. 100-400mm zoom. I don't use one, but for day games a fairly affordable and hand-holdable 70-300mm might work pretty well, too. (On FX camera such as yours the $1400, 5 lb. Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 can work well for day games. But at night under the lights you might instead need the 120-300mm, which also works pretty well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter, or a $10,000 500mm f/4, or a $12,000 600mm f/4... In any case, you will probably want a sturdy tripod or at least a monopod to help support the weight for extended shooting sessions.)

So, while it can be done... using an FX camera for sports... it requires using bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses too. Therefore, my first recommendation is to get yourself a DX camera that will allow you to be more mobile and will make light, smaller, more affordable lenses usable.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Since the OP mentioned a grand daughter, I might suggest the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary over the Sport due to the significant weight difference. The Sport is a heavy *$&&%*$, err object.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Interesting how many like the Nikon 200-500 and many like the Sigma or Tamron 160-600. I have the 200/500 and like it a lot. Never tried the other lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It probably has to do with them being the most affordable long telephoto zooms.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I just ordered my first none Nikon lens. Sold my Nikon 18-200 for $200 paid $230. Ordered the Tamron 18-400mm. Never owned a Tamron before but for walk around lens. Going to theme parks vacations, this seems like a good lens.