Help With Zoom Lenses

[JasonPatrikz]

First post in this forum part of views, so looking for some help.

Firstly I’m looking to have a better zoom for sporting events (kids) as a primary reason. Secondary reasons for a zoom, greater reach in hiking photography, closer shot with macro style images (least important). As of now I will be looking to only add this one more lens to my outfit. I already have the 18-105mm AF-S Nikkor 1:3.5-5.6G ED VR on a Nikon D90.


The primary choices are:

NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR Zoom
NIKKOR 70-300mm - f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS HSM AutoFocus
NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S

Secondary
Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Cameras
Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II
TAMARON AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro


Basically I’m wondering if I will notice a big difference between the 200mm to 300mm or 400mm? If so, will this difference be trumped by a better f stop as with the 200mm lenses ? Will this be made up for with the use of a tele-converter (image degradation?)? Macro is of the last concern with shooting with the new lens as I feel I get a pretty good shot (as of now with my current settings). But if the 200mm lens is still worth it and the added benefit of the reduced focus distance then that may away me.

Size and weight don't matter.

Price wise, if it comes down to the better choice being more that is fine. The object is to stay at oe under $2000 absolute max.

Thanks for all the help as I learn about this new subject.
Jason

 

[Grumpy]

If you are looking for first-rate evaluations of Nikon lens performance, the go-place web site is, http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top

Now, based on my own experience …

1) The built-in autofocus motor on AF-S Nikon provides significantly faster focusing than the AF designated lenses. This is very noticeable in shooting sports action. Larger and constant maximum apertures across the entire zoom range generally are preferable.

2) Your D-90 camera body sensor produces a 1.5X “crop factor.” That will give any of the zooms selected more “reach” than if they were used on a “full size” (35mm negative equivalent) sensor camera. A 200mm lens on the D-90 for example, will act like a 300mm lens on the full frame D-3 or D-700 bodies.

3) You are interested primarily in a lens for shooting your kids’ sports events. Not knowing at what level your children currently play, and what access you have to the playing field, complicates my recommendation. But only a little.

My very first choice in the array of lenses you have listed in the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G-VR-ED, etc. One of these is a part of day-in-day-out working kit. It is fast focusing and sharp. The f/2.8 constant aperture is a plus for shooting in lower-light conditions at higher shutter speeds. This lens is big and bulky (especially with shade attached), and heavy, weighing in at nearly 3.5 lbs, but is readily hand-holdable (even though I often mount mine on a stout monopod). The 70-200mm zoom range will cover most of your youth sports needs if you have decent access to the playing field and are willing to do some judicious cropping. (But if your child plays in the outfield during baseball or softball season, even a 400mm may not be enough. Good luck!)

I would not dismiss the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S zoom that you’ve listed. The 300mm focal length gives great reach into a baseball, softball, soccer, or football field from the usual sideline photo access points (if you are allowed there). This can tighten up your compositions, although longer lenses also complicate the task of keeping track of the action. I would be somewhat concerned about the max aperture range.

4) I have no personal experience with tele-converters, but colleagues that use them generally love them. If you plan on using a converter, though, it is wise to get the fastest constant aperture lens you can. A Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S, etc., equipped with one of the compatible Nikon 1.4X converters would yield an effective 98-280mm f/4 lens – very good for your sports purposes in just about every respect.

I’d be somewhat leery of the 1.7X converter option, which gains only little more in focal length but takes away another f/stop in the max aperture. (If I’m not mistaken, Nikon autofocus does not work at less than f/5.6 max aperture.)

Good luck. Keep us posted on what you decide.

G.

 

[nartreb]

I'm not familiar with any of those particular lenses, but I can answer one of your more general questions.

The difference between 200mm and 400mm is vast. Besides the obvious (doubling of magnification / halving of field of view), there's the problem of camera shake. At long distances / small angles of view, the tiniest camera motion becomes amplified. I find that at f5.6, handheld without image stabilization, I can get good sharpness at 200mm with reasonable light (high clouds aren't a problem but forest shade is), but by 300mm I'm rejecting more than half my shots. For 400mm I need IS or a tripod. (One of these days I'll try the string trick..)

I don't use a tripod often, but I imagine shooting a sports event with a tripod can take some practice.

Bottom line, much beyond 200mm you need a tripod, a fast lens (assuming your autofocus can handle it) and/or image stabilization.

 

[DougPaul]

4) I have no personal experience with tele-converters, but colleagues that use them generally love them. If you plan on using a converter, though, it is wise to get the fastest constant aperture lens you can. A Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S, etc., equipped with one of the compatible Nikon 1.4X converters would yield an effective 98-280mm f/4 lens – very good for your sports purposes in just about every respect.

I’d be somewhat leery of the 1.7X converter option, which gains only little more in focal length but takes away another f/stop in the max aperture. (If I’m not mistaken, Nikon autofocus does not work at less than f/5.6 max aperture.)

I have used a 2X tele-converter (on my manual-focus film SLR). They work as advertised and are light weight and inexpensive. (Given the camera, I have no experience with the effects on autofocus.) One thing to note: a 1.4X loses one stop in effective aperture and a 2X loses 2 stops.

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

Jumping back in ...

Here’s the lens I pine for to shoot sports –

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300488-USA/Nikon_2146_200_400mm_f_4_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

It is Nikons great 200-400mm F/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR zoomer. This one has all the right stuff for most sports applications – a great range of useful focal lengths in a single package, very decent maximum aperture, fast autofocus, and rave reviews for quality. Coupled with a compatible Nikon 1.4 teleconverter, and backed by a 70-200m f/2.8 AF-S lens this would be a great sports and wildlife kit. Tripod or monopod support advisable (probably necessary), though.

But the price on that sweet 200-400mm is a choker!

------------------------------------------

More realistically, check out the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8_VR_G_AFS.html

At $1,950, B&H, for a USA warranty lens this is pricey. But an excellent base lens for youth sports and beyond. A comparable “gray market” lens with non-USA warranty from B&H is only about $50 cheaper.

You may be able to find one on the used market for considerably less money. Just make sure it is used and not used up. Try to avoid used stuff coming out of news or other pro use shops if you can. If not, don’t buy anything from such a place that hasn’t been completely overhauled and refurbished, or factor that cost into your offering price if you want to handle it yourself.

A good source for Nikon service work is Authorized Photo Service, Morton Grove, Illinois:

http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/

APS has done first class work on my gear at what I regard as “reasonable” cost with very fast turnaround.

Now, adding a compatible Nikon 1.4X or 1.7X teleconverter:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/228165-USA/Nikon_2129_TC_14E_II_1_4x_Teleconverter.html

or,

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/337511-USA/Nikon_2151_TC_17E_II_1_7x_Teleconverter.html

new, boosts the cost by under $500, (or even $400), depending on how you go with USA warranty or gray market. Again, it probably is smart to consider ramifications of max f/stop reduction before you buy.

BTW, Nikon's V-R (vibration reduction) system really works, in my experience. But support (tripod or monopod) still is called for on the longer focal length lenses, often because of their sheer bulk and weight.

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with B&H Photo Video or APS. These are just places I’ve done business with over the years, to my own great satisfaction based on price, service, value. I find them reliable, and use them as touchstones. Your experiences may differ, and other vendors may do you equally as well or better in any or every respect. Likewise, I have no affiliation with Nikon, other than be a long time user of the company's gear.

G.

 

[JasonPatrikz]

Thanks

First thanks for all of the information.

After some final thought I am aiming to get two lenses, first for the zoom the Nikon 70-300vr, as well as the Nikon 35mm 1.8 for low light, combined cost will be well under the 70-200. I’ll be sure to post some results once they arrive.

Again thanks
Jason