Best Nikon lenses for sports photography
- Thread starter connersz
- Start date
Well I'm looking at possibly upgrading my kit for outdoor sports like football or rugby and was looking for general Nikon options.
I was using a Canon 1D with a 100-400mm EF L IS USM yesterday and quite liked it, the autofocus was pretty good so I was wondering what comparable Nikon lenses would be.
PaulButler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
The comparable Nikon lens is the 80-400 VR - not used the new one but it is reported to have much faster AFS than it's predecessor. I've only read Thom Hogans review on it which was favourable. I did use the older version and I wouldn't use that for sports as the AF is a tad on the slow side.
meonshore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Well there is a Nikon 80-400 either in a brand new guise (f4.5-5.6 G) at about £2350 or the older, much less capable version (f4.5-5.6 D) at £950 new or £650-700 used.
Your impression of AF speed an accuracy will of course be determined by what you have used in the past the 100-400 L isn't a bad lens, and the new Nikkor is rated very highly - but neither is a patch on the 300mm + extender or 400mm prime options (as you would expect).
If you are shooting in good light, at a relatively low level of sport and can live with both the shutter speed and the "look" that f5.6 will give you then the 80-400 zoom gets you to the distance, as would a 70-200mm and a 2x extender.
But if you are shooting in tough conditions (because you have to, and need to get a result) and you need f2.8 or f4 to give the look you need to make the images stand out then you'll need to drop the cash.
Your impression of AF speed an accuracy will of course be determined by what you have used in the past the 100-400 L isn't a bad lens, and the new Nikkor is rated very highly - but neither is a patch on the 300mm + extender or 400mm prime options (as you would expect).
If you are shooting in good light, at a relatively low level of sport and can live with both the shutter speed and the "look" that f5.6 will give you then the 80-400 zoom gets you to the distance, as would a 70-200mm and a 2x extender.
But if you are shooting in tough conditions (because you have to, and need to get a result) and you need f2.8 or f4 to give the look you need to make the images stand out then you'll need to drop the cash.
realspeed
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,827
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- No
I see that camera you have (J1) has a The CX-format CMOS image sensor. Unless I am wrong this limits you to a 110mm lens max or at least that is the longest I can find for that model
In truth good though the camera may be I feel it can't compete with what shall I say? a DSLR camera that takes Nikon DX or FX lenses.
There does come a time when one outgrows the capabilities of cameras, without trying to be rude, at the lower price range and what they are capable of. I should know I outgrew several and just could not get the shots I wanted, nothing wrong with the cameras at all but just not able to meet my needs.
If your talking about upgrading do consider a camera that can do more than what you want at present, then you won't have to upgrade again.
Having read the writeup on the J1 it looks as if it has been designed for, shall we say, the general public that want to take photos and videos but not too worried about specific shots such as you have mentioned
At a price tag of under £200 including lens it is at the lower end of the Nikon range which does limit it. Yes it does stills and video, which is fine, but getting into sports photography Would I suggest mean moving well up the nikon range depending on your budget of course and expertise.
maybe better advice can be given if you do mention how much you are thinking about to spend on first the camera and next the lens.
Not much help I know but possibly food for thought
In truth good though the camera may be I feel it can't compete with what shall I say? a DSLR camera that takes Nikon DX or FX lenses.
There does come a time when one outgrows the capabilities of cameras, without trying to be rude, at the lower price range and what they are capable of. I should know I outgrew several and just could not get the shots I wanted, nothing wrong with the cameras at all but just not able to meet my needs.
If your talking about upgrading do consider a camera that can do more than what you want at present, then you won't have to upgrade again.
Having read the writeup on the J1 it looks as if it has been designed for, shall we say, the general public that want to take photos and videos but not too worried about specific shots such as you have mentioned
At a price tag of under £200 including lens it is at the lower end of the Nikon range which does limit it. Yes it does stills and video, which is fine, but getting into sports photography Would I suggest mean moving well up the nikon range depending on your budget of course and expertise.
maybe better advice can be given if you do mention how much you are thinking about to spend on first the camera and next the lens.
Not much help I know but possibly food for thought
Last edited:
OldCarlos
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,882
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not disagreeing with anything you said, at all, especially the last paragraph,
but the new 80-400 is possibly a tad sharper than the 70-200 + 2X TC. (+ a more flexible range)
I can't compare AF speeds directly as I've now sold my 300mm F2.8, but i'm certainly happy with the new 80-400.
Thanks for the suggestions I will look into them a bit more and and maybe rent the 80-400 to see what it's like. I have a d7000 and not looking to change cameras right now but its a near future possibility so before anyone suggests that whatever I get on a crop will be longer anyway, I probably shouldn't buy one based on that.
That's my holiday camera, I definitely couldn't get away with using that for paid jobs.
I'm not too fussed about the budget for a lens but I have always been very careful to pick one I will get the use out of and not be disappointed with, I think that's why for my other lenses they're regularly used.
P.s. it cost a fair bit more than £200 when I got it :-S
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
You would be very dissapointed with an 80-400 f4.5-5.6 for sport.. rediculous suggestion to be honest
The 400m lens is also not much good unless you ahve a second body and shorter lens..
Presuming your doing field sports... presuming you only have one body? then the sigma 120-300 f2.8
now I ahve had my guess.. tells us what you mean by sport ?
Football, rugby, hockey. But as I said I need at least a 400, I have tried using a 300 and lose too many shots because of the distance.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
The aperture with that lens is no good to you.. especialy come winter as we are about to have.. at 400 its f5.6 and you wouldnt be able to get anything decent wiht your camera at f5.6 in dim light..
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
What use would a 400 be ? its the same as a short lens in that you only get one half of the pitch.. you may as well buy shorter and get this half with everyone facing you than a 400 ... I ahve a 400 but its used with another body and a 70-200 .. a 400 on its own is probably less use than a 70-200 on its own..
meonshore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
On a D7000 that 400mm is giving you an effective view of 600mm, and with 16MP you can crop quite heavily into that and still get a decent A4, full-page in a newspaper, or have bags more cropping for web-use.
That said almost every pro currently shooting the field sports you listed above is doing it either on a 300mm f2.8 or a 400mm f2.8 on a full-frame body (1Dx, D3, D3s or D4), or 1.3x at most (1D MkIV or older) - and as Kipax says with a second body twinned with a 70-200mm f2.8 for close action. Very very few are shooting at 500mm or 600mm, albeit there are some staffers at the big agencies with access to that kit and who use it. You simply accept that if you are positioned on one end of a pitch that you are going to be limited in what you can shoot at the far end - sometimes you'll miss, sometimes you'll be blocked and sometimes it will be a massive pull-up of the frame. Swings and roundabouts.
Now far from me to tell you that you don't need more than a 400mm - but I'll stick with my suggestion of that echoed by Kipax and Laudrup amongst others - and of course the 400mm f2.8 twins really well with the 1.4x converter to give you a 560mm f/4 (on a full frame) with very little loss of quality or AF speed.
£6550 new, about £4800 used (if you can find one) as Laudrup says, and £300 for the converter.
I'm lost... how will I have more people facing me or are you talking about group shots?
I'd agree not much use. I'd say the 120-300 you suggested is the best bet, but if the guy wants a 400 he wants a 400.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
seriosuly ?
if your shooting a field sport and everyone is in the other half of the pitch attacking the other goal.. most of your subject will have backs to you.. if your shooting this half of the pitch and the attack is coming toards you then you will have more faces..you suggest this is paid work then you will want attackers not defenders..
if you ONLY HAVE A 400 then all your going to get is the other half of the pitch not this half.... a 400 is a fantastic lens.. but little use on its own for field sports..if you only have one lens then the 120-300 i roccomended is good as its also f2.8 but if you need more than 300 then you should be thinking two bodies and two lens.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
hehe he does seem to have made up his mind ... if there was a decent one camera one lens short to long setup poissible then I would have it... you would.. we all would.. but there isnt.. not for field sports in this country where the light is starting to go now..
OK I get where you're coming from but I can get this half of the pitch easy with that lens but with more reach I have chance to pick them out from further away when I spot a face and get more opportunities.
I used a 300 and just needed more reach that's why I was asking for the Nikon equivalent of that lens, perhaps I should just get a Canon then I wouldn't have to ask this in the first place and in all honesty it feels like they have a better selection for sports anyway (here comes the abuse).
I used a 300 and just needed more reach that's why I was asking for the Nikon equivalent of that lens, perhaps I should just get a Canon then I wouldn't have to ask this in the first place and in all honesty it feels like they have a better selection for sports anyway (here comes the abuse).
meonshore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Canon or Nikon is irrelevant - they match up almost exactly in longer reach sports suitable lenses. No abuse, just a gentle realisation that we all may have been wasting our time.
Last edited:
Maybe you have, but I did give details, I said not to worry about crop sensor because I won't always have the camera, or be using my own and gave details of a cheap Canon lens that seems to do the job and so far have been given a similar looking Nikon lens which apparently isn't very good and two very expensive primes.
So what was that about the exact matches?
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
with what lens? theres a few mentioned and all you ahve said id you ant 400.. but you havent said you want X lens?
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
OK I see where we are going wrong..You seem to be under the impression that the 100-400 canon would be a good choice? it wouldn't neither would the nikon equvelant the 80-400
Trying them out on a nice day.. great.. however the sports you want to cover only have a small window of nice days.. then winter arrives (not to mention floodlight night games)
At 400mm both will be forced to f5.6 and this will be unusable in poor lighting that we are starting to see over the next few weeks..
Thus you need faster ..such as f2.8 ...a minimum f4 if you ahve somehting like a 1dx but even thats not a good idea..
To get a 400 fast lens your looking at a prime.. this is no good on its own so would require two camera and a short lens..
The 100-400 is no use for paid (you did say paid jobs) football / rugby etc work when the light fades whcih can be for most of the seaosn.. a lot more of it if weather is bad... great on a nice sunny day..
Trying them out on a nice day.. great.. however the sports you want to cover only have a small window of nice days.. then winter arrives (not to mention floodlight night games)
At 400mm both will be forced to f5.6 and this will be unusable in poor lighting that we are starting to see over the next few weeks..
Thus you need faster ..such as f2.8 ...a minimum f4 if you ahve somehting like a 1dx but even thats not a good idea..
To get a 400 fast lens your looking at a prime.. this is no good on its own so would require two camera and a short lens..
The 100-400 is no use for paid (you did say paid jobs) football / rugby etc work when the light fades whcih can be for most of the seaosn.. a lot more of it if weather is bad... great on a nice sunny day..
OK I feel like that has just sewn together all the other bits.
I am just starting to do some more kids sports photography and the main requirement is exposure, not stunning magazine front pages, just good photos with faces that parents will like, whether they are attacking or defending. I agree with you on the lighting conditions but for now until I get some more money coming in from this kind of thing I have try and get the best of both worlds which like in all cases means a zoom with its obvious flaws.
I can't see the likelihood of me doing any night shoots soon so maybe I will pick a dreary weekend and rent out the 80-400 and see how it does.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
kids football ? then your doing it all wrong looking for a 400.. kids football is a whole different way of photogrpahing and you really dont need to be behind the goals.. you need to be about half way line...
OK without writing a whole essay.... whats the best kids football shot? whats the one that sells? Its the kid celebrating a goal... if your at old trafford and rooney scores.. he runs behind the goals to the crowd and the cameramen.. weiht junior football. there noboidy behind the goals.. there all behind the respect line down the sides.. when a kid scores a goal he turns and heads back towards the center celebrating as he goes...
If your behind a goal and he scores in front of you.. all your getting is the back of him running off to celebrate.. if at other end yes you get the front... BVut if your half way you get either end..
theres lots of other reasons.. shooting junior for sale then your after the best of both teams.. behind one goal sint the best place..
You dont need a 400.. you need to learn how best to shoot junior football
OK without writing a whole essay.... whats the best kids football shot? whats the one that sells? Its the kid celebrating a goal... if your at old trafford and rooney scores.. he runs behind the goals to the crowd and the cameramen.. weiht junior football. there noboidy behind the goals.. there all behind the respect line down the sides.. when a kid scores a goal he turns and heads back towards the center celebrating as he goes...
If your behind a goal and he scores in front of you.. all your getting is the back of him running off to celebrate.. if at other end yes you get the front... BVut if your half way you get either end..
theres lots of other reasons.. shooting junior for sale then your after the best of both teams.. behind one goal sint the best place..
You dont need a 400.. you need to learn how best to shoot junior football
RichardTaylor
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
I am a Canon shooter who uses a 100-400 a lot when shooting motor racing (in daylight) . However sometimes in winter (even in Australia) it can be next to useless. That's why the pros (I am a hobbyst) own 400mm or 300 f2.8 primes.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
OK then.. kinda wasted my time telling you it will be useless on a dreary day...
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hence the very first reply to this thread from me which was deleted when all it did was tell the truth
meonshore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep I kind of wish we had all stopped after that bit.
It's now clear that this is really event photography, selling to parents. Hence the need to make a portrait of each little Johnny playing football where-ever they are on the pitch, not about capturing the key action points of a match.
meonshore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Then can I suggest that you might be approaching this in the wrong way.
If you are shooting kids/youth sport in an "event photography" capacity then this removes many of the restrictions you would face it you were shooting at a higher level (pro football for example).
There is no need for you to stay in one place during a match, you can move the length of the pitch and across the back of the touchlines and you won't get in the way of TV cameras, other photographers, 1000s of fans, or match officials. You'll want to move because you'll need to get each child doing something in the position they play in. Actually you'll probably want to try to get a team photo and a posed photo as well if you want to maximise your earnings.
I make more from posed team photos from one of the sports jobs I do than action, which is icing on the cake for me. Another delivers more sales from posed portraits of medal winners than action.
So with the removal of the need to sit in once place actually you could easily cover football, and hockey with a 70-200 f2.8 (or f/4) and at a push rugby as well. If you had a 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x that would give you 280mm @ f/4 for under £1500 (if you get a good used example). You have to still pick your moments as to who to shoot, or where to move to but there really isn't a need for a super-telephoto in excess £4000-£7500 for what you are trying to do (on a crop or a full-frame camera).
If you look at this as a business then £4000 is a lot of £10 prints before you break even on the investment, especially if you need a shorter lens as well for close action and those team photos and posed portraits.