Fast glass around 300mm and beyond.

[Johnny Thunder]

Hi everyone.

I have what I consider basic coverage of range up to 300mm with the cheaper Nikon lenses 16-85 and 70-300.
I have been enjoying trying to photograph birds with limited success, therefore I made the decision to go for the 300f4 next. The plan was to add a 1.4, and maybe a 1.7 TC to the collection.
Yesterday I tried my hand a sports photography, and realised that I might have to reconsider my next purchase. I am now of the opinion that I would be better going for faster glass.

The lens choice is now becoming a lot more difficult. I am looking more to something that will cover a variety of situations. This brings me to the area I was considering after the purchase of the 300f4. I was planning to replace my starter lenses with better quality.
The way I see it, my choices are the Nikon 70-200f2.8, Sigma 120-300f2.8 or maybe the Sigma 300f2.8, any of which possibly with TC's.

I have been saving the pennies and almost have enough for a 300f4, but a change of plan will obviously mean that I will have to save a little while longer.

Could you please give me your experiences with any of the above equipment that I have listed, and also any advice as to my thinking on how to handle this next decision?

I thought that learning photography was the difficult bit. Selecting the bloody kit is just as hard.


Thank you.

 

[Nitram]

Hi. It's quite interesting that you ask this as it's what I did a few years ago and ended up with the Sigma 300 2.8 which although I think is ok stopped down it's too soft full open. At the moment I'm looking at the 300.f4 L to replace it. Hope that helps.

 

[jockwav]

I have the canon 300mm F4 L IS lens & i just love it,i will never part with it.

 

[Fatboyjarv]

Hi there I have the Nikon 70-200mm VRII which I got friday but due to the weather not been out yet with it :bang:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If you were planning to go for a 300mm with a 1.7tc on it then you might find the reach of the 70-200, even with a tc, to be of no use to you. Have you considered an older Nikon 300mm f/2.8?

 

[EdBray]

Or you could swap to Canon and buy my Tokina 300 f2.8 ATX SD

 

[Gary Coyle]

if youre on a budget and want/need quality f/2.8 glass then look no further than the Ziggy 120-300mm

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Or you could swap to Canon and buy my Tokina 300 f2.8 ATX SD

Actually apart from the "swap to Canon bit" :nono: that's not a bad idea, the Tokina is usually available within the op's budget

 

[markjayne]

The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is a cracking lens and will perform very well for sports photography, it also works very well with the 1.4x tc.

Mark

 

[EdBray]

Actually apart from the "swap to Canon bit" :nono: that's not a bad idea, the Tokina is usually available within the op's budget

That and apart from the fact that they are like rocking horse poo!

It's also reckoned to be sharper than the Sigma wide open.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

That and apart from the fact that they are like rocking horse poo!

It's also reckoned to be sharper than the Sigma wide open.

There was one on here not that long ago

 

[Johnny Thunder]

Cheers for the responses so far guys.

How do the three lenses compare wide open?

 

[pete.rush]

I have been enjoying trying to photograph birds with limited success, therefore I made the decision to go for the 300f4 next. The plan was to add a 1.4, and maybe a 1.7 TC to the collection.
Yesterday I tried my hand a sports photography, and realised that I might have to reconsider my next purchase. I am now of the opinion that I would be better going for faster glass.

I know several people on this forum who have taken fantastic motorsports images with the nikon 300mm f4 on its own and with 1.4 and 1.7x TC's.

So my question to you is why weren't you happy? What were you photographing, track, rally, motorX?, what was aperture or shutter speed were you using, were you panning, taking head on shots?, was this your first attempt at motorsport. What were the light and weather conditions like, if these weren't in your favour, its not the lens but the conditions that beat you.

OK I've got no personal experience of the nikon 300mm f4, however the canon 300mm f4 that I've been using for several years, with a 1.4x TC added at times has been a great lens and both lenses are pretty comparable.

 

[Johnny Thunder]

Hi Pete.

I was shooting kids football. The light was bright for winter, but I was shooting at ISO's from 1000-2500 with shutter speeds between 1/500th and 1/1000th.
It made me think about trying to shoot in woodland when light is nowhere near as good as I had it yesterday.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

Hi Pete.

I was shooting kids football. The light was bright for winter, but I was shooting at ISO's from 1000-2500 with shutter speeds between 1/500th and 1/1000th.
It made me think about trying to shoot in woodland when light is nowhere near as good as I had it yesterday.

thats Normal for this time of year. If you can afford it i'd reccomend a constant aperture zoom like the siggy or a prime like the 300mm f/2.8. downside with a long prime though is you need a 2nd body and shorter lens.


It all depends what you shoot the most Johnny.........

 

[Johnny Thunder]

That's my problem at the moment Andy. I cannot afford a second body and glass. I'm trying to do 'a bit of everything'.

Eventually, I would like to have a FF body too, with 2.8 right through the range, but my problem is working out priorities while I am limited.
I must say though, I am enjoying the wildlife challenge which I think tends towards a good prime, while I also enjoyed the sports which I am assuming requires a different approach which has made me reconsider.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

in that case i'd go for the siggy zoom or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 from canon but i didnt get on well with it

 

[EdBray]

in that case i'd go for the siggy zoom or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 from canon but i didnt get on well with it

I disagree, sorry!

That's my problem at the moment Andy. I cannot afford a second body and glass. I'm trying to do 'a bit of everything'.

Eventually, I would like to have a FF body too, with 2.8 right through the range, but my problem is working out priorities while I am limited.
I must say though, I am enjoying the wildlife challenge which I think tends towards a good prime, while I also enjoyed the sports which I am assuming requires a different approach which has made me reconsider.

I agree as you can then use a converter without too much IQ loss, with a 1.4x or 2x converter a 300mm f2.8 prime could become a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6.

 

[Johnny Thunder]

I am thinking along the same lines Andy.
The many positive reports about the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 make me feel confident about that purchase.
I have spent some time searching info on the Sigmas and I don't get the same feeling about either lens. I do read online reviews, but I prefer first hand experience based opinions like you get on this forum.

Cheers mate.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

sorry i wrote Canon i've heard very good reviews of the Nikon 70-200 from a couple of agency guys. (PA and Action images) And they expect the MKII thats out in december to be even better

 

[Johnny Thunder]

I agree as you can then use a converter without too much IQ loss, with a 1.4x or 2x converter a 300mm f2.8 prime could become a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6.

Hi Ed. Do you mean 300 f2.8 primes in general, or specifically the Sigma?

Cheers.

 

[desantnik]

Yesterday I tried my hand a sports photography, and realised that I might have to reconsider my next purchase. I am now of the opinion that I would be better going for faster glass.

What sports was it and what were the problems?

I've shot quite a few different things, albeit mainly motorsport, but a bit of the other stuff too using the kit on my sig. My results have been acceptable if not prize winning...

 

[Rovers_Andy]

I disagree, sorry!



I agree as you can then use a converter without too much IQ loss, with a 1.4x or 2x converter a 300mm f2.8 prime could become a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6.

yes but as Johnny has said he only has one body the 300 will limit him too much

 

[Johnny Thunder]

sorry i wrote Canon i've heard very good reviews of the Nikon 70-200 from a couple of agency guys. (PA and Action images) And they expect the MKII thats out in december to be even better

I have had a drink too.

I hope this reads the same tomorrow as it 'seems' to read tonight.

 

[Johnny Thunder]

What sports was it and what were the problems?

I've shot quite a few different things, albeit mainly motorsport, but a bit of the other stuff too using the kit on my sig. My results have been acceptable if not prize winning...

Thanks for your reply desantnik.
Which lens do you tend to make your first choice, the 70-200 or the 300 prime?

 

[EdBray]

yes but as Johnny has said he only has one body the 300 will limit him too much

Why, is he disabled, can he not change a lens?

i've only got one body, doesn't seem to limit me too much!

What happens if he has the 120-300mm and he needs 70mm?

For wildlife length is usually the most important factor followed by ISO quality.

 

[desantnik]

Thanks for your reply desantnik.
Which lens do you tend to make your first choice, the 70-200 or the 300 prime?

Well, statistically in the last year I have used the 70-200 for marginally more shots than the 300 for motorsport, but its quite a close run thing.

It obviously does depend a lot on:

a) the circuits you frequent

b) whether you shoot more cars or bikes (or vice versa)

c) whether you are behind the fence with the public or trackside

If I had to choose just one for motorsport, I'd do what I did myself and get the 70-200 first - but make it a decent Nikon/Canon one and don't be tempted to go with one of the third party makes if you want to shoot good action sport!

Now, for sports played on a pitch and assuming you aren't talking about pro national/international level, I'd say still go with the 70-200 and not the prime, unless you go to FX 300mm is too long IMHO and the lack of zoom will leave you frustrated. F2.8 is a really, really good idea and whilst the 120-300 f2.8 might seem like a good idea, 120mm is too long for action that happens in front of you (to be honest, even 70mm on my DX D300 is pushing it!).

Is that any help?

 

[Rovers_Andy]

Well, statistically in the last year I have used the 70-200 for marginally more shots than the 300 for motorsport, but its quite a close run thing.

It obviously does depend a lot on:

a) the circuits you frequent

b) whether you shoot more cars or bikes (or vice versa)

c) whether you are behind the fence with the public or trackside

If I had to choose just one for motorsport, I'd do what I did myself and get the 70-200 first - but make it a decent Nikon/Canon one and don't be tempted to go with one of the third party makes if you want to shoot good action sport!

Now, for sports played on a pitch and assuming you aren't talking about pro national/international level, I'd say still go with the 70-200 and not the prime, unless you go to FX 300mm is too long IMHO and the lack of zoom will leave you frustrated. F2.8 is a really, really good idea and whilst the 120-300 f2.8 might seem like a good idea, 120mm is too long for action that happens in front of you (to be honest, even 70mm on my DX D300 is pushing it!).

Is that any help?

120 isn't to short. I shoot 400mm and 135mm on a 1.3 crop and its ideal


Ed my earlier post was made with reference to sports, your right of course about the prime for wildlife

 

[desantnik]

Reall Andy? Tell me, how far away is it when the vertical field of view is less than oooh lets say 2.5m when you are shooting 120mm on a 1.5x crop - assuming landscape orientation so you can get the other people in around the action?

 

[Rovers_Andy]

FFS :bang: my reference is on a 1.3 crop. look at the shots i had published last night the shot of Grant holt is full frame on a 1.3 crop at 135mm and he was within 3 metres of me


Sorry for hijacking the thread Johnny

 

[neil_g]

im a recent addition to the sig 120-300 club, would i swap it for a prime? not on what ive seen. works well with a 1.4x too. unfortunately my motorsport trips have been extremely limited this year due to other commitments, but for the BSB at brands it was bob-on.

 

[neil_g]

If I had to choose just one for motorsport, I'd do what I did myself and get the 70-200 first - but make it a decent Nikon/Canon one and don't be tempted to go with one of the third party makes if you want to shoot good action sport!

the sig 70-200 in my experience is perfectly capable for sports (feel free to find the bike/wakeboarding/rally shots in my flickr). however its a tad short for some parts of some circuits.

 

[EC PHOTO SPORT]

Don't be frightened of buying used glass, I've just traded a 300 2.8 afed that I bought used 10yrs ago for a used 300 2.8 VR just buy from a dealer you trust or try before you buy. What about an older 80/200 2.8? I use a one touch afed and its sharp as a razor on my D300.

 

[Johnny Thunder]

Thank you for all the advice so far. Plenty to take in.
If I am honest, I am swaying to the Nikon 70-200f2.8. This was pretty much what I had come up with before I posted this thread.
How does this lens perform with 1.4 and 1.7 TC's?


Cheers.

 

[desantnik]

Well, I have used it with my 1.7x TC but its not particularly good I have to say. Maybe a 1.4x might be better, but somehow at the back of my mind I think not.

TC's aren't really much cop on a zoom....

 

[pete.rush]

Originally Posted by Johnny Thunder
I was shooting kids football. The light was bright for winter, but I was shooting at ISO's from 1000-2500 with shutter speeds between 1/500th and 1/1000th.

Sounds quite challenging conditions and probably too challenging for the f4 lens maybe even for the D300?

Originally Posted by Rovers_Andy
thats Normal for this time of year. If you can afford it i'd reccomend a constant aperture zoom like the siggy or a prime like the 300mm f/2.8. downside with a long prime though is you need a 2nd body and shorter lens.

As you said, would depend on what you were shooting, the siggy great for motorsport, in good light, fast autofocus etc, however a friend had one and when the light fell off the siggy struggled to capture fast jets where as the prime was tad sharp.

Originally Posted by neil_g
im a recent addition to the sig 120-300 club, would i swap it for a prime? not on what ive seen. works well with a 1.4x too. unfortunately my motorsport trips have been extremely limited this year due to other commitments, but for the BSB at brands it was bob-on.

For motorsport yes I would agree, good lens, but better than a prime, good but doesn't get the biscuit.

Would have to agree with desantnik, the 70-200mm doesn't work too well with TC's, you might get away with the 1.4x TC on it, but you would be in a worse situation than with the 300mm f4, the TC will significantly reduce autofocus speeds and IQs won't be as good as the 300mm f4. The 70-200 is also too short for anything other than close up action.

Unfortunately you have hit the old problem of what do I get next?

I'm not sure you've given the 300mm f4 a real fighting chance, in most situations, its will meet the challenge well and is affordable.

Your next step will cost you significant money, a new 120-300mm is over £2000, the 300mm f2.8 prime is over £3000, even 2nd hand prices are high, trust me recently bought the canon 300mm f2.8 which 2nd hand was £2500 and I got a great deal on that, they're usually £3000.

 

[desantnik]

I think also our friend needs to accept that there are times when you just have to walk away.... the longest, wide aperture Nikkor lens is the 400 f2.8 - thats one stop and 33% longer than your 300 f4... and it costs a fortune and weighs a ton for what?

If the light is too poor for a 300 f4, its going to be not much better when you are 5k down on a 400 f2.8!!!

So, I'd really say keep you 300 f4 and add the 70-200 VR. If you can't afford to do that, go with the 70-200VR and give up on the long lens stuff until if/when you can afford it - its a bloody expensive game.

 

[pete.rush]

desantnik JT has bought anything yet

I have what I consider basic coverage of range up to 300mm with the cheaper Nikon lenses 16-85 and 70-300.

I think also our friend needs to accept that there are times when you just have to walk away.... the longest, wide aperture Nikkor lens is the 400 f2.8 - thats one stop and 33% longer than your 300 f4... and it costs a fortune and weighs a ton for what?

If the light is too poor for a 300 f4, its going to be not much better when you are 5k down on a 400 f2.8!!!

I would have to agree, they are times when the kit stays in the bag. Shooting kids football, at ISO 2500 during the day would suggest conditions were far beyond challenging.

 

[Johnny Thunder]

Sorry guys, I should have made it more clear. I was shooting 4.5-5.6 at the weekend.

 

[pete.rush]

Sorry guys, I should have made it more clear. I was shooting 4.5-5.6 at the weekend.

Were you using the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 or a 300mm f4? as that would make a significant difference.