New lens

-Paul-

-Paul-

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,401
Name
Paul.
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking for the best possible lens that I can get for my money about £400 I want a zoom lens something around 70-300 nikon fit for a d50 I will be using it mainly to photograph my sons rugby matches. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
 
Nikons own 70-300VR lens comes in just over your budget. Always seems to get good reviews and most on here who use it seem pleased. If you don't mind second hand you can get them under £300. I have one myself and get some great sharp images from it.

Another option is Tamrons 70-300VC model. not used it myself but from what I have read it seems to be seen just as good as nikons offering.
 
Paul,

If you're happy with a used lens then I'd look no further than the Nikon 70-300VR - better image quality by far (IMHO) than any of the 3rd party offerings.

Just my humble opinion, of course :)
 
Hi Paul, I have a Nikon 70-300VR and it's a great lens, well worth considering
 
Given the age of your camera you probably won't want to bump the ISO up too far so sport you might want a faster lens.

You could pick up a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with your budget.
 
Thanks for the advice guys the nikon sounds good but i'll check out the Tamron. Nawty thanks for your help but I relly wanted somthing towards the 300mm mark.
 
-Paul- said:
Thanks for the advice guys the nikon sounds good but i'll check out the Tamron. Nawty thanks for your help but I relly wanted somthing towards the 300mm mark.
Click to expand...

Two stops of light will be infinitely more useful for sport than 100mm of focal length!
 
In some ways true but the VR on Nikon's 70-300 allows it to be used at similar shutter speeds to an f/2.8. OK, you don't get the shallow DoF you can get with a faster lens at wide apertures but you do get the extra reach.

Another vote for the Nikon 70-300 VR - better optically than the old non-VR versions and IMO, far better than the Tamron or Sigma options.

For the record, I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Nikon 70-300VR but it's the Nikon that lives in the bag. The f/2.8 is bulkier and heavier and doesn't offer the advantages that the Nikon has. Image quality (when stopped down a little) from the Nikon is well up to A3+ printing, even at the longest F/L. With a little shopping around, you may find a new copy for just over your budget, or a second hand one with warranty just under budget.

Happy shoppping and shooting!

Nod.
 
Nod- we are talking about sport. VR has nothing to do with it and at best is a hindrance.
 
+1 for the Tamron as good as the Nikon from 70-200 but better from 200-300. Also agree with Demilion VR is pretty useless for sport.
 
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens for£227 or Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED for £399 I am asuming that they will both be ok on the Nikon D50. I am now just trying to work out the difference apart from the obvious focal length. Any helpers? Oh while I'am here is niko and nikkor lenses one and the same brand? Thanks guys and gals.
 
-Paul- said:
Will somebody please explain why vr is no use for sport photography please? because I was thinking along the same lines as Nod.
Click to expand...

My guess is that because you'll be using a fast shutter speed for sports photography, so VR does not really help much?

But if you're shooting at 300mm, the rule of thumb says that your minimum ss should be 1/450, will rugby action requires such a high ss?
 
Last edited:
VR is good for stopping camera shake but is no use for stopping motion blur which is what you want for sports.

My 70-300 VR is one of my favourite lenses and on my D700 I can easily up the ISO to 3200 to get a fast shutter speed but even then you can struggle to stop the action in poor light.

That's why, on your camera the extra 2 stops of a f/2.8 lens will really help.
 
By the way, the auto focus on the 55-300 is generally considered too slow for sports.
 
-Paul- said:
Will somebody please explain why vr is no use for sport photography please? because I was thinking along the same lines as Nod.
Click to expand...

Not only do the shutter speeds required for sport make VR irrelevant (1/[fl x crop]) but VR/IS can interfere with accuracy of focus, especially for snap shots, due to the length of time that it takes to kick in.
 
DemiLion said:
Not only do the shutter speeds required for sport make VR irrelevant (1/[fl x crop]) but VR/IS can interfere with accuracy of focus, especially for snap shots, due to the length of time that it takes to kick in.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to disagree. IMO, the fastest moving sport is motorsport, with the subjects moving at 100+ MPH - OK, that movement tends to be in one dimension but it's still subject movement. Maybe IS can't kick in quickly but I have no such problems with my VR! (Neither did I with the OS lens I used to have.) Speed and accuracy of focus with or without VR has never been an issue or made me miss a shot - it tends to be me looking the wrong way that takes care of that!

Keeping shutter speed up is no problem for me, either - I can ramp the ISO up to 1600 with no worries about IQ and even at 3200, images are useable. If it's so cold, wet, dark and miserable that shutter speeds do become a problem, chances are that I'm in the car getting warm, dry and happier.
 
Nod said:
Sorry but I have to disagree. IMO, the fastest moving sport is motorsport, with the subjects moving at 100+ MPH - OK, that movement tends to be in one dimension but it's still subject movement. Maybe IS can't kick in quickly but I have no such problems with my VR! (Neither did I with the OS lens I used to have.) Speed and accuracy of focus with or without VR has never been an issue or made me miss a shot - it tends to be me looking the wrong way that takes care of that!

Keeping shutter speed up is no problem for me, either - I can ramp the ISO up to 1600 with no worries about IQ and even at 3200, images are useable. If it's so cold, wet, dark and miserable that shutter speeds do become a problem, chances are that I'm in the car getting warm, dry and happier.
Click to expand...

If this was in 'Sports' your post would get ripped to shreds, as has happened to others in the past (not by me I'd hasten to add).

As far as field sport goes aperture wins over VR/IS/OS every day of the week. You may love your lens, but it isn't the best choice for Rugby.

As you said motorsport is relatively one dimensional. The challenges faced in field sport are completely different.

I wouldn't talk about ramping the ISO up too much though. You'll end up looking silly (hint: reread the opening post).

As for running away when it gets dark and wet- that's half the RU/RL season over if you do that.
 
BTW:

Nod said:
... IMO, the fastest moving sport is motorsport, with the subjects moving at 100+ MPH -
Click to expand...


Rugby, football and especially hockey- the ball speed is far faster!
 
Nod said:
Sorry but I have to disagree. IMO, the fastest moving sport is motorsport, with the subjects moving at 100+ MPH - OK, that movement tends to be in one dimension but it's still subject movement. Maybe IS can't kick in quickly but I have no such problems with my VR! (Neither did I with the OS lens I used to have.) Speed and accuracy of focus with or without VR has never been an issue or made me miss a shot - it tends to be me looking the wrong way that takes care of that!

Keeping shutter speed up is no problem for me, either - I can ramp the ISO up to 1600 with no worries about IQ and even at 3200, images are useable. If it's so cold, wet, dark and miserable that shutter speeds do become a problem, chances are that I'm in the car getting warm, dry and happier.
Click to expand...

Yes, but surely sport is very different to motorsport? In motorsports you are panning. In other sports generally the bits you want sharp (eg arms and legs etc) are going in all directions at once. Panning doesn't help here, the only solution is a faster shutter speed. Hence VR not being much help.
Or that is the way I see it - from the POV of someone who has never taken any sports pics :)
 
at 300mm I would use VR
I thought it was useless on first thought but if you're running at 1/100s - 1/200s to capture decent stills, then you're still well under the 1/400s ish that's a rule of thumb for your cropped 300m lens
so I would still use VR personally and have done so on a canon 70-300 in an amateurish fashion

More recently I'd use a 70-200 f2.8 as more light is much better for AF imho but you do lose range of course. it depends upon the available light and where you're seated.
a pro sports photographer on the sidelines with an decent budget is a different conversation to an amateur with a strict ££ limit in mind seated in the stands
 
Last edited:
Good job I don't shoot men running around with odd shaped balls!

I was still aware that the OP uses a D50 but even that is capable of turning out useable images at ISO 800 (speaking from personal experience). OK, not in the same league as a D700 but still better than many competitors or contemporaries.

Not sure I've ever even visited the Sports section - from the sound of it, it's hardly the most welcoming place, so I think I'll stay well away! While I enjoy seeing it on the box, such a dynamic area is (IMO) best served by video rather than stills anyway, although (at the moment) it's hard to get video down in print!
 
DemiLion said:
BTW:




Rugby, football and especially hockey- the ball speed is far faster!
Click to expand...

Got any sources to back up that statement? I know that tennis serves are up around 135mph in the mens game but can anyone kick a ball hard enough to get up to that sort of speed? Or hit a hockey ball (legally) hard enough?
 
Nod said:
Got any sources to back up that statement? I know that tennis serves are up around 135mph in the mens game but can anyone kick a ball hard enough to get up to that sort of speed? Or hit a hockey ball (legally) hard enough?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should have a TP ball kicking contest?
 
Rather than a separate event it could be tagged onto the regular Willy Waving :)
 
Nod said:
Got any sources to back up that statement?
Click to expand...

Yup, experience and mathematics.





mortimerhill said:
Hockey maybe; but not the other two. 70mph is regarded as very fast for football.
Click to expand...

Rugby I'll give you, but even your average Sunday league penalty taker is kicking at close to or above 100mph:

100mph = 45mps or 4.5m per 1/10th sec.

Your average penalty kick is complete in 1-1.5 frames at 10fps; ie a maximum of 1/10th to 1/15th of a second.

The penalty spot is 11m from the goal.

I'll let you fill the rest in.
 
Nod said:
Sorry but I have to disagree. IMO, the fastest moving sport is motorsport, with the subjects moving at 100+ MPH - OK, that movement tends to be in one dimension but it's still subject movement. Maybe IS can't kick in quickly but I have no such problems with my VR! (Neither did I with the OS lens I used to have.) Speed and accuracy of focus with or without VR has never been an issue or made me miss a shot - it tends to be me looking the wrong way that takes care of that!

Keeping shutter speed up is no problem for me, either - I can ramp the ISO up to 1600 with no worries about IQ and even at 3200, images are useable. If it's so cold, wet, dark and miserable that shutter speeds do become a problem, chances are that I'm in the car getting warm, dry and happier.
Click to expand...
Sorry Nod but VR is 100% useless for shooting Rugby League or any field sports for that matter, take it from me, i earn decent money from it, VR is useless for Rugby/Football
 
Good for you! :)

There is a very useful feature on VR lenses - an off switch. I'll agree that during fast action, VR ain't going to help but there's plenty of standing around waiting for the ball, when portrait type shots can be had - in those situations, VR certainly has its uses. ;)

BTW, 1-1.5 frames at 10fps; ie a maximum of 1/10th to 1/15th of a second. ? My maths makes that 1/10th to 1/6.6666666666th of a second, not a 15th. Quite quick but who takes photos of a ball? OK, it's nice to see the ball in a penalty shot but it's not the main point of focus, is it?
 
Nod said:
Good for you! :)

There is a very useful feature on VR lenses - an off switch. I'll agree that during fast action, VR ain't going to help but there's plenty of standing around waiting for the ball, when portrait type shots can be had - in those situations, VR certainly has its uses. ;)
Click to expand...
I really cant think even given the situation you quote re: "standing around waiting for ball shots" where VR will be of any use at all, i mean were shooting Rugby/Football where we aim for a shutter speed as fast as we can get, anywhere between 1/500 to 1/4000th sec, you can still capture that "waiting around portrait shot" with a fast shutter speed, i see no reason or benefit to drop the shutter speed to such a slow speed where VR might be useful, ie 1/30th 1/50th etc, etc
 
With f/5.6 wide open, and high ISO performance not as good as our bodies, slow shutter speeds are sometimes the only option!

Budget also has to be taken into account - my 70-200 Sigma nonOS cost me the thick end of £400 2nd hand a few years ago - more than I paid for the brand new 70-300 VR. As for a 300 fast prime - you're taking thousands, even 2nd hand, almost certainly above budget for the OP, although probably worth it for a pro who makes good money from his/her images.
 
Nod said:
Good for you! :)

BTW, 1-1.5 frames at 10fps; ie a maximum of 1/10th to 1/15th of a second. ? My maths makes that 1/10th to 1/6.6666666666th of a second, not a 15th. Quite quick but who takes photos of a ball? OK, it's nice to see the ball in a penalty shot but it's not the main point of focus, is it?
Click to expand...

Agreed I reversed my fraction there, however the comment about the ball is rather amusing - unless it's a cele shot.
 
Nod said:
With f/5.6 wide open, and high ISO performance not as good as our bodies, slow shutter speeds are sometimes the only option!
Click to expand...
Then you wouldnt be on the Rugby/Football field in the first place if you can only acheive slow shutter speeds.
 
As a pro, probably not but as a proud parent, very possibly!

Just as a matter of interest, how much did your main rugby lens cost, round pounds, how much do you earn per shot published and how many have you had published from that lens? Rough figures will do, just trying to put a vague figure on the lens's cost/shot. Of course, the figures are none of my business, just interested.
 
-Paul- said:
Oh while I'am here is niko and nikkor lenses one and the same brand? Thanks guys and gals.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Paul, missed this part of the question.

Yup, Nikkor is Nikon's brand for lenses. Not sure why they don't just call the Nikon as well, although I believe they used to make lenses for other manufacturers as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor
 
Nod said:
As a pro, probably not but as a proud parent, very possibly!

Just as a matter of interest, how much did your main rugby lens cost, round pounds, how much do you earn per shot published and how many have you had published from that lens? Rough figures will do, just trying to put a vague figure on the lens's cost/shot. Of course, the figures are none of my business, just interested.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100% with the red highlight

Prefer not to quote actual figures but will say i have approx £20,000 in gear and its all paid for itself and more
 
I quite understand you not wanting to divulge actual figures - I was just interested to see whether that particular lens had been very cost effective. I know that I hardly used my Sigma 150-500 OS (due to its weight and my illness) and each shot cost me around a tenner in depreciation! Luckily, I had paid for it in the main by trade ins and did very nicely than you out of them _IIRC, I made a bit of profit on both lenses I chopped in! I try not to think about what I've spent on kit over the years - nowhere near £20,000 but I'm a pure amateur, so earnings from them are minimal - generally paid in kind rather than cash, anyway.

TBH, I don't think we're in disagreement - I completely agree that if you NEED to get the shot, a fast lens is the tool but if you want some pics for the family album, the (undeniably slower and in other ways inferior) zoom is more suitable.
 
Just a quick note on the Tamron...

Had one from new, sold it and a week later the buyer sent me an email, that he and two of his friends had been comparing lenses.
They all agreed on the Tamron was clearly sharper than the Nikkor 70-300...

But the Nikkor will probably keep it's second-hand value better though...


And after all it is the only one of the two, that has the magic letters on it! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top