Sport/nature tele?

rantasam

rantasam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
31
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm very shiney and new to the world of slr's, so please bear with me if I'm asking the obvious. Ive had a good hunt through previous posts, but can't seem to see the answers I'm after.

I bought my dad a Nikon D40 a little while back for his birthday. I'm looking to buy a lens more suited than the kit lens for longer-distance nature shots, as he's expressed an interest in moving into this area of photography. The upside of this is that hopefully I'll be able to find a lens that I can 'borrow' the camera for to take sports/motorsports shots too. Everyone's a winner. :)

I've been looking at lenses at 300mm and have a budget that could stretch to a max of £350, although obviously as we're both at amature levels if the results are decent then I'd spend less happily too! I'm not quite sure if 300mm is the correct focal length I should be looking at, but from what I've read hopefully I should be in the right area?

I've been looking at the Nikon 70-300MM F/4.5-5.6 VR lens, but I'm a bit concerned that with a max aperture of only 4.5 it might not be fast enough for motorsport images?

I've also considered the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6, which has an easier to swallow price tag than the Nikon.. how much of a sacrifice in quality of shots would this be and also how much of a benefit would the image stabilisation be in the Nikon lens? Would hand-held shooting be difficult with the Sigma lens?

Hopefully somebody will be able to guide me in the right direction. Should there be other focal lengths I'm considering and which, if any, of the above lenses should I be considering? Thanks.
 
Being a Canon user i'm not that clued up on the nikon lenses, but f4.5 should still be ok for most motorsports, you may need to up the iso a little to raise the shutter speed though in some cases.

Also the VR on the Nikon lens will let you shoot a couple of stops slower without too much of an increase in shake etc.

I'm afraid you get what you pay for in this game, the same as any other. But try and remember the camera only records what the lens lets in, so if it's a muddy coloured soft image on the sensor.....it went in like that ;)

What kinds of motorsport are we talking about here?
Depending on how close you can get a 70-200 f2.8 would be a handy weapon.
 
I have a 400 L 5.6

With the ISO up a little on my 5 its doing ok so far
 
;)

As I said in my first post though, i'd look to the 70-200 f2.8
 
Thanks for all the responses. The 70-200 f2.8 does look like it fits the bill perfectly, but the price is out of reach for me unfortunately. I guess around the £350 all lenses are going to be a compromise of some sort then. Shame.

Are there any others I should be considering that offer at least some ability in fast telephoto work?

Thanks again.
 
I'm a Canon user, but have photographed motorsport on your kind of budget.

I've used a 55-250 F4.5-5.6. I like to stick with 100 ISO where possible, and at this setting the lens is a little slow at full zoom. However, knock it up to 200 ISO and on a nice day you'll still get some great images. If you pick the right spot at the right track you don't even need full zoom so obviously bring the F-stop into more versatile territory.

Of course working to a budget is going to mean compromises, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't bother full stop - some good pictures are always better than none :)
 
apkent said:
Of course working to a budget is going to mean compromises, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't bother full stop - some good pictures are always better than none :)
Click to expand...

Absoloutly 100% agree there.. I hope I dont put people off by airing my views on needing faster lens for sport all the time.. I think you do.. But as quoted above its not the law or anything :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top