1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Prime Lens for Sports

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by allstar25, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. I am looking into buying a prime for mainly sport use. I shoot a lot of baseball and softball with the occasional indoor volleyball. What do y'all suggest for my next purchase after i buy the 70-200 f/2.8? This lens may also be used not just for sports but also for family and town events/parades.

    Thanks,
    Trent
     
  2. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    300/4 or 300/2.8
     
  3. IMO, while the 70-200 will be fine for general use, for sports it will fall short. A 300/4 would be fine, but a 300 2.8 would be hard to beat.
     
  4. Yet another vote for the 300 F2.8. . Works very well with TC's if extra reach is needed. . .
     
  5. I'm going to suggest a lens that most others will tell you not to use: the Nikon 80-400VR. I have the 70-200VR and find it to be too "short". I also have the 300 f4, but I prefer the versatility of a zoom. I know it's a little slow to AF, but for many years I've shot soccer, softball, and now college level football with the 80-400. The lens is too slow for indoor sports. I would suggest an 85 f1.4 or 1.8 lens for indoor sports.
     
  6. First of all what is your budget (unless of course such things are not discussed in lens lust) :eek:  another mportant consideration is whether you shoot in good outdor conditions, i.e. dayllight or dingy lit sports hall, also what is your willingness to lug around pounds of kit :cool: 

    Whithout knowing any of the above i would recommand shorter prime, for example indoor action taken with 85 f1.4 AFD at 1/500sec and f1.4 in shutter priority with appaling indoor light (colour and brightness)...

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/17002757@N08/2605084303/
     
  7. My budget is pretty low right now. About $1000 or so. The 300 f/4 falls within that. I'm still keeping my options open right now. The 300 f/2.8 is out of the question right now money wise.

    I generally shoot in very good daylight unless there is a lot of cloud cover or something. I don't care about the weight. That isn't an issue.

    Thanks so far for all of your suggestions...
     
  8. kiwi

    kiwi

    Jan 1, 2008
    Auckland, NZ
    If you are buying the 70-200 (Sigma ?) anyhow, why not just add a Kenko Pro 1.4TC to get almost a 300 F/4 anyhow ? You should be able to manage thsi on $1000 almost.

    Won't be quite as sharp as a 300 F/4 but much cheaper and more versatile combination
     

  9. Good point. Yea I'm getting the Sigma version. So the Kenko Pro 1.4TC works on the Sigma lens?
     
  10. kiwi

    kiwi

    Jan 1, 2008
    Auckland, NZ
    I cant say definatively, I had issues with my Kenko on my Siggy 120-300, but it was fine on my Nikon 80-200, it may be OK, or may not.

    I have A Sigma 1.4Tc that matches well.
     
  11. I might just stick to the Sigma 1.4 TC to be sure.
     
  12. eng45ine

    eng45ine

    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    If you want a long prime, but can't afford a newer version, begin searching for a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF ED, these sell for just over $1,000 in nice condition. You won't be using it indoors, but it works fine outdoors.
     
  13. arela

    arela

    480
    Jan 15, 2008
    Norway
    An alternative could be a 180mm f/2.8 a 1,4 x teleconverter gives you both a fast 180mm and a good 252mm.
    (but i have to admit, a 300mm is on my shortlist!)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.