Lens speed questions

[ccarlson]

Looking at getting into a DSLR. Used to do a lot of photography years ago with a 35mm slr and some mid grade lenses but got out of it for years while starting a career and family etc. I did wildlife, landscape, general outdoor stuff mostly.

I want to get back into the same thing but am adding in the aspect of getting some good shots of my kids playing sports too. Mostly basketball indoors. This is where speed concerns me the most.

Looking at the Nikon D90 body (I know, mostly cannon guys on here, but I really respect the knowledge you all have so I hope you can still help me out!) and I'm wondering how fast of a bigger zoom lens I need to get into to be able to get good shots not only of wildlife in lower light, but indoor basketball action as well, hopefully without using a flash.

I'm looking at a wider lens and a larger zoom lens. The two lenses I'm considering for the larger zoom are the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR IF ED which goes for about $1,600.

or the 70-300 f 4.5-5.6 AF-S VR IF ED which goes for about $440.

Obvious price difference. I really want the speed of the 2.8 but when I used to shoot wildlife, I remember being really glad I had 300mm many times. I also remember being frustrated with slower speed lenses but I never shot over 400 ISO.

One thing I'm learning from reading many of your posts is how far you can push ISO's with these new cameras. So, would I be happy with the 4.5-5.6 speed or should I save up and get the 2.8 lens?

Thanks for your input.

ccarlson

[Dbl]

ccarlson,

You have run up against the dilemma that everyone does...there is no one lens to do everything you want. That is why many of us have a bag full of lenses.

You also discovered the in order to shoot in the lowest light with the greatest shutter speeds (indoor sports) you have to pay the most money. So yes for your sports shooting if you are looking for good results you will be pushed to the speed of the 70-200 f2.8 over the 70-300. There really are not any good alternatives to that outside of introducing lights.

I believe Nikon is a 1.5 crop body? The 70-200 can be at times a bit tight when shooting under the basket action, not bad but it can be a bit tight. I love my 1.3 crop body for basketball with the 70-200, it is the perfect length.

On to your wildlife aspirations, the 70-200 will not be the best for this as you already discovered. Longer is better but used with a 1.4 teleconverter you will gain a bit more reach pushing you close to that 300mm. You could also look to this combination. Buy the 70-300 and also pick up the Nikon 85/1.8 which goes for about the same price as the Canon version, around $400. Now you cover your wildlife range (a useable length) and you have a lens for your basketball shooting.

Again I like the 85/1.8 better on a full frame or 1.3 crop body but it works with a 1.5 crop, a bit tight under the basket but you can move further back on the court or deeper in the corners.

So one 70-200/2.8 for $1600 or the 70-300 and the 85/1.8 for about $850. You could also add a Nikon 50/1.8 for about $120 bring a three lens total up to under $1,000. The 50 is a great basketball lens around the basket. Focus speed really comes into play as well when shooting fast moving action and the 70-200/85 and 50 all have fast focus speeds. I would guess the 70-300 will be average to slow at best as it is in the Canon version. Don't underestimate how important focus speed of the lens is, you will be much happier with your success rate with fast focusing lenses.

Wish I could tell you what the best is for you. I own all of those lenses and shoot them all for basketball but with that being said the 70-200/2.8 gets 95% of my shooting with basketball.

Yes you will be able to push your digital camera to higher ISO's with good results. Indoor sports shooting will mostly require at least 3200 ISO to get any decent shutter speeds and that is with a f2.8 lens. So there are a few things to chew on. There have been some discussions in the past six months or so on these very same questions. If you do a search you will find a few of them that might help as well. Good luck with your choice, if you need more information just ask away.

[Steve Foss]

I agree wholeheartedly with Dan's points, cc. Plus, if you go with that three-lens lineup you'll have more options when it comes to landscape and people photography, with the 50mm offering you a bit wider angle than the 70-300.

And while the 70-300 is a nicely sharp lens by what I've read, both prime lenses Dan mentioned will be sharper yet, because primes pretty much always are sharper than zooms.

Have fun getting back into photography!

[ccarlson]

Excellent information and much for me to think about.

Any more comments welcome as well.

ccarlson

[JohnK]

I tried using the 70-300VR for indoor highschool basketball last year, it was not good. It's a great lens outdoors, just not suited for indoor basketball, those gyms seem decently lit when watching the game but are terrible for photography.

I haven't used one myself, but I've been thinking the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 HSM would work well. You could get the 50-150 for indoors and 70-300VR for wildlife and still be around $1,100.

[mmeyer]

I agree with everyone else and probably like most, I've learned this the hard way.

The only thing I would add is, don't discount Sigma lenses I have a bag full of them and am very happy with them. You can get the 70-200mm f2.8 for around $800 I think so compared to Nikon that's quite a savings. If you're not on a tight budget then go with the Nikon but I just wanted to throw that out there.

[John Mikes]

I'll second the recommendation of the 85 1.8. I had one when I was still a dual system guy. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon 1.8, but it's sharper and produces better colors. IMHO, of course.

Instead of the 70-200, you might want to consider the older screw-drive 80-200 2.8 AF-D. It comes in various models. I had the oldest push-pull version and it was very good. Plus, it only cost me $550. Excellent IQ and it focused faster than you'd expect. You also might take a look at the 80-200 AF-S. Not as cheap as the AF-D, but still $5-600 less than the 70-200 VR.

[Yellowhead]

I have a D90. You can crank the ISO way and and still get great Pics. shoot at 1600 a lot and I like the results I'm getting