Looking for a new soccer rig...D500? Lens?

[S. Miller]

Hi,

I'm looking for a new body and lens combo for my daughter's high school soccer and softball games. I'm not a pro, just a serious amateur who has been shooting soccer for 10+ years. I've shot different systems in the past (Canon 40D/7D/5DII and most recently the Olympus E-M1). My main camera is the Sony A7II and while I LOVE shooting non-sports with it, I've realized that it's just not the right tool for sports (same with EM1).

That's not to say that I can't get good shots with mirrorless, it's just that I've reached the point where I'd prefer to have a dedicated sports rig that is designed for tracking fast moving, erratic action sports. As a result, I'm looking for a D500/7DII type of body and the most appropriate zoom lens for soccer. FYI, almost all games would be during the day.

Body:

From the specs, it seems like the D500 is the way to go because of it's AF tracking advantage over the the 7DII. I'd love to hear thoughts on these two bodies as well as any others I'm missing. I'm not thinking about the pro grade Canikon bodies because of the cost. Ca. $2k for a body is as high as I'll go, and I'll likely buy either body (and lens) used on FM).

Lens:

In FF terms, I shoot in the 150mm-450mm range most of the time (80%), though sometimes close action calls for 70mm and if the action is away from me, 500mm - 600 mm helps. So for lenses, I've thought about the following:

• 70-200/2.8 VR (or IS) with 1.4x TC: If I go with Nikon, should I stick with the Nikon lens or is Sigma a good alternative?
• Nikon 200-500/5.6: I'd love the reach on the long end but I feel it would be too tight on the short end with an effective FL of 300-750.
• Sigma 150-600/5-6.3: Seems like a beast. Meaningful difference between the Sport and Contemporary model aside from price? I'm thinking that 225-900 effective FL would still be too tight on the short end.
• Any other lenses that I'm missing?

So here I am, system agnostic and flush with some cash from selling off some very nice m4/3 kit recently.

Any recommendations for a body and lens would be much appreciated. Oh yeah, even though I shot Canon before, I have no allegiance to it over Nikon, especially when the D500 looks so amazing for AF tracking.

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. I'll also post this in the Nikon forum

 

[Donald Chin]

Unless you can afford fast glasses like 200/2 or 300/2.8, it's better for you to go with used D4 than the D500. If I were you I would get a used D4 and a 200~500/5.6 VR.

 

[Bassanelli]

I love my D500. The focus tracking is insanely good. I also have a nikon D800 that I like very much, but for sports I love the D500.

 

[KiserBinNC]

Yes, go with the D500 ... the focus tracking is excellent, and fast.

As far as the lens, how much reach down the field are you looking for? The 200-500 (which I've used to shoot soccer and lacrosse) will allow you to fill the frame with the goal from the opposite end of the field at 500mm, but 200mm will be a little tight on the goal area at the end of the field you're standing at unless you shoot from the corners.

 

[ZurichPhoto]

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

 

[Donald Chin]

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

D500 is nothing close to D5，definitely not my choice if I'm looking for a sports camera. Used D4 and D4s are much better choice!

 

[S. Miller]

Thanks everyone for your very helpful comments!

Work's getting in the way today but I'll come back later with follow-up. For now I've pretty much made my mind up about the D500 but have no clue about the lens option for soccer (football). Too many choices!

Steve

 

[Nielsenius]

I would recommend Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It is very sharp and if you want to put a teleconverter on it in the future that is possible. Its construction is solid and weather sealed. Autofocus is top notch. I don't think you can go wrong.

I feel like an f/5.6 zoom will be a disappointment. There is a big difference between 2.8 and 5.6 in terms of light gathering (4x more light) and subject-background separation. For soccer you can wait for the action to get close or change your position on the sidelines. Softball might be tougher in terms of tight shots at 200mm (300mm equivalent), but that's the tradeoff on getting 2.8.

 

[S. Miller]

I would recommend Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It is very sharp and if you want to put a teleconverter on it in the future that is possible. Its construction is solid and weather sealed. Autofocus is top notch. I don't think you can go wrong.

I feel like an f/5.6 zoom will be a disappointment. There is a big difference between 2.8 and 5.6 in terms of light gathering (4x more light) and subject-background separation. For soccer you can wait for the action to get close or change your position on the sidelines. Softball might be tougher in terms of tight shots at 200mm (300mm equivalent), but that's the tradeoff on getting 2.8.

 

[sssesq]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

 

[S. Miller]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

Great sequence! Have you used both setups? 80-400 vs 70-200+1.4TC? Just wondering if the 80-400 focuses as fast as the 70-200 combo.

Thanks,

Steve

 

[Ferguson]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

Great sequence! Have you used both setups? 80-400 vs 70-200+1.4TC? Just wondering if the 80-400 focuses as fast as the 70-200 combo.

I use both the 80-400G and 70-200 (VR II) on a D5, not a D500 (also a D800 and D4).

I use the 80-400G more than I thought I would in the daylight. The zoom range is really great, and the sharpness is better than I ever imagined given the zoom range. The big problems are the F5.6- mediocre separation, and it's really a daylight lens. Sure, it focuses slower than the 70-200, but its plenty fast. Most of the time you are tracking anyway. Just a none issue. And D500 (or D4, D5, D800, D750) works great focusing at F5.6. It's big issue is that as the sun starts going down, that F5.6 really hurts.

There's another issue with the 80-400G that might or might not matter -- I don't feel comfortable using it in rain. The 70-200 is not an issue, my first one was soaked regularly and 8 years later it still worked great when I got a new version (to get a sharper 200mm end). The 80-400G I put away if it starts raining, that big pumping bellows just can't be good in wet. And it just doesn't feel as rugged -- mine has already gone back once in about 2 years (covered under warrant) - only lens I ever had to send back for repair.

Then again I'm not sure I would use a D500 in the rain either.

But the 70-200 is pretty short for soccer. With the crop sensor it's better, with a 1.4tc -- well, not sure, those work better on primes and low res bodies, but maybe. But you will absolutely love the reach of the 400 for soccer, even if you have sideline access,.

Here's what would likely be my deciding factor -- as children get older and older, they play more evening games. Can you get the 80-400, but plan on getting some F2.8 glass in a couple years (probably a 70-200) when the evening games start? If it's either/or, I would be likely to still go for the 70-200. You just can't imagine how much more flexibility the F2.8 will give you over time.

But it's not because of focus speed, it's all about light.

 

[sssesq]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

Great sequence! Have you used both setups? 80-400 vs 70-200+1.4TC? Just wondering if the 80-400 focuses as fast as the 70-200 combo.

Thanks,

Steve

I have not used the 70-200 with a 1.4 but here is a 70-200 1.7. No slouch by any means, but I would say that this combo is definitely slower than the 80-400.

 

[carcour]

A D4 is 1000 to 1200 more than a new D500

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

D500 is nothing close to D5，definitely not my choice if I'm looking for a sports camera. Used D4 and D4s are much better choice!

 

[sssesq]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

Great sequence! Have you used both setups? 80-400 vs 70-200+1.4TC? Just wondering if the 80-400 focuses as fast as the 70-200 combo.

I use both the 80-400G and 70-200 (VR II) on a D5, not a D500 (also a D800 and D4).

I use the 80-400G more than I thought I would in the daylight. The zoom range is really great, and the sharpness is better than I ever imagined given the zoom range. The big problems are the F5.6- mediocre separation, and it's really a daylight lens. Sure, it focuses slower than the 70-200, but its plenty fast. Most of the time you are tracking anyway. Just a none issue. And D500 (or D4, D5, D800, D750) works great focusing at F5.6. It's big issue is that as the sun starts going down, that F5.6 really hurts.

There's another issue with the 80-400G that might or might not matter -- I don't feel comfortable using it in rain. The 70-200 is not an issue, my first one was soaked regularly and 8 years later it still worked great when I got a new version (to get a sharper 200mm end). The 80-400G I put away if it starts raining, that big pumping bellows just can't be good in wet. And it just doesn't feel as rugged -- mine has already gone back once in about 2 years (covered under warrant) - only lens I ever had to send back for repair.

Last fall I covered the State HS Cross Country championships...In the rain. Not a downpour, just a light rain (all day) but enough to get things kinda wild. I have not seen any problems with water infiltration, fungus or spots.

Then again I'm not sure I would use a D500 in the rain either.

But the 70-200 is pretty short for soccer. With the crop sensor it's better, with a 1.4tc -- well, not sure, those work better on primes and low res bodies, but maybe. But you will absolutely love the reach of the 400 for soccer, even if you have sideline access,.

Here's what would likely be my deciding factor -- as children get older and older, they play more evening games. Can you get the 80-400, but plan on getting some F2.8 glass in a couple years (probably a 70-200) when the evening games start? If it's either/or, I would be likely to still go for the 70-200. You just can't imagine how much more flexibility the F2.8 will give you over time.

But it's not because of focus speed, it's all about light.

--
Comments welcomed on photos: http://www.captivephotons.com

 

[Donald Chin]

A D4 is 1000 to 1200 more than a new D500

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

D500 is nothing close to D5，definitely not my choice if I'm looking for a sports camera. Used D4 and D4s are much better choice!

 

[Donald Chin]

I would recommend Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It is very sharp and if you want to put a teleconverter on it in the future that is possible. Its construction is solid and weather sealed. Autofocus is top notch. I don't think you can go wrong.

I feel like an f/5.6 zoom will be a disappointment. There is a big difference between 2.8 and 5.6 in terms of light gathering (4x more light) and subject-background separation. For soccer you can wait for the action to get close or change your position on the sidelines. Softball might be tougher in terms of tight shots at 200mm (300mm equivalent), but that's the tradeoff on getting 2.8.

--
Matt
https://500px.com/mqnielsen
https://500px.com/mqnsports

Thanks again to everyone for your helpful comments. I'm definitely going to go with the D500 for the body. For lenses, I just posted a reply in the Nikon forum.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4027769#forum-post-58046210

Basically, the choice is between the multi-purpose, faster, but shorter 70-200/2.8 with and w/out the 1.4x TC (effective 147-420 with TC or 105-300 w/out TC) versus the longer, slower, dedicated sports 80-400/4.5-5.6 lens (120-600 effective FL). My gut tells me to go with the 70-200/2.8 + TC.

If anyone sees anything I'm missing or has any further thoughts, please chime in here or over on the Nikon thread.

Thanks again!

Steve

If you insist to go with APS-C for sports, a 70~200/2.8 is the only choice unless you want to use a DSLR to shoot like a super zoom DC. 70~200/2.8 in APS-C is enough for soccer even you're shooting from the spectators stand.

D500 + 70~200/2.8 VRII

D500 + 80~400/5.6 should give you more or less like this.

--
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin

P.S.

If D500 is capable to replace D4/D4s for sports, I would not have to keep a D4s to accompany the D5. Yes, D500 is by far the best APS-C DSLR, but that doesn't mean it can compete with Dx type DSLR in the field. The 10.8v powered Dx type can drive the lens much faster than 7v D500.

 

[carcour]

I was looking at KEH.com prices. I don't trust buying something as expensive from someone unless i know him where it's a reputable company.

Loading…

www.keh.com

A D4 is 1000 to 1200 more than a new D500

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

D500 is nothing close to D5，definitely not my choice if I'm looking for a sports camera. Used D4 and D4s are much better choice!

 

[Donald Chin]

I was looking at KEH.com prices. I don't trust buying something as expensive from someone unless i know him where it's a reputable company.

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-d4-16-2-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only.html

A D4 is 1000 to 1200 more than a new D500

Lots of good opinions here ....

I don't have a D500-- but I have a D5 which has the same AFS. As much as I love the D4/D4S, the new AFS is really a game changer. As you will see from other posts people report as much as a 30% improvement on in-focus "keepers." That's significant.

I have some big glass options, but if I were shooting my daughter's HS soccer and building an outstanding but non-pro kit , I'd go with a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 (x 1.6 crop factor effective focal length 112-320).

D500 is nothing close to D5，definitely not my choice if I'm looking for a sports camera. Used D4 and D4s are much better choice!

 

[beagle1]

If you go the route of D500, I think that the 80-400 4.5-5.6 would be the ticket for large field sports in daylight. You can get your ticket punched for under 4500$US. I have found that the 80-400 in good light on the D5 is fast enough for the large majority of shots. From ~80m

Great sequence! Have you used both setups? 80-400 vs 70-200+1.4TC? Just wondering if the 80-400 focuses as fast as the 70-200 combo.

Thanks,

Steve

$4,500 in camera gear for large field daylight sports ? ... crazy