Newbie needs lens for daughter's soccer games for D50

the 80-200 2.8 D is outstanding. hands down the best lens you will get for the money. It is an older design and not the fastest focuser, but a delightful lens equal optically or superior to the 70-200 2.8.

the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is an outstanding value, near your price point.

the rest of the super zooms, w/o a fixed 2.8 are, in my mind, garbage. they are great shut down, but they start out so slow it kills shutter speed in the end.

spend the extra $200 now and buy a lens you can always use. it may be push-pull and slow focus but it will not let you down and will be part of your system. the other options will be replaced, if you stay with photography.

I'm not in a place where I can check the exact naming, but make sure it is a two-ring version of the 80-200 f/2.8; the two ring version has a built-in tripod collar, which is very, very important. The single ring push-pull lens is nice for hand-holding, but most people can't comfortably hand-hold such a large lens, at least for very long. You will need a monopod attached to the tripod collar on the lens for best results.

Doug

Catdaddy777 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but is this the correct one....
Nikon 80-200 2.8 Ed Af 77

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the excellent input. It seems that the best choices all are large, heavy lenses with large price tags too.

Being a complete newbie at all this, which one of these lenses is easiest for a new guy to actually use succesfully?

I agree with other posters that a 70/80-200 2.8 zoom is a good way to spend your money. They are big and heavy but they will let you use fast shutter speeds, and so make it easier to make a good picture compared to the cheaper lenses with smaller apperatures. I also think heavy lenses are easier to hold still, again good for taking sharp pictures.

Having said that, dont overlook the tokina 80-200 f2.8. It doesnt get mentioned on this forum so much, but you can find used copies for quite a bit less than the nikon equiv lens. I have one and can tell you that for picture quality it is quite amazing. On top of that, the lens seems to be moulded out of solid steel so I doubt it will ever break.

Before the tokina I had only used cheap and slow telezooms and was never very happy with the results. Therefore never used them very much. Now that I have the tokina I dont leave home without it!

For samples have a look on pbase

Stevie

This is a nice lens that Nikon still should be making. Not small but not too heavy, metal construction. Look at it theis way if you are shooting in full day light you have f8 at 1/1000 at ISO 200. From what you have said this is kids soccer not high school or college. The movement just isn't that fast. With a constant f4 you have this lens in its sweet point. Don't pay much more than $300 for the lens it is an old time AF lens, that is a realistic price too. I got one for $185. If you can find an 80-200 f2.8 dual ring for $5-600 for it's a bargain, get it, But if you are uncomfortable about pushing your budget look at the f4 version.

Tom

I bought a D50 for high school football in Michigan a few of months ago. It gets very dark with our games starting at 7PM. I lurked these posts for weeks and gleaned that I would need a fast lenses(2.8) which will cost you. You also pay the price of big and heavy if you want want to get the shots that are SO important. I settled on the 80-200 2.8 1 ring or push/pull. The one ring is cheaper for the reasons stated by earlier posts.

I work the sideline so my Wife takes the shoots way up in the stands and they turn out great early and late(dark) in the game. The Nikon 80-200 2.8 is smoking fast and the images are great. I ebayed a mint copy for about $500. It was worth every penny. Don't fool around with a cheap
lense if you shoot action or poor lighting.

nothing....

-Suntan

I'll second that recommendation. This is a nice lens. Like I said in an earlier post, I use the 100-300 for soccer and I really like it. It STILL doesn't have enough reach for me, though. That's one of the reasons I purchased a 1.4 extender recently. I really think this combo is going to be super for soccer. I like to get real tight shots of the player will the ball, hopefully in conflict with an opposing player. This combo will allow me to do that almost on the whole field.

I also will have a 2nd body with a shorter lens to cover when they get too close to me. Can't wait to hit the soccer field!

I don't think you said what level soccer you will cover. I cover intermediate through varsity high school. Fields are pretty much full size. But, even if you are covering younger kids with smaller fields, it won't be long before you'll be on a big field.

So, please take a look at this lens. I know it's more than you want to spend but it's a great soccer lens and you'll thank me later.

later, Al
--
Al Linsky
Proud FCAS Member, Sports Photography

D200, D70 (currently not working but should be back any day), 18-70mm AF-S, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM, Sigma 100-300 4.0 HSM, Sigma TC 1.4, Nikkor 135mm 2.0 AIS

I'm in the same boat. Pretty much decided on the D50. It will be my first dslr. My Panny FZ30 just ain't cuttin' it anymore. Ready to spend a few bucks on a lens.

However, can someone please specifically address the quickness of focus issue for the D50 and 80-200 2.8D? To be even more specific, I'm talking about the motor size of the D50 for driving the lens (I'm sure this has been addressed, but I could not find).

Also, if bought new, does this lens come with a good user's manual/guide?

Regards,
RangerJoe

Isn't this lens focusing too slow for sports?
--
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live.

I can't address the issue of the speed when focusing on a D50, but I can comment that from my experience the "manuals" that come with Nikon lenses are rather sparse. They're not going to teach you much about photography.
--
--Bob

70-200 with 1.4TC. Costs a bit, but image quality is soooo nice. My son's football game today:

I have both the 70-200VR (1500$) and the new 105VR (830$). The 105 is fast becoming indespensible for me. The 70-200 is staying home more. I can imagine that the 105 wouldn't be perfect for kid's sports. If you buy pro glass, it'll be with you a long time. Bodies come and go.

I posted some snapshots with the 105 a little while back if you are interested.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=20067555

--
Mike Danahy
'In the land of the blind...the one-eyed man is king.'

I shoot soccer, football and baseball, all with excellent results from the older 80-200 2.8 push-pull. No it isn't perfect, but for the original poster i think the title was NEWBIE. You can pick up that older push pull on eBay for less than $500. I'd look at a seller called shutterblade. I have purchased from them with no issues on any equip. See some samples of the 80-200 2.8 push pull at my site agileimages.com

good luck soccer mom.

--
Nikon D200
Nikon D100
Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 HSM
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ED Push-Pull
Tokina 12-24 f4
Nikon 18-70 AFS DG EX
Nikon 85 f1.8 D

You Pay for What You Get - DMB

At the last minute the other day, I took my D50 and 70-200VR to a soccer game of my daughters friends, and it was a great tool. Yes, more than you want to spend, but it did the job. Fast focus, hand held, and able to reach out across the field a bit too. Took over a thousand shots that day, and I'd say near 85% are keepers with only the odd shot out of focus. Have taken my Tamron 70-300 to games, but it did not touch the performance of the VR lens. I was warned early on to save up for such a lens VS. buying some of the other lenses I bought, but I didn't listen! They'll be ebay bound soon, I'm sure!
--
Have a great day shooting...Kevin.