Nikon D40 - good lens for soccer games (novice user)?

I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D40 and wanted to get a lens to take action shots at soccer games for my daughter. Would the new 55-200mm VR suffice? I would be pretty close to the field, normally right on the sideline.

What is the lighting like? The 55-200vr is a pretty slow lens even wide open. If your always in sunlight, the lens should work just fine. I would also suggest the 70-300VR if your in sunlight. Also remember that VR will not help you freeze a subject, rather it only eliminates camera shake.

If your usually shooting indoors or when it's darker, you may have to get a faster lens such as the 70-200VR f2.8, but it is 3-4 times the cost of the other ones. Another option would be a new/used 80-200 f2.8 - it doesn't have VR but it is a very fast lens for lower light, and is cheaper than the 70-200.

I hope that helps you a bit, I'm sure you will get plenty of other useful feedback.

Mark

indeed!
or the 70-300mm vr for that extra reach.
one can never have enough reach.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin
the Photo Muse: http://kevin-theron.blogspot.com/

Sigma 70-200 would also be a great 2.8 choice. I have shot kids soccer with this and the results were noticeably better than the consumer 5.6 lenses that I previously used.
--
Apolooza
apolooza.smugmug.com

When I first got my camera I tried shooting a soccer game with my 18-200 VR. I was/am still learning the camera and lens so I'm sure I can improve.

What I noticed, however, is that it would have been nice to have a faster lens (the 18-200, like many consumer lenses, only opens to f/5.6 at the long side). The skies were overcast (typical Seattle-area weather). I needed fast shutter speeds but sometimes had to either really crank up the ISO or use a slower speed.

I was also standing on the sideline and found that most of my shots were from 70mm to 200mm. Sometimes I could have used more reach, however.

Thus, I think the 55-200 VR is a good cheap way for you to do it if it's sunny.

A 70-300 VR is more expensive (about twice the price) but would give you greater reach and possibly better image quality. It'd still be best for sunny days, though.

I would have recommended the $150 Tamron 70-300, as it is a good lens for the low price. However, it's focusing speed won't handle soccer.

More "ideal" alternatives include various "pro glass" lenses where you get f/2.8. They are expensive and heavy. There's the $800+ Nikon 80-200 (non-VR), the $1,600 Nikon 70-200 VR (way out of a budget range if we're discussing the 55-200 VR, however). As well as various third-party (e.g. Sigma) 2.8's.

I have a D50 and a Tamron 28-200mm. I used it before for my daughter's soccer game and have a few comments:

1. Lighting was rarely an issue for me since my daughter plays outdoors. If I ddin't have the speed, I just crank up the ISO to 1600. I know I will not make professional looking poster size images out of my daughter's soccer games, so ISO 1600 in daylight is plenty for me.

2. I found 200mm sometimes not sufficient if the players are out in the other corner of the soccer field. Even 300mm might not be sufficient. So, you either have to wait until your daugther and other players get close to the sideline and snap the shots that way.

3. With longer zoom, your field of view would be narrower and it'd be difficult to shoot on target since the players would move very fast out of the view. You just need to practice, practice, and more practice.

Finally, I would not personally base on my purchase decision on just the soccer game only. If you are also into shooting wildlife, zoo, candid, etc., maybe it would make sense to get the 70-300mm VR, about twice the cost of 55-200mm VR. Again, personally I found for a regular user of a DSLR as I am, I eventually would settle to a lens of, say, 18-70mm (US$250 online) or 18-135mm to give me a good general purpose walkaround lens, and would hardly use the longer zoom unless for special occasions.

For reference, this is a pic I took on the Mall in Washington, DC with my Tamron 28-200mm:



--
Harry

The 55-200 VR would be a start for the soccer game, but I'd much rather have a faster lens wide open than VR. One thing that isn't fun about faster telephotos is they are expensive. The 70-200 VR is 1.5K, and even used the still very good 80-200 would run at least 700 or 800.

For a zoom on a budget, that 50-200 VR will be ok, but I'd actually suggest looking into primes as a more novel, budget solution. More specifically, what about the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 paired together? If you are close enough to the action 85mm might be enough (though probably wider than ideal). It's true and annoying you really won't be able to jump back and forth to adapt to how close the action is and you might have to switch lenses on a whim. That said, optically both are very good performers nearly wide open and perhaps most importantly, both lenses could actually serve use outside world of soccer (for low light, portraiture). It would cost about $500 for the duo.

Nick
http://www.ashotapart.com/ - photoblogging nyc and beyond

I have taken many pictures of soccer outdoors with the Nikon 55-200 lens (the non VR version). It is adequate in bright light but not exciting; and focusing becomes challenging in poor light. For a variety of reasons I moved up to a Nikon 70-300VR. Though it is not technically faster, it appears sharper and focuses faster. The shot below is about what you might expect from the 55-200; if you want you can check out more pictures on my smugmug site using the lens.

Good Luck,

Mike

NickInFocus said:

For a zoom on a budget, that 50-200 VR will be ok, but I'd actually
suggest looking into primes as a more novel, budget solution. More
specifically, what about the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8
paired together?

Click to expand...

Why would you recommend lenses that have to be manually focused for use at a soccer game?

Steve82 said:

NickInFocus said:

For a zoom on a budget, that 50-200 VR will be ok, but I'd actually
suggest looking into primes as a more novel, budget solution. More
specifically, what about the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8
paired together?

Click to expand...

Why would you recommend lenses that have to be manually focused for
use at a soccer game?

Click to expand...

Actually, that's a good point. The OP has a D40 so the non AF-S lenses aren't good for shooting a soccer game.

Unfortunately, that also rules out the $800+ 80-200 2.8 I mentioned previously, which while heavy, would take great soccer photos in varying light conditions.

If we keep it to Nikon AF-S lens (that auto-focus on the D40), it sounds like the options for the OP are:

1) 55-200 VR, $250. Works better on sunny days.

2) 70-300 VR, $480. More range, probably better optical quality, still works better on sunny days.

3) 18-200 VR, $750 (if you can find it at that price). Still works better on sunny days, more of an "all-around lens" and it's not better optically than the 70-300 VR and has less range (not sure how its optics compare to the 55-200 VR).

4) 70-200 2.8 VR, $1,580. Works on sunny days, cloudy days, etc. Pricey, heavy, awesome lens.

5) 105 2.8 Micro VR, $800. A macro lens used as a prime lens. No zooming.

Then there are 3rd-party lenses that need the focus motor, e.g. the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which is about $850.

I don't know the OP's budget, but I suspect it'll be one of the first two.

Since this would be my first DSLR and I'm not an avid photographer (I more of a videographer), I wasn't planning on spending a bundle. I would entertain the 55-200mm VR or the 70-300mm VR. Is there a big difference between the two?

Also, would the 55-200mm VR be better suited if I plan to use it on travel, not for sporting events?

I think you've narrowed it down to 2 lenses - 55-200 VR or 70-300 VR, both autofocus on D40 so no problem there. Thhe range issue si obvious - for the most part the 55-200 will work - I'd prefer the 70-300 for soccer and the extra reach BUT - It is a lot bigger and heavier 14 oz heavier and almost 2 inches longer so you may not want to lug it around when travelling - or maybe you would. If there's any way possible try going ot a shop and checking them out to get a feel for the size difference and try shooting something outside the store at maximum soccer field range - 50-60 yards . . The 55-200 is also a lot cheaper - It's a tough decision, but reading between the lines, I think the 55-200VR will fit your requirements

55-200VR just came out. From what I have read and seen, there IS a difference in image quality between 55-200VR vs. 70-300VR. On the other hand, if the original poster is a novice DSLR person, he might not need the reach or the 70-300VR or take full advantage of the 70-300VR.

It's definitely a good advice to try both at a camera shop first before making the decision on the long range room.

--
Harry

You're correct. I am a novice user and would be new to DSLR. Taking pictures at soccer games would not be my primary focus for having the telephoto lens. I need to take pictures just to add to a website for the team and thought having a few action shots would be nice. For the other times, I would be using the camera for taking pictures while on vacation.

So, I'm leaning towards the 55-200mm VR. Is the image quality of the 55-200mm VR better, same, or worse than the 70-300mm VR? Weight is also an issue for traveling.

There have not been empirical tests comparing the new 55-200 VR with the 70-300 VR. Just samples that people have posted.

You're probably fine with the 55-200 VR but I would expect that you would get better image quality with the 70-300 VR. Nikon did have to cut some corners to make the 55-200 VR so cheap. Most lenses (including the 70-300 VR) start compromising image quality at their extremes. E.g. the longest telephoto setting. the widest aperture. Thus if you take a shot at, say, 185mm, you're likely to get better IQ from the 70-300 VR.

The 70-300 has been very highly rated on this forum. The 55-200VR is fairly new but if you search this forum and the nikon lens forum, you should be able to get a pretty good feel for the IQ of the 55-200VR . The older 55-200 non VR did not seem to get much good press if I remember correctly. I think the VR version has been better received in terms of IQ. Weight is a big factor for me when travelling - I would not want to hang that extra pound (almost) of the 70-300 on my camera for a long time carrying it around or in my bag. although I would crave it for wildlife shots.

Chris

Here's a link to some soccer shots of my 7 and 5 year olds. These were taken with a D4 and the 55-200 NON VR lens.

http://www.timmytva.com , click on "Soccer"

It caught some good shots - the one of my daughter in mid stride, both feet off the ground. Froze her still. She was hustling to get the ball. The one of her kicking the ball, shoe laces frozen still also. It was a nice sunny day so the shutter speed wasn't much of an issue. I also like the two of my son looking up at the son. And the one where he pulled the blue jersey over his face. That's Alex, right there ... tired and exasperated from trying to keep up with the older kids.

I would have bought the VR lens but it came out like 6 weeks after I bought my setup. Oh well, these things happen.

Note: I'm a very beginning SLR shooter so go easy on me. I was also futzing around quite a bit with different modes and settings.

Tim

I tried going to your site but it wasn't available? Is that the correct site name?

Well, I decided to buy the 55-200mm VR from Amazon.com for $244.99 with free shipping. Thanks for all the inputs.

Excellent. Given the price, even you use the 55-200mm VR sporadically, it'd be a nice lens for some special occasions.

Still a reminder. 200mm would not be long enough for a large soccer field, so to catch that "FREEZE ACTION" kind of images, you would want to move around the field and practice to follow the players when they are within reasonable distance.

Also, during daylight, you could safely set the ISO to 800 and still get some very clean images. Honestly, I think ISO 1600 would be plenty good as well during the daylight. That would give you a lot of flexibility to try a 1/500 shutter speed or faster.

Finally, if you could even manage to set the aperture to f7.1-f8.0, 1/500 or faster, and ISO 800 or lower, the affordable 55-200 mm VR might surprise you on the quality of the images.

Good luck.

--
Harry