Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 70-300VR for Sports? Alternatives?

Go to last post
Reybabes

Reybabes

Senior Member
Messages
1,837
Solutions
1
Reaction score
416
Location
Boston, MA, US
My son, a budding photographer in high school, has been asked if he is interested in replacing the roughly 30 poster sized sports photos that line a hallway in his school. They are various action shots of all of the sports at the school, but they were taken in the 70s and 80s and look dated. The school specifically wants them taken by a student, not a pro... and my son has been an active photographer at the school and so he has first dibs.

But, here's the thing. He has a D40 and I have a D300s. I told him I'll let him take my body. I shoot mostly landscapes and stills and haven't shot action in probably 10 years. My lens kit favors uw zooms and fast short zooms. Also have a few shorter primes.

I'd love the Nikon 70-200VR but it's too expensive for this project... which will need to take place over almost an entire school year (balance of this year and into next) to capture all major sports. The Sigma and Tamron are worth looking at, but because of price and eventually likely value to both of us, I'm thinking about the 70-300VR. I know it's slower, but with good high ISO capabilities of today's cameras, wonder if it will do. Not sure how the higher noise will translate to poster sized shots so I assume some noise mgm't will be necessary.

Some pics will be taken in good light (baseball) but this project will include basketball, swim team, hockey... and places with more tricky lighting.

Any suggestions? Advice?

Thanks,

Rey
--
The best things in life aren't things...
Images: http://www.reyspadoni.com
Words: http://www.vnaceo.com
 
I have a D700 that has a bit better high ISO handling than the D300s but I still found that the 70-300VR was not sufficient for shooting sports in a not so well-lit gym. Using the 70-200VR in those situations worked a lot better.

An alternative could be the Nikon 85/1.8. It has slow AF but with a bit of practice that shouldn't be a problem.

--
Kees

For a collection of photos see http://www.halfje-bruin.nl/photos/
 
I'd want a fast lens to keep shutter speeds high and also for narrow D-oF (i.e. subject isolation). Fast focus is also important so I'd like AFS or similar.

You've discounted the lens I actually use (70~200) based on price, but I'd highly recommend the one I replaced which was a Sigma 70~200mm f2.8 HSM. You could get the early version (which I had) for a bargain price used. It also takes a Sigma 1.4x t.c. very well.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
Having fast glass is important for sports. The 70-300 is just too slow.

An alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 is the 80-200 f/2.8. On a DX body, it's an excellent sports lens for less than 1/2 the cost of the 70-200. You could sell it for 80-90% after the project. This is a great lens for baseball, football, soccer.

For indoor sports, the light is even tougher. I've been using the 85mm f/1.8 for basketball with great results. I typically shoot at f/2-ish and ISO 1600-2500 to get the shutter I need.

Another lens to have (mounted on the D40) would be the 35mm f/1.8. When the action get's up close, the 80-200 and 85mm are a bit long, so it would be nice to grab a second body with a wider lens.

If I had to pick 1 lens it would be the 80-200. If that's too expensive, the 85mm is quite versatile.
--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com
 
I'd forgotten about the Sigma 70-200. A good copy of this lens will do a nice job as a sports lens. It's not quite as sharp as the Nikons but it's still a good lens. I'd considered it myself be decided it was worth $300 to get the sharper Nikon 80-200.

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com
 
The 70-300VR should be fine for most sports. For the others consider renting a lens. Even at $70/week, the 70-200 VRI rental is a steal, if it's only needed for 5-6 weeks altogether.
 
Beat all around 70-200 VRI about 1400 used

Best bargin non OEM lens Sigma 70-200 HSM. For sport the VR isn't really required and the Sigma has decent IQ with good focus speed. about 800 new, maybe 650 to 700 used.

The 70-300 is okay only for the brightest outdoors.
 
Reybabes said:
My son, a budding photographer in high school, has been asked if he is interested in replacing the roughly 30 poster sized sports photos that line a hallway in his school. They are various action shots of all of the sports at the school, but they were taken in the 70s and 80s and look dated. The school specifically wants them taken by a student, not a pro... and my son has been an active photographer at the school and so he has first dibs.

But, here's the thing. He has a D40 and I have a D300s. I told him I'll let him take my body. I shoot mostly landscapes and stills and haven't shot action in probably 10 years. My lens kit favors uw zooms and fast short zooms. Also have a few shorter primes.

I'd love the Nikon 70-200VR but it's too expensive for this project... which will need to take place over almost an entire school year (balance of this year and into next) to capture all major sports. The Sigma and Tamron are worth looking at, but because of price and eventually likely value to both of us, I'm thinking about the 70-300VR. I know it's slower, but with good high ISO capabilities of today's cameras, wonder if it will do. Not sure how the higher noise will translate to poster sized shots so I assume some noise mgm't will be necessary.

Some pics will be taken in good light (baseball) but this project will include basketball, swim team, hockey... and places with more tricky lighting.

Any suggestions? Advice?

Thanks,

Rey
Click to expand...
I use a 70-300VR on a D80 for soccer, baseball and ice rink sports. It is fine for the first two in daytime. However, for your typical local ice rink (low, uneven lighting) it is only good for small photos. f4.5 -5.6 means ISO 1600 in these rinks to have shutter speeds faster than 1/200s. Noise at this ISO is too high even after noise reduction programs (ie Noise Ninja or NoiseWare) for poster size. I have not used a D300s, but I have not seen anything on the internet to suggest that it is sufficiently better at handling noise than the D80 in raw format to allow ISO 1600.

And the lens often can not focus fast enough to keep up with the action on the rink, so lots of missed shots.

If poster means 20" x 30" (or bigger), my experience would say that the 70-300 on a DX body would not be able to produce a high enough quality print of indoor action sports, unless these shots were staged with the athletes posing in action stances so that you could use much slower shutter speeds to allow much lower ISOs.

Renting a 70-200 (and a D700) might be the way to go for poster size hockey shots.
 
The D90 and D300 have 2/3 to 1 stop better ISO performance than the D80. It does make a difference. I can get usable shots at and even above ISO 1600. Take a look at my basketball pictures. ( http://rodephoto.com/Sports/Basketball ) These were shot at ISO-1600-2500 and then batch processed for noise reduction and sharpness. With some personal attention, they could be further improved. I've shot BB for a couple of years but really learned alot this year. I hope you Son has fun and gets some great shots. Here's some tips.

1) Do not under expose to keep the ISO down. It will backfire. It's better to be slightly bright than slightly dark.
2) A fast aperture of f/2 - f/2.8 is critical for indoor sports.

3) In general, you want 1/500 or faster for a shutter speed. I'll cheat down to 1/400 sometimes for slower action or if I can pan along the direction of the action.

4) Look at Dfine, Topaz and Noise Ninja to clean up the noise. I found Dfine 2.0 to be very fast and gave good results with default settings. Topaz Denoise give me the best results but is slow. Noise Ninja is decent but nothing not as good as Dfine or Topaz. If you use Lightroom, LR3 looks like it will have much improved noise reduction.

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com
 
Best solution for this project is simple....

Buy a used 70-200 VR....but wait until you get a good price...use it for the entire year.....and then sell it in eBay. The net cost could be 100-200 or you could even gain $100-200 !! Of course you have to invest and risk some money in the project....would be better if the school can provide the money.....
 
For things like baseball, soccer, and track and field, a 70-300mm should be fine. However, there are a couple of threads I've come across that begin: "I've been using the 70-300mm for my child's [sport] photography, but when the games are [indoor / at night], I can't get the shutter speeds I need..."

Search for these threads, usually relating to "high school football," "indoor volleyball," or "basketball."

The Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 is often recommended as a budget lens with exceptional low-light performance and a creamy bokeh. It's limited in length to just 150mm, but it would be perfect for individual and team portraits, and at $750, it might be enough of a discount over an 80-200 to make it affordable.
 
Like others have said, the 70-300VR would work for outdoor sports in good lighting, but not indoor sports. Unfortunately, this "gig" for your son is going to cost a whole lot more money for a decent lens. ;)
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

 
I think I was a bit hysterical when I said the Sigma 50-150 had "exceptional" low light performance. Many users have praised the lens, particularly the bokeh, but when compared to the Nikon 70-200 lenses, the blur charts at slrgear.com show the Nikons' sharpness to be far superior. It appears to be a "get what you pay for" trade-off, but at the Sigma's more modest price, you could have a serviceable, if lovely, lens.
 
DRode said:
An alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 is the 80-200 f/2.8. On a DX body, it's an excellent sports lens for less than 1/2 the cost of the 70-200. You could sell it for 80-90% after the project. This is a great lens for baseball, football, soccer.
Click to expand...
Seems as though many are recommending the 80-400. Still pretty expensive ($1100)... hoping to spend less.

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Images: http://www.reyspadoni.com
Words: http://www.vnaceo.com
 
gnius said:
The 70-300VR should be fine for most sports. For the others consider renting a lens. Even at $70/week, the 70-200 VRI rental is a steal, if it's only needed for 5-6 weeks altogether.
Click to expand...
Great suggestion, but I think the project is going to extend beyond 5-6 weeks to capture all sports, including the Fall sports later this year. Still though... this may prove cost effective...

Thanks.
--
The best things in life aren't things...
Images: http://www.reyspadoni.com
Words: http://www.vnaceo.com
 
Ignacio A Rodriguez said:
Best solution for this project is simple....

Buy a used 70-200 VR....but wait until you get a good price...use it for the entire year.....and then sell it in eBay. The net cost could be 100-200 or you could even gain $100-200 !! Of course you have to invest and risk some money in the project....would be better if the school can provide the money.....
Click to expand...
I think you're on to something here. I just looked through the usual sites and don't see anything at the price level you quote, but I'll keep looking. My son just informed me that the first phase of the project is kicking off this Friday. Volleyball. I guess he's on. Got to get him the glass and fast.

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Images: http://www.reyspadoni.com
Words: http://www.vnaceo.com
 
The Noob said:
I think I was a bit hysterical when I said the Sigma 50-150 had "exceptional" low light performance. Many users have praised the lens, particularly the bokeh, but when compared to the Nikon 70-200 lenses, the blur charts at slrgear.com show the Nikons' sharpness to be far superior. It appears to be a "get what you pay for" trade-off, but at the Sigma's more modest price, you could have a serviceable, if lovely, lens.
Click to expand...
I thought about that lens, but some suggest that for a bit more, the Sigma 70-200 is a better lens. Anybody know when the OS version will be out?
--
The best things in life aren't things...
Images: http://www.reyspadoni.com
Words: http://www.vnaceo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top