Tele lens for D3000 for kids' sports

newdiginoz

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
A friend has asked me for some lens recommendations for kids' sports (outdoor I believe, like soccer and such) for their D3000. I'm thinking something used could be good for them and am keeping in mind that the camera maxes out at 3FPS too. I don't know a lot about the Nikon system, so any thoughts and ideas for possible lens options are appreciated!
 
Last edited:
A friend has asked me for some lens recommendations for kids' sports (outdoor I believe, like soccer and such) for their D3000. I'm thinking something used could be good for them and am keeping in mind that the camera maxes out at 3FPS too. I don't know a lot about the Nikon system, so any thoughts and ideas for possible lens options are appreciated!
These suggestions are all used models.

The following used lenses are designed for the APS-C (DX) format of the D3000 (the newer AF-P lenses wont work with D3000)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 ED IF VR (this lens is newer and lighter than the next)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED IF VF

The lens that I used to use in an FX (full frame) lens is below.. It works fine the D3000 and is a bit sharper than the above two lenses. On the DX body you are seeing the best part of the image circle. I also felt it focused a bit faster.

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR.

I found these sufficient for outdoor youth sports (younger than high school) where you can typically get closer to the action.

--
If cameras and lenses can have autofocus then why can't I?
 
Last edited:
A friend has asked me for some lens recommendations for kids' sports (outdoor I believe, like soccer and such) for their D3000. I'm thinking something used could be good for them and am keeping in mind that the camera maxes out at 3FPS too. I don't know a lot about the Nikon system, so any thoughts and ideas for possible lens options are appreciated!
These suggestions are all used models.

The following used lenses are designed for the APS-C (DX) format of the D3000 (the newer AF-P lenses wont work with D3000)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 ED IF VR (this lens is newer and lighter than the next)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED IF VF

The lens that I used to use in an FX (full frame) lens is below.. It works fine the D3000 and is a bit sharper than the above two lenses. On the DX body you are seeing the best part of the image circle. I also felt it focused a bit faster.

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR.

I found these sufficient for outdoor youth sports (younger than high school) where you can typically get closer to the action.
I'd say the AF-S 70-200/4G is an excellent choice for that 'old' camera! Faster and sharper than the AF-S 70-300 f/4-5-5.6 G ED VR that I used to own.

The Sigma 100-400 C is an excellent lens, too, and it should be compatible with the D3000.

The two lenses weigh about one kilogram (the Nikon 850 grams, the Sigma 1,175 grams). Both are delightful!

A good source for used ones is mpb.com, which also gives the buyer a warranty!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab user.
WSSA #456
 
Last edited:
I'd say the AF-S 70-200/4G is an excellent choice for that 'old' camera! Faster and sharper than the AF-S 70-300 f/4-5-5.6 G ED VR that I used to own.
I have not got one but long wanted a 70-200.

I don't like any of the super zoom 18-200/300s nor 70-300s either. I had a Sigma 70-300 once but gave it away virtually unused because I thought so little of it.
 
I may be going against the grain here, but I have had very good luck with a Nikon 55-200 VR II. It has a good focal length spread for sports events at smaller venues, such as school fields and gymnasiums. It's compact and portable, and easily outperforms its very reasonable price.

I don't have any photos from sports in the library anymore, but here are two recent examples of other subjects:

35a5a16fb3d142f58ea26b11885abee8.jpg

0387aaad84f04cc2b5e74f6ffb54422e.jpg
 
Last edited:
A friend has asked me for some lens recommendations for kids' sports (outdoor I believe, like soccer and such) for their D3000. I'm thinking something used could be good for them and am keeping in mind that the camera maxes out at 3FPS too. I don't know a lot about the Nikon system, so any thoughts and ideas for possible lens options are appreciated!
These suggestions are all used models.

The following used lenses are designed for the APS-C (DX) format of the D3000 (the newer AF-P lenses wont work with D3000)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 ED IF VR (this lens is newer and lighter than the next)

Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED IF VF

The lens that I used to use in an FX (full frame) lens is below.. It works fine the D3000 and is a bit sharper than the above two lenses. On the DX body you are seeing the best part of the image circle. I also felt it focused a bit faster.

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR.

I found these sufficient for outdoor youth sports (younger than high school) where you can typically get closer to the action.
I'd say the AF-S 70-200/4G is an excellent choice for that 'old' camera! Faster and sharper than the AF-S 70-300 f/4-5-5.6 G ED VR that I used to own.

The Sigma 100-400 C is an excellent lens, too, and it should be compatible with the D3000.

The two lenses weigh about one kilogram (the Nikon 850 grams, the Sigma 1,175 grams). Both are delightful!

A good source for used ones is mpb.com, which also gives the buyer a warranty!
The 70-200 is definitely a sharper lens, faster (wider aperture), and faster focusing lens, though the latter is somewhat dependent on the camera.

I left it off my list because I found that the focal length was often a bit too short so I needed to crop more with 200mm. That somewhat negated the benefits compared to the 300mm zooms which were sharp enough for social media, email, and small prints (5x7, 4x6), especially on the lower resolution bodies like the 10MP D3000.

I used to photograph youth soccer, baseball, and softball for my in-laws and friends. At the venues they played at by the time they reach about age 10 I really needed 300mm on a DX body and even then I was cropping, especially for baseball but often for soccer too. However when the 24MP bodies came out I did sometimes go back to a 200mm.

I forgot about the Sigma.
 
I may be going against the grain here, but I have had very good luck with a Nikon 55-200 VR II. It has a good focal length spread for sports events at smaller venues, such as school fields and gymnasiums. It's compact and portable, and easily outperforms its very reasonable price.
I used that lens, as well as the first VR version quite a bit for soccer for 5-8 year olds where the fields were smaller and I could stand anywhere on the sidelines or behind the goals. With D40 and D3000.

Ended up getting the 70-300 as the kids got older, the fields increased in size, and/or I had to be farther away. I also moved to a D7100 with it's better focusing system which helped as the kids got bigger and faster.
 
I'd say the AF-S 70-200/4G is an excellent choice for that 'old' camera! Faster and sharper than the AF-S 70-300 f/4-5-5.6 G ED VR that I used to own.
I have not got one but long wanted a 70-200.

I don't like any of the super zoom 18-200/300s nor 70-300s either. I had a Sigma 70-300 once but gave it away virtually unused because I thought so little of it.
The Nikon AF-P 70-300 VR is a great lens (that comes in both DX and FX versions), but years ago I had the Tamron 70-300 VC, a lens that was light, sharp, and cheap, but it was very sensitive to veiling flare. Got rid of it pretty quick!


Overall a decent lens, that Tamron, but far from outstanding. Bit nervous bokeh, as well!

The Nikon 70-200/4G is an outstanding lens, on the other hand.

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab user.
WSSA #456
 
Last edited:
I'd say the AF-S 70-200/4G is an excellent choice for that 'old' camera! Faster and sharper than the AF-S 70-300 f/4-5-5.6 G ED VR that I used to own.
I have not got one but long wanted a 70-200.

I don't like any of the super zoom 18-200/300s nor 70-300s either. I had a Sigma 70-300 once but gave it away virtually unused because I thought so little of it.
The Nikon AF-P 70-300 VR is a great lens (that comes in both DX and FX versions)
Unfortunately, the AF-P lenses won't work with the D3000 identified as the target camera by the OP.
The Nikon 70-200/4G is an outstanding lens, on the other hand.
No disagreement. And can be found in used excellent condition in the USA for < $500
 
#SoCalAngler #Tord #David and #Howard - really appreciate your time, information and experiences with these lenses.

#SoCalAngler - thanks for noticing that incompatibility with the AF-P lenses. I remembered something along those lines but couldn't quite recall it. Quite possibly prevented a pricey mistake there.

They've got some pretty solid options to work with interms of the lenses suggested and eBay seems to have an assortment of each them available here in Australia. As you've pointed out, I think distance from the subject will be a key choice factor for them - I think their son is in mid-late teens so maybe something with longer reach could be better. If they just want to dip their toe in the water and try something out, the 55-200 looks to be had for around the AU$120-ish mark.

Thanks again for your help!
 
Unfortunately, the AF-P lenses won't work with the D3000 identified as the target camera by the OP.
Do they not work at all or do they work partly? I had a D7200 and people were quick to point out that they didn't work with the D7200 when the only problem was no menu option to turn off VR.
 
Unfortunately, the AF-P lenses won't work with the D3000 identified as the target camera by the OP.
Do they not work at all or do they work partly? I had a D7200 and people were quick to point out that they didn't work with the D7200 when the only problem was no menu option to turn off VR.
AF-P lens vs body model compatibility Nikon link .
  • John
-
"[If you don't sweat the details] the magic doesn't work." Brooks, F. P., The Mythical Man-Month, Addison-Wesley, 1975, page 8.
 
I would not have thought that and the chart doesn't elaborate. Works with D3300, doesn't work with D3200.
 
Same here. If the kids involved are not too far away, the 55-200 VR is really good. I’ve used mine for high school and youth football with pleasing results. Small, light, and a sharp lens.
 
Same here. If the kids involved are not too far away, the 55-200 VR is really good. I’ve used mine for high school and youth football with pleasing results. Small, light, and a sharp lens.
And one of the most inexpensive lenses you can buy used considering its performance. There is a VR II version available.
 
Yeah, I think I would go with the 55-200 VR II and call it a day.
 
Same here. If the kids involved are not too far away, the 55-200 VR is really good. I’ve used mine for high school and youth football with pleasing results. Small, light, and a sharp lens.
And one of the most inexpensive lenses you can buy used considering its performance. There is a VR II version available.
Yes indeed. In fact, I’ve actually had both, as well as the old non-VR version. All of them are pretty amazing, given how small and light they are, but given how inexpensive they are, get the VR II. Don’t bother with the others unless it comes free with a camera body.
 
Last edited:
Just to provide one further option, there is the AF-S 55-300mm. It's been a while since I used this lens, so I'd welcome others' opinions about how it compares to the 55-200mm. Personally, I feel like the extra 100mm of reach would make it worth consideration.
 
... AF-S 55-300mm .... Personally, I feel like the extra 100mm of reach would make it worth consideration.
I do not have any experience with this lens at all. However, all zoom lenses are so full of optical compromises that image quality is very often poor at both extreme focal lengths, especially with wide apertures. I imagine (don't know) this lens would not be good in that last 100mm.

Edit: I found a review here:


At 300mm performance looks OK-ish at F8 but not excellent. A bit better at F11.
 
... AF-S 55-300mm .... Personally, I feel like the extra 100mm of reach would make it worth consideration.
I do not have any experience with this lens at all. However, all zoom lenses are so full of optical compromises that image quality is very often poor at both extreme focal lengths, especially with wide apertures. I imagine (don't know) this lens would not be good in that last 100mm.

Edit: I found a review here:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-55-300mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-14570

At 300mm performance looks OK-ish at F8 but not excellent. A bit better at F11.
David, you are exactly right about that last 100mm. I bought the 55-300 for extra reach, while owning the 55-200, which ended up being the sharper lens, less bulky and easier to haul around. The 55-300 got sold.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top