16-80mm for running event?

[adk38]

I have a D7200 and I have used it with the Tokina 70-200 f4 and it's ok. I'm pretty sure I'll get a D500 (very) soon since most of the time I chase eagles, hawks etc. Sometimes I cover extreme runs and I'm sure a D500 will be an improvement there as with the birds and I feel like getting and improvement over the D7200. Not that I don't like it but...

I have a Sigma 18-35 and it's going nowhere but it's too short for the running. I have 85 and 90 mm but they are too slow focusing for action (at least the 85 D is)

Will it make sense to bring the 16-80 for "action" shooting. I know I can use it for many other things. I think it's a nice casual lens. I have excluded the 16-85 and 17-70.

Or will it make sense to get the AF-P DX lenses? Dirt cheap but worth it? I already have a 18-105 and 50mm I never use and would like to limit those I don't use

I think the answer is to get the 16-80... ?

 

[n057]

I have a D7200 and I have used it with the Tokina 70-200 f4 and it's ok. I'm pretty sure I'll get a D500 (very) soon since most of the time I chase eagles, hawks etc. Sometimes I cover extreme runs and I'm sure a D500 will be an improvement there as with the birds and I feel like getting and improvement over the D7200. Not that I don't like it but...

I have a Sigma 18-35 and it's going nowhere but it's too short for the running. I have 85 and 90 mm but they are too slow focusing for action (at least the 85 D is)

Will it make sense to bring the 16-80 for "action" shooting. I know I can use it for many other things. I think it's a nice casual lens. I have excluded the 16-85 and 17-70.

Or will it make sense to get the AF-P DX lenses? Dirt cheap but worth it? I already have a 18-105 and 50mm I never use and would like to limit those I don't use

I think the answer is to get the 16-80... ?

What is wrong with your current setup? Which focal length are you missing?

You already have a 70-200/4. And an 18-105, but that is a variable aperture zoom. So yeah, a 16-80/2.8-4 would make sense.

Remember that the D500 os bundled periodically with the 16-80, maybe you want to wait until the next rebates come around.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[Richard B99]

The 16-80 is a very good lens indeed for DX. As long as f/4 is fast enough for your action needs (i.e. you have enough light not to need a 2.8 or faster). Wider and longer than most alternatives at this quality point and 24-120 equiv is very flexible.

 

[Andrew in Norway]

I have a D500 and a 16-80 lens. I haven't tried it on runners, but I have taken a whole lot of pictures of puppies running around the back yard (we breed Standard Poodles). The D500 holds focus like it is glued on these little critters, even though their movements are totally unpredictable.

The 16-80 is a fantastic "Standard" lens for any Nikon DX camera, but depending on where you can position yourself to take the pictures of these runners it might be a bit short.

 

[adk38]

Thanks all I will still use the 70-200 probably on the D7200 depending on compatibility with D500. It has worked really well with running so far. Still I'm sure the D500 will help a lot with wildlife and "action".

I love the Sigma 18-35 and it's hard to beat in that range and I don't expect the 16-80mm to do that. Yes I'm basically covered from 18-600mm + macro and portrait. The 18-105mm is just too far from the 18-35 in quality. I hope/think the 16-80 will be closer and it does have more range which I miss in the 18-35

The 24-105 and 24-120 are good suggestions too that I will consider

 

[Ruekon]

The 16-80/2.8-4 is an awesome always on lens. But if you like the 18-35/1.8 and want longer focal lengths, did you consider the 50-100/1.8?


She wanted to quickly bypass me, but the D500 with 50-100 were quicker




Not exactly running, but demonstrating shallow DoF

 

[adk38]

The 16-80/2.8-4 is an awesome always on lens. But if you like the 18-35/1.8 and want longer focal lengths, did you consider the 50-100/1.8?


She wanted to quickly bypass me, but the D500 with 50-100 were quicker


Not exactly running, but demonstrating shallow DoF

I forgot that one. Ouch, a little more money than I expected. Decisions decisions :-D

 

[David Lal]

Will it make sense to bring the 16-80 for "action" shooting. I know I can use it for many other things. I think it's a nice casual lens.

The 16-80 is a very nice lens. I don't have one, I do have the older but similar 16-85. I don't know what shots you are intending nor how close you get to the runners but I would not have thought this lens ideal in this scenario. Maybe your 70-200 would be better suited?

 

[adk38]

Will it make sense to bring the 16-80 for "action" shooting. I know I can use it for many other things. I think it's a nice casual lens.

The 16-80 is a very nice lens. I don't have one, I do have the older but similar 16-85. I don't know what shots you are intending nor how close you get to the runners but I would not have thought this lens ideal in this scenario. Maybe your 70-200 would be better suited?

Yes, the 70-200 is the important one

Reason I consider the 16-80 is for walkaround/weight/quality mostly

From reading here I was reminded of the Sigma/Nikon 24-105/120 and think one of those will be my choice since I find 18mm is wide enough. I would love the 50-100 Sigma but think it's bit specialized/limited/expensive even if the quality is fantastic. Still on the fence about that one

 

[Ruekon]

The 50-100/1.8 is about the same price as the 16-80/2.8-4. Clearly, the former is more specialised. It pays off if you shoot indoors as well. The best 70-200/2.8 equivalent you can get for DX in mine.

 

[greenmanphoto]

ADK,

I'd say to get the 16-80 with the lens, even if you DON'T use it for action stuff, as it's simply a great lens with the D500, and would be useful for a LOT of other reasons and purposes. The price is right with the kit, but expensive if you have to buy one later on.

As to your question about suitability of the 16-80 for "extreme running", when I shoot off-road triathlons, mountain bike races, and trail runs (which I do quite a bit) with my D500--my main camera for these events--I use the 16-80 the VAST majority of the time. Here are a few shots from the XTERRA Off-Road Triathlon National Championships, held last year in Waco, TX.
















This was at another race. Believe me, these guys DO NOT ride slowly! This guy is CONSISTENTLY either the winner of his age group, or second place, if another guy shows up. And BOTH of them are DONE before the last person ever gets onto the Run Leg of the Swim-Bike-Run race!

Believe me, it can handle your runners JUST fine if it can handle mountain bikers!

Sam

--
Sam B.
D300, D700, D500, and D850; 16-80mm, 85mm f1.8, 24-85mm, 24-120mm; Sigma 10-20 f3.5, 150mm f2.8 Macro, 17-50mm f2.8; Tamron 70-300mm, 70-200mm f2.8 VC; 24-70mm f2.8 VC G2; Gitzo 2531 Mountaineer tripod; RRS BH-55 ball head; Monostat RS-16 Pro monopod; Various odds and ends.
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 

[brianric]

Will it make sense to bring the 16-80 for "action" shooting. I know I can use it for many other things. I think it's a nice casual lens.

The 16-80 is a very nice lens. I don't have one, I do have the older but similar 16-85. I don't know what shots you are intending nor how close you get to the runners but I would not have thought this lens ideal in this scenario. Maybe your 70-200 would be better suited?

Yes, the 70-200 is the important one

Reason I consider the 16-80 is for walkaround/weight/quality mostly

From reading here I was reminded of the Sigma/Nikon 24-105/120 and think one of those will be my choice since I find 18mm is wide enough. I would love the 50-100 Sigma but think it's bit specialized/limited/expensive even if the quality is fantastic. Still on the fence about that one

Here are some pictures of runners starting a run using Sigma 18-35mm/1.8 and coming back using Sigma 50-100/1.8 on the D500.

https://www.brianric.com/National-P...nal-PTSD-Foundation-Events/2018-Reindeer-Run/

The issue I have with the Sigma combo is the lenses are not weather sealed and the 18-35/1.8 has issues on the outer focus points on the D500.

 

[DBE]

Just out of curiosity, why have you excluded the Sigma 17-70? I've found it to be an excellent walk-around and event lens with my D500. Perhaps renting it along with the 16-80 and testing both at a race event might be worth your time. I would be interested to see the results.

.. Darrell

 

[adk38]

Just out of curiosity, why have you excluded the Sigma 17-70? I've found it to be an excellent walk-around and event lens with my D500. Perhaps renting it along with the 16-80 and testing both at a race event might be worth your time. I would be interested to see the results.

.. Darrell

Thanks. From the lenses I look at they are all quite good performers as is the 17-70. I just have to narrow it down to one and appreciate the inputs. The 17-70 is/was on my list

Yesterday I was on the 24-1xx Nikon /Sigma. Today I'm on the 16-80 and 50-100. Renting unfortunately Isn't an option where I live

Will place an order next week

 

[Steak Face]

I now longer have my D500 (but still sometimes look in here....)

I casually shoot for Park Run and use Sony A73 (full frame) and 85mm f1.4 prime. I usually shoot at f2.8 1/2000 auto ISO and get great results. I also use the crop mode so equv of 127mm on D500, I can easily switch in and out so kind of like a zoom.

A 70-200 2.8 on FF would probably be ideal, or possibly 24-70mm, but I don't own one of those. You'd probably be ok with f4, depending on light and how high an iso you tolerate.

So use that as a guide! Cheers

 

[adk38]

I now longer have my D500 (but still sometimes look in here....)

I casually shoot for Park Run and use Sony A73 (full frame) and 85mm f1.4 prime. I usually shoot at f2.8 1/2000 auto ISO and get great results. I also use the crop mode so equv of 127mm on D500, I can easily switch in and out so kind of like a zoom.

A 70-200 2.8 on FF would probably be ideal, or possibly 24-70mm, but I don't own one of those. You'd probably be ok with f4, depending on light and how high an iso you tolerate.

So use that as a guide! Cheers

Thanks I use crop mode on and off too. The 70-200 f4 will do for most. 16-80 would be great for later use. Sigma 50-100 could be great for more special shots.....

 

[Steak Face]

Believe me, it can handle your runners JUST fine if it can handle mountain bikers!

Sam

It's hard to tell in those images on this pc, but at that shutter speed 1/500 or 1/640, is there much motion blur of the riders? I can see the front wheel is blurred a little but I would have thought at that shutter speed the riders would also be a little blurry?

Cheers

 

[greenmanphoto]

Believe me, it can handle your runners JUST fine if it can handle mountain bikers!

Sam

It's hard to tell in those images on this pc, but at that shutter speed 1/500 or 1/640, is there much motion blur of the riders? I can see the front wheel is blurred a little but I would have thought at that shutter speed the riders would also be a little blurry?

Cheers

SF,

Not typically. A bit of motion blur in the wheels is good, IMHO, as it helps denote there IS movement in the shot. The MAIN things you want to see sharp, anyway, is the face, the nameplate, and the upper body, really. A tad bit of movement in the extremities isn't a deal breaker, for me.

Sam

 

[Steak Face]

Believe me, it can handle your runners JUST fine if it can handle mountain bikers!

Sam

It's hard to tell in those images on this pc, but at that shutter speed 1/500 or 1/640, is there much motion blur of the riders? I can see the front wheel is blurred a little but I would have thought at that shutter speed the riders would also be a little blurry?

Cheers

SF,

Not typically. A bit of motion blur in the wheels is good, IMHO, as it helps denote there IS movement in the shot. The MAIN things you want to see sharp, anyway, is the face, the nameplate, and the upper body, really. A tad bit of movement in the extremities isn't a deal breaker, for me.

Sam

Yeah I agree, about the wheel movement and motion. Your photo's look good.

I was mainly asking as I use 1/2000 for Park Run photos and this would seem quite high compared to 1/500 or 1/640 for mountain bike photos, which you'd think would require faster shutter speeds than running.

So I'm probably using unnecessarily high shutter speed but I also think I settled on 1/2000 as the light is generally good (as I try to get the runners in the morning sun) and I use f2.8, for runner separation, so 1/2000 is probably necessary to avoid overexposure.

 

[adk38]

Pretty pleased with the D500 and 70-200 Tokina. Due to other expenses I decided to just go with the 70-200 and seemed a decent choice. Missed just a few wider shots and didn't need longer. (Missed 5 wide and took 1500)

Question. Coming from D7200 with more MP I wonder why the (NEF) file size increased from ~30MB /D7200 to ~41MB /D500