I am looking for a great zoom lens for my nikon D80, primarily for taking sports photos, specifically my sons football games.
I currently have the nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6 af d lens. While the focal length is great, I am hoping to capture crisper photos, as well as more frames per second using a faster lens (larger aperture, faster focus, more fps?).
I currently have my eyes on two lenses,
the Nikkor Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) - Black which is TOO EXPENSIVE ($1600),
and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens for Nikon, WHICH HAS A PRICE WHICH IS EXPENSIVE ($900)BUT SEEMS APPROPRIATE.
I have looked for reviews on the sigma, as the nikkor is out of my budget at this time.
While I do enjoy my current zoom which goes to 300mm and at times do zoom in on the action with that focal length I assume that getting better glass (the sigma) and shooting at higher speeds, will give me sharper photos and let me crop my pics, to make up for the shorter focal length (200mm) and give me the better pics I am looking for.
BUT according to the pop photo reviews, the SQF drops off going from 135mm to 200mm, so maybe this lens is a waste of money and not a useful addition considering the nikkor I already have.
Anyone have opinions on the lenses, recommendations for what they think is the best focal length for shooting kids football games, walking and shooting right from the sidelines. Should I look at some other lenses? Are there other sites which review lenses, i.e. do tests on the lenses with quantitative test results and maybe comparisons, rather than just subjective comparisons?
Thanks for reading and any help members can offer.
sorry, wanted to add this one in the mix.
Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar
versus the sigma noted above.
overly concerned by the loss of sharpness at 200mm for the sigma, according to pop photo.
I have read some professional reviews that critique the non nikon lenses as not being as top quality.
I do note the sigma has the HSM motor, which I understand is basically an AF-S type lens, and should thus be faster focusing when taking burst photos of sports, kids football. The nikon is and AF-D, is this a big negative? I would certainly trade 1-2 super sharp photos, for 2-4 soft photos taken by a faster (but soft) focusing lens.
The FPS is a function of the camera, not the speed of the lens, though you may increase the focusing speed by using just the center focus spot. You might try changing from single to continuous focus or continuus focus to single, whichever is the reverse of what you are doing now.A "crisper" image can be had by increasing the shutter speed, 1/500 sec for the 300 mm lens, and holding the camera properly, if you are not already. Is a monopod possible?If the 300 mm works for the distance, you may be disappointed with a 200 mm.
thanks for the input ronk.
i have noted your suggestions on other persons posts.
the reason i bring up the fps in burst is that I have read posts where people say the internal motor of an afs lens makes them MUCH faster than relying on the camera's focusing motor for an af d lens, and this time will play a part in the fps rate. do you disagree with this?
i dont really know, its just what i have read
and i am amazed at how much of a play transpires during a burst of photos, e.g. catching a pass.
you are probably right that i should restrict myself to shooting at only 200mm with my current lens before making that kind of investment.
one thought i have had was that the tradeoff of improved glass will allow me to enlarge the photo and crop it to where i want it, rather than zooming in more at the time of the photo and not having to crop as much of the photo at home on the computer. any thoughts on that part? do you think that is a losing tradeoff for the classes of these lenses? i.e. 200mm and crop at home with presumably better glass and faster lens.
versus 300mm and minimal crop at home.