I have a d5000 camera and I'm interested in a 7-200mm lens to shoot sports photos. Will this lens work with my camera?
70-200 mm lens
(20 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
If you mean the AF-S version then yes.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, the AF-d and older lenses are all 80-200, and even the AF-s is still a 80-200. Any of the 70-200 lenses (which all have VR as well as AF-s) will work perfectly fine on the D5000.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Assuming you mean the Nikon ones...yes. I do think there are a couple of third party ones that will not autofocus, but would still work if you wanted to manually focus.
Posted 1 year ago # -
you will most likely find it's not long enough to make you happy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the newer third party ones all have the focus motor built in, tcole1983. I can definitely speak for the tamron 70-200 2.8. It was never released without the focus motor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I think the newer third party ones all have the focus motor built in, tcole1983. I can definitely speak for the tamron 70-200 2.8. It was never released without the focus motor.I didn't really look. I just thought some of the older model lenses might not. I also thought if the OP was asking about compatibility to warn them it is possible a lens might not autofocus on the D5000...those with the D90 up don't really have to worry ever. It looks like you are right though...I didn't see any 70-200 F2.8's that don't have the built in motor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
-
okay ghostriders 105 - 300mm
nikon released this one and it slipped past me.
remember he said he wants to shoot sports, therefore, the 70-200 F2.8
70-200 will give him framing capabilities
and f2.8 speed for the sports
boo
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't know how you guys shoot. but I know the my 300 2.8 isn't long enough for me for field sports, even on my D300s.
Posted 1 year ago # -
schmidtty said:
I have a d5000 camera and I'm interested in a 70-200mm lens to shoot sports photos. Will this lens work with my camera?I own the 70-200mm lens. I think Gareth is right, although if you add one of Nikon's teleconverters, the 70-200mm might have sufficient reach with your FX camera. You should either borrow or rent a copy of the lens to see if it serves your needs before you go out and purchase one. It depends somewhat on the sports you want to shoot, whether you are aiming for closeups, how close you can physically get to the action, etc., but chances are you will want a longer lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
I don't know how you guys shoot. but I know the my 300 2.8 isn't long enough for me for field sports, even on my D300s.I use my 70-200 2,8 VR with a TC 1,4 which gives me 420mm in the tele position works fine. Anything longer will be a problem for hand held shots I believe…
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use my N70-200/vr with TC17 and have no problems with handholding. nice combo, cheap alternative to longer lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, shooting sports is definitely not a who has the longest tele game. If you are shooting from the sidelines or from the audience then you need huge focal lengths. If you are actually shooting at the field and your pick of the day is long jump and you are situated in front of the pitch, well, then 50 might be too long for you. To get a good shot from a steeplechase you definitely need a wide to get those jumps from low angle against the sky. I would say that 70-200 on FX is a nice starting point and on dx you need something along 20 to 50 to complement it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@gareth - I know that 300mm isn't the ultimate focal length for over-the-field shots, but I know lot's of photos using this combo with decent results. maybe this time is not the lens but the technique that needs to be upgraded. please don't take it personal, but 450mm (with dx crop) is a lot. please consider using a TC. with 1.4 You gonna have 630mm effective on dx and 765mm with tc17 and that's more than enough for field sports.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
you will most likely find it's not long enough to make you happy..
Garethplease note this is a family oriented forum, keep it clean.
smile
I understand what you are saying, however, instead of trying to cover the whole field, I position myself where I think the action would be and use the focal length I have to cover just that area.
boo
Posted 1 year ago # -
O.O
On a more serious note, what kind of sports? A 70-200mm will have the equiv of 105-300mm which is a great focal length for field sports. Some prefer longer like the 80-400mm, 200-400mm, or a tele-prime. Most (including myself) prefer the fast 2.8 as it allows for a faster shutter speed...
I am a sports photographer but I mainly shoot motorsports. While I sometimes use my 300mm f2.8 I find it to be too long for most of my shooting. In fact while I always have it with me, my 80-200mm gets little use too. What I mainly use is an 10.5mm f2.8, 14-24mm, 17-35mm, and a 18-70mm... so I shoot wide and do very little if any cropping.
Really any sport has a specific lens but the 70-200mm (or 80-200mm) has to be one of the most universal lenses as it works for every sport and because the 70-200mm is AF-s it will autofocus fine on your camera...
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon
those 70-200s are nice, but so expensive, $2500, ouch
unless you make a living out of your photography.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I only have the tc-20eIII, and i think that would be too long, and no good at F8., i imagine with a lesser Tc it would be fine.
i love my 300 2.8 for many other things, like the horribly lit wedding I shot on saturday with my d700, i bet the canon shooters with their 70-200 and 7D's wished they had my setup.
I am about to trade my 70-200 for the 14-24 or 24 1.4. so if you are in new zealand and are want a trade let me know.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
