My wife is a big scrap booker, I purchased the 7000 last year thanks to advice from many of you and it's been AWESOME especially with the low light shots. Now we need a better lens to shoot the kids during their sports. The current standard lens that came with it is ok, but we really haven't been able to get any quality upclose pictures. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. You'all came through last time..
d7000 telephoto lens advice
(78 posts) (19 voices)-
greeper said:
My wife is a big scrap booker, I purchased the 7000 last year thanks to advice from many of you and it's been AWESOME especially with the low light shots. Now we need a better lens to shoot the kids during their sports. The current standard lens that came with it is ok, but we really haven't been able to get any quality upclose pictures. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. You'all came through last time..What is your budget? We need to know what you're willing to spend before we can recommend a proper telephoto.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It depends upon the light you are shooting in, how close the sport allows you to get to them and how active the sport is which determines the minimum shutter speed you need to not get blurred images.
I assume you have a 3.5 to 5.6 variable zoom lens now. Your complaint was not getting "upclose" photos. You didn't complain about the f-stop being too slow to allow for a faster shutter speed to freeze the action. So if all your concerned about is getting closer, the fix is easy.
If you are shooting outdoor sports in good light, where you can get close to them and if you can shoot when they are relatively still the 55-200 DX may work for you. That lens will cost less than $200. I would set my ISO to 800 or 1600 and use this lens. Hopefully, that combination will give you all you want.
But, if you are shooting indoors or a fast moving sport outside and need to use a shutter speed of 1/250th or 1/500th of a second to freeze movement you likely will need a lens which lets more light into the camera so you can use higher shutter speeds. Now you are talking a f/2.8 lens. A 70-200 f/2.8 lens is going to cost you about $2,500. You can see why you want to start with the 55-200 DX and hope that does it for you! A slightly cheaper 2.8 alternative is to go with the older 80-200 2.8 lens. These can be purchased for about $1,200, half the price of the new 70-200.
Another possibility is to use a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens (which will equal 75mm in 35mm size on the D7000), set the image size to large and the JPEG to fine. Then shoot and crop your final image drastically. By putting the maximum number of pixels in the original image you should be able to crop out about 3/4ths and still have a nice final image. This lens will cost you about $220 and has the added bonus of serving as a good indoor available light portrait lens.
Finally, for about $500 you could get a Nikon 85 1.8D AF. You would use this the same as the 50mm above but you start with 127.5mm lens for your original photo before you crop it. 127.5mm at f/1.8 also makes a good indoor portrait lens.
Those choices should give you something to think about. Buy them all and see which works best for you!
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
Another possibility is to use a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens (which will equal 75mm in 35mm size on the D7000), set the image size to large and the JPEG to fine. Then shoot and crop your final image drastically.Whatever you do, don't take the quoted advice above. Especially the "crop your final image drastically" part. Geez. If you want telephoto than you should buy an actual telephoto lens like an older used AF 300mm. Its image quality will be better than any of the other options suggested and its cheaper to boot.
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 on squamish and the topic has been covered lots of times in the forum. There aren't many cheap options. The 70-300 VR is the cheapest option, but it isn't great in low light. The 300 F4 is more expensive and still probably not that great in low light. The 300 F2.8 is the best, but no body I know that shoots for fun can afford it.
The heavily cropping idea is a bad one IMO. No one would recommend a 50 or 85 mm lens for sports unless you are running along side the people. The 70-200 F2.8 is also an option, but might not give you enough reach. Do a search about it on here...there should be at least a dozen threads about telephoto lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
greeper said:
Now we need a better lens to shoot the kids during their sports.I agree with Squamish, the AF 300mm is the way to go for a good sports lens and also as he said never shoot to crop drastically. An alternate if you're shooting daylight sports and would want a budget zoom, the 70-300VR will work good.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The original poster did not specify his kids ages or sports but mentioned scrapbooking so I assumed these were young kids and he was not going to print these images more than 4x6 inches.
I have a D7000 and all of the above lenses, except the new 70-210VRII. I shoot my grandson's high school basketball games for his friends on the team. Younger kids will be moving more slowly. The 3.5-5.6 zooms just are not fast enough to allow for the high shutter speed you need to freeze a moving high school basketball player as he leaps for the basket or to block a shot. You need to be able to use shutter speeds of at least 1/250th of a second and even then not all the shots will be sharp. 1/500 of a second is needed to ensure frozen motion. To get to the shutter speed you need you have to be shooting at about F2.8 or f4 with a very high ISO in the range of 1600 to 3200 to 6400 for high school basketball courts. F5.6 with ISO 6400 is about the limit of what you can use. I have shot with all the above lenses from the stands and from the corner. For an indoor basketball court up to 200 mm on a DX body is enough range. If the original poster is shooting his kids playing soccer outside he has brighter light to work with but he may have more distance between himself and the subject and 300 mm may be what is needed. The 300mm f/2.8 is a great lens. But let's be realistic, the 300mm f/2.8 lens is going to cost too much and be to much a specialty object for someone who wants scrapbook photos of their kids. I don't think he is looking to spend $6,000 on a lens just to obtain "close up" photos for a scrapbook. The 300mm f/4 is also a great lens and would work but spending $1,500 on a 450mm lens (on a DX body) is a lot of money for a lens with very limited use, even for shooting kids sports. Sometimes the advice here gets too "professional." When a person says they want images for a scrapbook of their kids, I suggest trying to make helpful suggestions focused on that particular use and not suggesting the very best lenses used for professional sports photography.
I have cropped very reasonable quality 8x10s out of about one third the original image of a D7000 taken at 1600 ISO. If a D7000 image can be printed to 20x30 inches then it certainly can be cropped in half or in one fourth and still be printed at 8x10 inches. Certainly, if you are cropping for a 4x6 inch photo to put into a scrapbook you can crop drastically. Cropping is the cheapest "new telephoto lens" you can get. As long as you are looking only for reasonable quality 4x6 inch prints from a D7000 don't be afraid to crop drastically. Just try it and see. If the quality doesn't stand up to your needs at 4.6 inches (or 8x10 inches) then move up the price line in buying telephoto lenses until you find what works for you at the lowest price.
If you are going to be a professional sports photographer than go get a D3s and add 300mm 2.8 and 70-210 2.8 lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No one suggested the 300mm 2.8, and myself, I was suggesting the AF 300mm f4 not the AF-S 300mm f4. You can find used copies for around $500 if you look around and that lens is going to beat the pants off everything else suggested thus far including the 70-200. And for what its worth the AF-S 300mm f4 sells for a lot less than $1500 and its hardly a pro lens. Everyone I know that owns one is an amateur photog, and having owned one myself a few years back I can honestly say that it was one of my most used lenses. ie. wildlife, portraits, macro, and landscape. So, saying that its going to have limited use is terribly misleading. Here is a landscape shot done with a 300mm lens on a D700, 8 image panorama:
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, a 300mm f4 for about $500 would be a good deal. I would like to have one and will start watching ebay to see if I can get one at that price. A 450mm (on D7000 DX body) at f4 could be quite useful for wildlife photography. I was quoting new prices, not used. I could not use any 300mm as my only lens for shooting HS basketball but it might work for kids soccer. I have not tried to shoot that sport. If the original poster specifies which sport he is trying to shoot and the age of his kids perhaps people here with experience more precise experience in shooting that sport could tell him which lenses work well for them.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Once again, the OP needs to state his budget before we can honestly recommend a telephoto. If his budget is too small, we can then give him reasons why the lenses in his price range are not realistically going to be a good choice. If his budget is high, we can then talk about the big guns. Until this has been established, all we're doing is cluttering up this thread.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Id argue that he's probably got enough information to read in this thread to give himself a good idea of what he'll want. Realistically this thread should have been closed immediately and none of us should have even bothered replying to it. Dobyless we continue...
Posted 1 year ago # -
600mm F4!
Where's NikoDoby when you need him. :D
Posted 1 year ago # -
greeper -
I agree with most, there are not a lot of options but those that exist are good. The good options are what some sane people said above, the 70-300VR, there is also the 28-300mm VR as well. Higher is the 80-400mm VR.Those are all good options at a reasonable price range (Sub $1500).
I have the 70-300VR and it is a great versatile, sharp lens and is small and light weight. Generally you can get one around $500.
--------------
I'm having a hard time believing anyone suggesting a $6,000 lens for someone taking photos of their kids so their wife can add them to the scrapbook. Get real guys. Suggesting a 300mm 2.8 is like telling your grandmother to buy a $100k Mercedes to get groceries and to go to bridge club in. They are great lenses but seriously? They are looking for realistic help. greeper - not to assume you can't buy a $6k lens, but even if you could, I still wouldn't suggest one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Who suggested the 2.8?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Noob warning!
I am going from D40 -> D7000 (that is a x175 upgrade! :-) ) and am really excited about the ability to use older lenses since the body does more of the work.
Are there any "antique" lenses I should be looking for that significantly out-performs newer options from an experience-to-price perspective?
Currently have:
Sigma 10-20/4
18-55/3.5
70-300/4.5 VRWill likely do the 35/1.8 next just to brighten my life.
Tx
Håkan Söderbom | http://hakansoderbom.com/photoblogPosted 1 year ago # -
18-55 upgrade to the VR or Tamron 17-50vc. The rest you have (will get) are still mainstays for many. Looking at your blog it looks like a you might enjoy a macro.
Depending on what you mean by "antique" the older AFD macros 60 & 105 are superb lenses. Any of the 50mm's are good especially getting some of the 1.4's for a great price. 80-200 is still good as well are any of Tokina's 2.8s are great buys for the price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have the 70-300VR and find I don't use it much because I don't need the 300mm range (450 on DX) for anything other than birds. I use my 55-200 for indoor sports and don't want more than the 200mm (300mm on DX body). However, it all depends upon the sport you are trying to photograph and how close you are able to get to the subject. 300mm may be needed for kids soccer. But maybe greeper's kids are in dance or gymnastics classes? We don't know what he is trying to photograph "close up" or the lighting condition he has to work with. Greeper needs to tell us the sports he wishes to photograph and then people here who have photographed that sport can tell him what they find works for them.
Hakan: As to "antique" lenses, Tao listed the best. Here are two others to consider. I just purchased one for my D7000 that I am very happy with. It is the AF 35-70 2.8D. I have been impressed with its sharpness and versatility. On a DX body it gives you a range of about 50mm to about 105mm (in 35mm equivalent). But the reason for this lens is the fast 2.8 aperture and your photo blog is all outdoor shots in good light suggesting you don't have a need for a f2.8 lens. But perhaps you would like to do more interior low light photography after you purchase the 35mm 1.8. Another "antique" lens I like is the 28-85mm f3.5-4.5. At the 28mm end it serves for a 42mm "normal" lens and at the 85mm end it serves for a 127.5mm "portrait" lens. For some reason (seems to me to be its color and sharpness) I especially like the portraits it has produced for me. Personally, I think the photos in your blog are too pastel. Try setting your D40 to -0.4 or -0.7 exposure compensation and see if you like the deeper colors it will produce. That is how I shot my D40. The D40 light metering tends to expose more for the shadows and lets the highlight wash out too much. But, that pastel look may be what you prefer. I like deeper more saturated colors. Individual taste varies. I am not saying you are wrong. You will find your D7000 produces deeper colors because the light metering is set to keep the highlights from washing out. Given the same scene a D7000 will expose it about one third to two thirds of a stop less than a D40. I know because I measured both on the same scene. You should notice that difference in your photos when you switch to a D7000, I did.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No intent to throw a wrench into the engine but I just wanted to add 2 cents to the discussion. I was just looking back at the pics that I took last year at my kid's soccer practices and remembered what I thought was a limitation of the NiKon 70-300mm VR lens. It's a bit slow to focus for trying to photo kids playing soccer. Over 50-60% of my actions shots are out of focus. Now yes, some of it could be user error but I do think I have a good copy of the lens. My static subject shots are indeed perfectly focused. It's a good lens for many things.
It doesn't seem to be a shutter speed issue because I wasn't getting motion blur in any of the shots - just out of focus blur. I know many people use this lens to shoot motor sports and cyclists (Bland comes to mind) but I think that's a different subject. You can focus track a car or cyclist or runner until you snap the shot. But these kids are all over the place in an instant making it more difficult to lock focus before they move again. Using continuous tracking helps some but the pics still didn't have that look that I wished for.
In regards to focal length - most of my pictures were taken between 70 and 180mm. I always sat on the sidelines where a team bench would normally be. I suppose if you shot from the bleachers you'd need the extra reach. Surprisingly, many of my pics were only in the 70-100mm range. Whenever I shot something in the 200-300mm range I thought it was too close and lacked "environment" but that's subjective. So overall, you could get some good shots with the 70-300mm but better pics might require a faster focusing lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good, practical and useful comments based upon personal experience Rx4Photo.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Rx4Photo said:
It doesn't seem to be a shutter speed issue because I wasn't getting motion blur in any of the shots - just out of focus blur. I know many people use this lens to shoot motor sports and cyclists (Bland comes to mind) but I think that's a different subject. You can focus track a car or cyclist or runner until you snap the shot. But these kids are all over the place in an instant making it more difficult to lock focus before they move again. Using continuous tracking helps some but the pics still didn't have that look that I wished for.
I'm glad you said this because I was going nuts shooting my grandson's soccer games,Rx4! LOL
I can stop a motorcycle going 150mph clean @ 1/500 but I can't stop my grandson clean @ 1/1000 playing soccer. I knew the problem was lateral movement but I still thought I should of been able to stop the shot cleanly.
I can say what does work best for me shooting his soccer games with 70-300VR is by using Single Point and obviously using AF-C. But I've quit expecting the clean shots that I get with the racing venues.
Here's a couple of examples what Rx4 and I are talking about using the 70-300VR:
@ 1/1000
@ 1/640
Posted 1 year ago # -
sorry guys been swamped it's for elementary to middle school but we'd like something decent also for the future. Lots of the shots were for my sons football and daughters club soccer which is actually pretty face paced. I've been able to get decent shots with the stock lens that came with it when I made the purchase bundle last xmas. But we want something that can get up closer. I'd say my budget is around 500 to 1000 what I've found is closer to 2000+ that's just too much for now.. Sorry for being so vague you guys are awesome with the advice. To be clear the sports are going to be Football, Baseball, Softball, Soccer and Volleyball. Both Indoor and Outdoor. The pix are used for my wife's scrapbooks plus my collection of photos I print and put on our family website I'm building. thanks again
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Id argue that he's probably got enough information to read in this thread to give himself a good idea of what he'll want. Realistically this thread should have been closed immediately and none of us should have even bothered replying to it. Dobyless we continue..."
Please explain what your last comment meant? I apologize if I've annoyed some of you Pro's but not all of us have the time money or experience as you. This is the main reason I've come to this board. Last year many of you helped greatly with advice and this is why I purchased the 7000 which has been an awesome camera. Yes I was vague and sorry not all of us think things thoroughly as you experts. All the replies are extremely helpful, this is why I enjoy this board on occasion. The plan is to eventually get into the this more as time goes by and the kids get older. thanks again
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi greeper, given the additional information you have provided us, regarding your needs and price target, within the Nikon "family" you have a few options that I can thinks of: one is new and the other would be second hand. The new Nikon 70-300 VR (it has the VR II technology built-in), as many have mentions, should provide you respectable results, With respect to a used lens, and a faster lens, though at a more cost, try to find yourself the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (note not the VR II but the VR I). I have seen these unit selling for $1300-1500. I'm sorry to say that the latter does come at a price tag over your budget, but for long term this is an outstanding fast lens that will server your needs in more ways than one.
Now with all that said, these are the lens within the Nikon "family" that come to my mind. Going outside Nikon, such as Sigma or Tamron, you do have lens that fall within the 70-200 2.8 range that are available for you to consider. Unfortunately I have not purchased third-party lens in the past, thus I do not know how they perform. I hope others can shed some light on these manufactures for you.
Best of luck :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
By kit lens, do you mean the 18-105 or the 18-55, greeper? If the former, set it at 85mm and test to see it that is going to be long enough (see Rx4photo's comments above). Maybe not for the sports you've listed, but it's worth checking because if you feel like it's long enough (zoomed in enough), the 85 1.8D might be a good option. My dad got great shots with that lens at my brother's games (tennis, basketball, and volleyball—all shorter fields than soccer or football). It's a great portrait lens, too.
Golf mentioned 3rd party 70-200 2.8 lenses. The tamron one is very sharp but the autofocus is so slow I wouldn't recommend it for sports. I don't know about others. Good luck.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, I sort of see two possible paths for you to take.
The most zoom range path: Try the 70-300VR or the 55-300VR. A lot of people have mentioned the 70-300. Both of these lenses will give you the most reach for about $500 to $600. Downsides include slower focusing and slower f-stop. You will be shooting at f5.6 when you zoom out to a distant child. Will that be enough light to also give you a shutter speed which will stop motion? I suspect it may work outside but likely won't be enough light for inside volleyball.
The most light path: Try any 2.8 constant f-stop lens with sufficient zoom range to get close ups of your kids. You will love the fast 2.8 f-stop because it allows you to keep your ISO down (for less noise in the image) and and you shutter speed up (to freeze action). You give up the range between 200 and 300mm. These lenses tend to be more "professional" in that they are often sharper, built of metal, and the auto-focus mechanism moves faster. I think you would love one of these. The problem is the price. They will range from $1200 for the 80-200 2.8 to $2,500 for the new 70-200 2.8 VRII. Used prices can bring at least the older 80-200 below $1,000. Check out these lenses on e-bay.
Now for an idea. You don't know exactly what will work for you in your situation. It would be nice if you could try some options. If you know anyone who has any of these lenses, ask them if you could borrow it for a game. If you cannot borrow one, ask people you see shooting with telephotos at your kids games what they use. What ISO, what f-stop on the lens, what zoom range. That will give you some additional data to evaluate.
Let us know what you do and what works for you. In six months you may be able to answer this same question posted by another reader.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
