Lens, Camera or Lens/Teleconverter?

[Who's on First?]

Hi all,
I have a Nikon D40X which I use to shoot sports unprofessionally. I mainly use a 55-200mm f4-5.6 lens, because I really like to get close up into the action. For the most part the camera/lens combo that I'm using, while entry level, IMO does a pretty decent job--in full light. However, as soon as dusk hits, I have to pack it up and take a seat with the spectators, because my lens won't stop the action at full zoom, which I'm usually shooting.

Since I don't take pictures professionally, I'm not looking to spend thousands of dollars on a new lens, but I do want crisp, clear images, and I know that even a used f 2.8 isn't cheap. My dream would be to purchase a 300 mm f 2.8 lens, but I've noticed that the price jumps up once you go over 200 mm in an f 2.8. My goals are this:
1. Be able to stop the action not only in full light, but at night and in the gym.
2. Get closer to the action than my current 200 mm lens does.
3. Not spend an arm and a leg to do it.
Also, one photographer suggested that I would probably be outgrowing my D40X Body pretty soon. I'm not sure that I will, but I really don't know, so I'm poising these questions to you:

1. With a flimsy grasp on teleconverters vs. lenses, I've come to the conclusion that since I already have an issue with light, that, while attaining the distance I'm looking for, the lower cost teleconverter will but as the expense of light--compounding my other issue. Can someone confirm that a teleconverter is not my solution? And if that's true, what if I purchased the same lens I'm using now except as an f2.8, then supplemented with a teleconverter? Is that a reasonable option?
2. I'm thinking my solution is a simple lens swap to an 300mm f2.8. Is this way to go?
3. I don't plan on ever doing anything professional with my photos, or submitting them so Sports Illustrated--yet I do want want to achieve a high quality. Is there any reason to think that I would grow out of the D40X, if I'm currently pretty happy with the quality of my images? I don't want to invest in a lens, to find in a year that I what I really needed was a new camera.

These are the pressing quesions: New camera, new lens, or lens/teleconverter combo?

Thanks in advance for your expertise!
Catrina

 

[qleak]

1. With a flimsy grasp on teleconverters vs. lenses, I've come to the conclusion that since I already have an issue with light, that, while attaining the distance I'm looking for, the lower cost teleconverter will but as the expense of light--compounding my other issue. Can someone confirm that a teleconverter is not my solution? And if that's true, what if I purchased the same lens I'm using now except as an f2.8, then supplemented with a teleconverter? Is that a reasonable option?

You are correct. A Teleconverter will lose more light usually 1.5 - 2.0 EV.

Even a fast zoom will become rather slow for sports with a TC, so it is not recommended.

 

[ronlane]

I would start with getting even a used 70-200mm f/2.8, which is as far as you currently can go but the added f-stops will make a huge difference. Then you can decide if you want a 1.4x TC, which would drop you to f/4. Honestly in most cases a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a crop body is good for most hobbyists.

 

[Who's on First?]

...Thanks guys. Okay, so the f-stop is paramount if my greatest objective is to stop fast action in low light. The next question I have, is would a 70-200mm f/2.8 more and possible subsequent purchase of a TC be more economical than purchasing a 300mm f/2.8 outright? Thanks!

 

[Dave442]

I think the old AF-S Nikon 300 f/4 is under $1k. There are also some 70-200 f/2.8 around that price. Really this is where a camera with higher ISO will really help. I used my D200, that has that 10mp CCD sensor like the D40x, at a concert a few weeks ago. I was at f/4 and 1/40 sec at ISO 1250. The noise cleans up fine in LightRoom, but for sports you will need more like 1/250 sec. so you need around ISO 6400. I would rent a 70-200 f/2.8 and see if it would work for you, if not then start looking for a new body. The D40x is still good for low ISO work and probably not worth selling.

 

[ronlane]

...Thanks guys. Okay, so the f-stop is paramount if my greatest objective is to stop fast action in low light. The next question I have, is would a 70-200mm f/2.8 more and possible subsequent purchase of a TC be more economical than purchasing a 300mm f/2.8 outright? Thanks!

Yes, a 70-200 f/2.8 can be found under $1500 and a TC under $500. The 300 f/2.8's that I've seen are a lot more than that.

But as Dave mentioned a 300 f/4 might be an option.

 

[Who's on First?]

Okay, that helps a lot. Rent a lens...never thought of that; I'll look into it. Wow, ISO 6400. The D40X maxes out at 1600. Might have to take up crochet. Appreciate your help, and you've answered a lot of questions for me! Thanks to both of you...

 

[Derrel]

If the action is relatively close, as it is in most indoor sports, and at some outdoor sports on SOME action, the fastest lens that's affordable and practical is the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G. This lens is one of **the** sharpest lenses Nikon makes, at any price. And it collects more light for both focusing, and for shooting, than any f/2.8 lens. More than double the light gathering ability. You can shoot a bit loose, and crop in at the computer--if you have a newer camera that has a much higher resolution sensor than the 6MP of the D40, you can throw away 50 to 75% of a frame and get a usable image.

The Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II is a nice used super-telephoto, retails for $2,750 or so used from private party sellers, significantly more from big dealers on the web. I have one, and have used it on the D40 a few times to see how it works...it works GREAT on a D40...however, the D40 is not that good a sensor at high ISO values though...it's a more or less a 10 year-old sensor design now...newer cameras perform better. The f/4~5.6 variable maximum aperture, consumer-level zoom lenses are pretty slow focusing compared to the higher-grade lenses.

If you have access, you do not always need a long lens. "Sports" can mean many,many things. Basektball can be shot with a 50mm lens on a 1.5x body....soccer, not so much...

 

[Who's on First?]

That's certainly something to consider, Derrel. I didn't consider that an image taken with a 1.8 would be usable after cropping to the size I would want it. It's a worthwhile thought though, because while I can be more close range shooting volleyball in a gym, the same is not true when shooting baseball, and if the clarity of the image at 1.8 is as good as you suggest, the shot wouldn't have to be so exact since the magic would come from the editing--something I enjoy. Hmmm...far more forgiving, and a perspective I hadn't considered. Thank you for that!

 

[Who's on First?]

...However I would need a new camera body as well. What would be your recommendation which would be a step up from the D40X with a more appropriate resolution sensor?

 

[Derrel]

Well, the newer 24 MP sensors have pretty good crop capability, and they also have significantly better capabilities at higher ISO levels than the D40 has. I'm not sure how much money you'd consider spending...the 85mm f/1.8 lens is around $400, the D7100 is now in the $900-something range. I honestly think the lens approach is the best place to put something like $400, by getting the 85/1.8 AF-S G lens.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Camera technology has jumped leaps and bounds from the D40/D40X era. I have a D3100 (successor to the D3000 which replaced the D40/D40X) plus a D7000 and both camera's have terrific low light capability. This shot was taken using my D3100 at 3200 ISO, using a Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens at 50mm wide open. I then cropped down the image about 30% from it's original 14MP size.

The best option is to invest in a camera body that can use the older AF series auto focus lenses. The AF auto focus lenses use a screw drive mechanism driven by a motor built in to the camera body. Nikon doesn't build it's entry level bodies (D40/D40X, D3x00, D5x00) with the built in AF motors. As I mentioned above I own the D7000, this camera is equipped with the built in focus motor and therefore can use an extremely wide range of older Nikon lenses. I got lucky and happened upon an old rare AF Tokina 300mm f/4 lens at my local shop for just under $200.

 

[funwitha7d]

the Canon 300 2.8 is a beast in both size and weight, so imagine the Nikon is as well, it would be a great lens but...suggestions above esp. the 85 1.8 got me thinking as well...

 

[jaomul]

I'm going to suggest something completely different. The d700 is a 12mp full frame with a very good reputation for both speed, high iso ability and focus. They can be got relatively in expensive now. If you couple this camera with a lens such as a random 70-300 usm, you would have similar field of view as your current set up, but with the higher iso, more megapixels and speed of the d700

 

[Who's on First?]

Hmmm...clearly, there's more than one way to skin a cat. The comment regarding the size and weight of the 300mm lens has me reconsidering, as does the shorter telephoto with higher f-stop for computer editing. These are new considerations...thanks all, for sharing your knowledge and expertise!