Shooting football what type of Len

[Smoothnf]

Hello, I have a Nikon d3300 I'm looking for a Len to shoot Friday nights football games. Sometimes the image might be up close standing still. Want something that can take up close shots and be able to zoom when the subject ain't close. I guess I'm trying to say is that, want a all in-one len. So what Len would you prefer.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hello, I have a Nikon d3300 I'm looking for a Len to shoot Friday nights football games. Sometimes the image might be up close standing still. Want something that can take up close shots and be able to zoom when the subject ain't close. I guess I'm trying to say is that, want a all in-one len. So what Len would you prefer.

Some form of 70-200mm F2.8 is probably going to be your best bet. Slower all around lenses like an 18-200 probably won't do you much good, the lighting at night games usually isn't that great.

 

[tirediron]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

 

[Smoothnf]

is this a good Len
Tamron - AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

 

[robbins.photo]

is this a good Len
Tamron - AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

It's a good lens, I own one. Would it really be that great at shooting night games on a crop sensor camera? Eh, probably not. You could make it work to a certain extent but your probably looking at having to use some pretty high ISO value and most likely will have a lot of noise to deal with in post production.

If your budget allows I'd look for perhaps a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, you can find the older models without the OS for usually in the $400-$500 range.

 

[tirediron]

Not especially, no.

 

[robbins.photo]

is this a good Len
Tamron - AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

It's a good lens, I own one. Would it really be that great at shooting night games on a crop sensor camera? Eh, probably not. You could make it work to a certain extent but your probably looking at having to use some pretty high ISO value and most likely will have a lot of noise to deal with in post production.

If your budget allows I'd look for perhaps a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, you can find the older models without the OS for usually in the $400-$500 range.

Quick Addendum:

Apologies, I thought you were talking about the Tamron 70-300mm 4.5/5.6 VR. The lens you mentioned, no, wouldn't recommend at all. Any lens that covers such a wide focal length generally doesn't have that good of image quality.

 

[table1349]

I've shot sports for years. For under the lights football, or virtually any sport, anything slower than f2.8 is too slow. Sports photography is demanding both on the photographer and the equipment. Best suggestion is the 70-200 f2.8. That is what I always have on the second body. My primary football lens is a 400mm f2.8. At 10K I suspect that it is out of your price range.

 

[Smoothnf]

I guess will look into the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. Thanks for all the help...

 

[chuasam]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

I would actually pick a Nikon 300m f/4 PF for this.
light weight and cheaper than the 200-400

 

[tirediron]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

I would actually pick a Nikon 300m f/4 PF for this.
light weight and cheaper than the 200-400

Fair enough, but the OP did mention wanting zoom capability and didn't mention a budget. Personally, I'd shoot with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8.

 

[table1349]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

I would actually pick a Nikon 300m f/4 PF for this.
light weight and cheaper than the 200-400

Fair enough, but the OP did mention wanting zoom capability and didn't mention a budget. Personally, I'd shoot with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8.

In fairness to chuasam his choice would work for him since we already know that he doesn't think the photos need to be sharp. To be sure with an f4 under high school lights you will never get a decent shot at a minimum of 1/500th of a second since you won't be able to get up to 1/500th shutter speed.

 

[chuasam]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

I would actually pick a Nikon 300m f/4 PF for this.
light weight and cheaper than the 200-400

Fair enough, but the OP did mention wanting zoom capability and didn't mention a budget. Personally, I'd shoot with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8.

In fairness to chuasam his choice would work for him since we already know that he doesn't think the photos need to be sharp. To be sure with an f4 under high school lights you will never get a decent shot at a minimum of 1/500th of a second since you won't be able to get up to 1/500th shutter speed.

In all fairness, I find football so boring that that I've never actually seen a game.
I just really like that 300mm PF so I'll recommend it all the time.

 

[chuasam]

It depends on your budget. The 200-400 f4 is probably ideal; the 70-200 is good as well, and last would be the 70-300.

I would actually pick a Nikon 300m f/4 PF for this.
light weight and cheaper than the 200-400

Fair enough, but the OP did mention wanting zoom capability and didn't mention a budget. Personally, I'd shoot with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8.

That's what my GF uses. But she has each of them on a separate D810 so she doesn't have to swap lenses.

 

[fmw]

The fastest 300mm lenses are f2.8. F4 simply requires raising the ISO one step. If you can do it with f2.8, you can do it with f4. I used to shoot baseball from right beside the dugout with a 500mm f4. It worked just fine.