Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by mortallis288, Oct 14, 2007.
Is a 200mm lens with a 2.8f to small for little league baseball, football, and basketball?
Speaking of sports, I just started up an internship with a local newspaper and have been shooting a load of high-school football/soccer/lacrosse games and swim meets. I have gotten some good shots with my 17-50 f/2.8 at such events which I am not at all ashamed of, so don't think that considerably shorter focal lengths are going to keep you from capturing something decent. However, I am always right at the sidelines since I have that kind of access, so I suppose it would depend if you are shooting from the grandstands or elsewhere.
I have found that in some situations it would have certainly helped having something of greater zoom, though. But you must also take into account factors such as the max aperture offered by your lens. Remember, the greater the focal length, the faster the shutter speed needed in most cases. That means that if you are shooting at night (even under lights), you are going to need something that will allow for faster shutter speeds. This may mean having a lens with IS, a wide aperture, or a tripod.
It's really all about what your surroundings are providing for you. You must consider what the light will be like, how far away you are from the action, and how much mobility will be allowed.
great help there JIP, anyway this is the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, and it will be used mostly for little league stuff, so i will have good accessibility, and maybe high school stuff later on.
It should be good, i was shooting a college game (just from the stands) with my 55-200 vr 5.6 which of course caused some minor blur but i was almost impressed. Im sure 2.8 should be great
The Nikon 80-200 is the perfect lens for shooting any type of sporting event be it baseball football or whatever. The next 2.8 lens up would be the 300 yes that woould be better for you but it would also cost upwards of $4000 so you shpuld get by with what you have. By the way that lens (or similar lenses are usually the backup of choice for the guys with the massive lenses you see on the sidelines at the "big" events.
Is that a better response?? I pretty much said the same thing only the last one took the alot less time.
I just went back and took a look at the exif data for the football games I shot last weekend, checking the focal lengths... I was shooting with an 80-200, and very few of the shots (1 of the 10 publication shots) were shot at 200mm, most of the rest were shot anywhere between 100 and 150mm range, shooting from the immediate sideline.
Simply an FYI.
i just wanted to make sure it would be long enough before i threw down a grand on it
The other thing about a 2.8 is if you SHOULD want to throw something like a quality 1.4 teleconverter on it, it will still be a fairly fast f/4 afterwards... although I am not a fan of teleconverters, especially on zoom lenses, I know somebody who does this to good effect (he is using the Nikon 80-200, the same lens I was shooting last weekend... nice lens, by the way).
Just as sabbath said.....you could put a converter on there and if you really need.....if you REALLY needed that extra distance, you could do that....and STILL have that f/4 lens.
I though about getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and if needed put the converter on it.....the 50-500 is just too big
I shoot that lens almost daily (70-200 2.8) on my D200. Great lens!!! I do a lot of sports stuff. Baseball, fast-pitch softball... I covered a field hockey tourney last weekend and I shot a football game with it Friday night. (All high school by the way)
Check out my site... if you see something sports on the blog, it's probably from that lens (frankly, it's my primary lens for probably 65% of my work)
Separate names with a comma.