Budget crisis...

[MikeisEdge]

I've posted here before about a good wide-aperture lens for sports. Unfortunately, after researching your options, I realized I probably should have included my budget. I've looked at the 70-200 f/2.8 and those are way over my price-range. I really can't be spending more than $500 on a lens. I've noticed the wide aperture zoom lenses aren't ever sold below 1K.

1) Do you see any future problems with me purchasing the Nikkor 85mm 1.8G AF-S and using this for sports? From what I've read, it's a faster lens which seems ideal for shooting sports where you only have a split second to capture action. Side-note, is there any downside to purchasing the 50mm 1.8G instead, and simply cropping in PP? -Instead of purchasing the 85 (Since I feel I'd get more use out of the 50mm in general).

2) Do you know of any other options I should consider that would be in my price-range?

3) Any 3rd party lenses that run below $500 that you would recommend for low-light sports photography?

I'd love to be able to afford the more high-end equipment, but that doesn't seem to be an option right now. <$500 please!

Also, if you want, I might attempt to post up some shots from my first night shooting the game... Keep in mind I used the Nikkor f/4-5.6 55-200mm zoom lens. I was shooting at ISO-Hi, Aperture- Wide, and my Shutter Speed was only getting to around 1/125sec at most... Looked extremely grainy. I'd like to be able to produce better shots. (By the way, can ISO be reduced in PS?)



Sorry if this seems redundant, as I've posted something similar to this... I just didn't get my desired answers, which I partially blame on my lack of specifics.

 

[sierramister]

Which sports? I use the 50mm f/1.8 for basketball and volleyball, but it would never work for football/soccer. If you want to know how a photo would look cropped in photoshop, try taking a a shot of a person 125-150 feet away at 55mm and crop it to see what it looks like (it doesn't work, usually). You can't reduce ISO in PS, but you can reduce the noise. But you probably won't be able to shoot 1/500s at f/5.6 with 6400 ISO and get a decent shot that you could increase the levels and decrease the noise in PS. You're on the right track to buy a new lens.

Have you thought about Sigma or Tamron? I have a 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma that I bought for $600 and use all the time with great results!

 

[subscuck]

Tamron and Sigma's offerings in the 70-200 2.8 range will run under $1k, but they are still well over $500. Sports photography is expensive.

 

[MikeisEdge]

Indeed it is expensive... As for the sports... I have been shooting Ultimate Frisbee and Indoor soccer. (The fields are about half as narrow as a standard soccer field, and I am usually only shooting at action relatively close to me. That said, would the 50mm be THAT bad of a choice?

Also, I will have to look into those brands, possibly something closer to 600 might be attainable, just not for quite some time.

 

[MikeisEdge]

http://spacecoast.craigslist.org/pho/2546335664.html

^^^ Would that be a bad investment?

 

[subscuck]

Bear in mind it's not a constant 2.8. It'll be a max of 4.0 at the 200 end. It may work for you. Look up some reviews. I'd save my pennies til you can get something that you know will work for you. Ever considered selling blood? I believe you can do it once/week...

EDIT: Look into an 85 1.8. Lots of people use it for indoor HS sports.

 

[bentcountershaft]

My knowledge of Nikon glass and compatibility is pretty limited, but perhaps someone could steer you toward an older prime in the 135, 180 or 200 range.

 

[MikeisEdge]

I am almost positive that blood donations cannot be made until around a year after you've been tattooed, unfortunately! Also, when shooting with my 55-200 f/4-5.6 lens my focal length jumped between 70-90mm... That said, I shouldn't have to worry about maxing at f/4, correct? I'm still on the fence about just getting a 50mm or 85mm since I currently do not exceed 90mm when shooting.

EDIT: Also, I do have a D60. Does this camera have a crop sensor? What does that change about the focal length of the 50mm prime lens?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I want a Ferrari on the cheap too. If I settle for a Mustang GT will it work? yea, so will the crop but you know...

The 50 will be stretching it if the frisbee catcher is any distance, and the 85 will be tight if the frisbee catcher is up close but yea either may work.

 

[MikeisEdge]

Here's my logic:

Buy the 50mm 1.8G
-Deal with the limited area I am able to properly capture action.
-Crop as long as it doesn't render the frame out of focus. (Since I'm assuming too much cropping would do just that.)
-Have multiple other uses for the lens when I accumulate the funds for proper sports-photography equipment.

Does that make sense?

 

[Geaux]

What about a chipped Rokinon 85mm 1.4? I've heard some good things about that lens in its pricerange which is usually 300 bucks.

Amazon.com: Rokinon 85MAF-N 85mm F1.4 Aspherical Lens for Nikon with Automatic Chip (Black): Camera & Photo

The description on that link explains why the chip is important

 

[MikeisEdge]

What about a chipped Rokinon 85mm 1.4?

I'll have to look into that. If it proves to be reliable, then it's something I'll have to consider. Thanks!

 

[Destin]

I would look into a Nikon 80-200 2.8 one touch (aka push/pull zoom) lens. Here's one I just found on ebay: Nikon 80-200mm AF-D ED f2.8, Push-Pull Zoom Lens | eBayhey go for around $350-500 most of the time, and really are a great way to get into a fast, relatively long lens without a huge budget.

Another alternative, depending on your needs, would be the 300 f/4 AF-D. This is actually on my list of lenses to purchase because my 70-200 (on a DX body) just isn't long enough for field sports alot of the time. It can be had for $450-550 if you are patient on ebay. Here is one I just found on ebay: Nikon Nikkor AF 300mm F4 F/4 AF-D Lens | eBay

 

[MikeisEdge]

I would look into a Nikon 80-200 2.8 one touch (aka push/pull zoom) lens.

Hmm, what exactly is a push/pull lens? I have yet to hear about these. Obviously there must be a major "downside" to using the 80-200 2.8 if it costs <$500 compared to the rest which range >$1,000.

 

[Destin]

Hmm, what exactly is a push/pull lens? I have yet to hear about these. Obviously there must be a major "downside" to using the 80-200 2.8 if it costs <$500 compared to the rest which range >$1,000.

The build quality isn't all metal like the more expensive counterparts. It won't AF on the baby nikons because it's not AF-S. You have to push/pull to zoom rather than turning a ring. To my knowledge, the image quality is very close to that of the 80-200 2.8 AF-D two ring version.