long prime with soccer and football

bemmermazda · Feb 7, 2008

This winter i am going to invest in a pro lens for the upcoming soccer and football season. I was attracted to the 180mm 2.8 because its supposably nikkors sharpest lens. The best would be to have a 70-200mm Vr but that aint going to happen. I guess my problem is, would it be wise to use a prime durning these events. How big is the 80-200mm compared to the 180 and 70-200mm?

Alex_B · Feb 7, 2008

i used a 300mm prime at the rugby world championships, and it always appeared too short. It was definitely never too long

(on full frame that was though.)

bemmermazda · Feb 7, 2008

So this would not be a stupid purchase?

Alex_B · Feb 7, 2008

a prime? at least for my shooting style it would not be a stupid purchase.... but wait for more opinions on here than just mine.

DSLR noob · Feb 7, 2008

Sounds like it'd be a specific occasion lens. If it is saving you money, I'd go for it. Also, being a prime, you get a great max aperture of 2.8 It seems like a good idea to me.

soylentgreen · Feb 7, 2008

180 just seems to short to me. How close are you going to be to the action and your field position? End-zones, corners, sidelines? That should determine the reach you need. The speed is a no-brainer. f/2.8 or higher. If just eh 180, than at least have a couple of TC available in case you need more reach. I would take at least a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 300 or 400 prime. Rent them if you can and see what works.

Trenton Romulox · Feb 7, 2008

I have the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor, and yeah, it's sharp, but I don't find it any sharper than my 70-200mm VR, in fact, I'd say it might even be less sharp. But, the difference is tiny at most. The biggest difference, beyond zoom, and VR, of the 180mm and 70-200 is the auto-focus. I shoot ice hockey with the 180mm ('cause I just got the 70-200 today) and the focusing is slow, even on the D300, but especially slow on the D80. If you are comfortable manually-focusing the lens for sports (which is what I do for hockey, yeah, it's hard, but doable) then the 180mm may work fine for you. It's $800 or so, right? I mean, I'd consider maybe going with the 300mm f/4 which you can find for $1200 I think.

The 180mm is a pretty short lens, physically. Only about 5" with the lens hood (built-in, nice) not extended, but it's a dense lens. The thing is a tank, it's really durable and because of it, a bit heavy. It doesn't balance well with my D80, but it balances better with my D300 and battery grip. The 80-200 is about the length of the 70-200 (which is pretty damn long) but I believe the 80-200 weighs more (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not sure how effective VR is whilst shooting sports, as I've not used my 70-200 for sports yet. The 80-200 is supposedly a really good lens, so I'd not overlook that at all. And yeah, my experience with the 180 says that it's a good lens for manual-focusing but it might be too short for some sports, dunno. I have threads in the Photojournalism Gallery of UMaine hockey, in which I used the 180mm, and also one of Portland Pirates hockey, so if you want to see some examples, go check those out. Those were taken about 100 feet from the ice, maybe 150, or maybe 80, I'm not sure HAHA. But that'll give you some idea maybe. I hope this helped. And yeah, sorry for my disorganized reply.

bemmermazda · Feb 7, 2008

Its high school. ill be on the field. lol. I cannot afford a 70-200mm. So focus is slow you say?

Trenton Romulox · Feb 7, 2008

bemmermazda said:
Its high school. ill be on the field. lol. I cannot afford a 70-200mm. So focus is slow you say?

Yeah, I know you can't afford the 70-200, I was just trying to give you a comparison and tell you that the image quality between the 180 and 70-200 is not at all big, like, at all. The focus on the 180 is very, very slow. I hate to bash on the 180, because I really do like the lens, but the focus is not great, and I'd probably recommend against auto-focusing for sports. I've heard good things about the 80-200, so maybe look into that. Is that in your budget?

bemmermazda · Feb 7, 2008

yea it is i guess. Im only a kid, these big 2.8s are just a bit too flashy though. especially when they start getting this big.

could i get a size comparison. 70-300 f4 80-200mm f2.8 70-200mm vr

Trenton Romulox · Feb 7, 2008

I can give you a comparison of the 180mm and the 70-200...would you like that?

bemmermazda · Feb 7, 2008

sure. can you put something in for scale. a coke can perhaps? 50mm

Trenton Romulox · Feb 7, 2008

Without Lens Hood:

With Lens Hood:

With Lens Hood Vertical:

Sorry for the soft focus on this one, I wanted to use f/1.4 to throw the background as soft as possible.

DSLR noob · Feb 7, 2008

I know your other thread seemed boasty trenton, but in this last post I can deffinitely see why you'd want to show off that gear and that beautiful 1.4 bokeh. I'm jealous!

As for the 180 being slow, you said that was for hocky, how do you think it'll fair for his on-field highschool photography outdoors? I'm in yearbook an dI know how important it can be to get the right shot, but I'd personally get the 180 and a x1.4 teleconverter if I were you because of money. Shoot with it for a year or two, then sell for the 70-200 2.8 VR later in life.