Need a good lens for friday night football

[Patrice]

There is a monumental difference in your ability to crop a photo taken with the D5200's 24 megapixel sensor and the D5100's 16 mp sensor - I know for a fact because I've owned and shot both cameras. I can't even imagine how much difference you'd see between the D5200 and the 12 mp sensor of the D5000 when you go to crop. The differences there would be mind boggling I would think.

Monumental? Mind boggling?

Not to be too pedantic but here are the numbers:

From 16 to 24 mp is roughly a 21% increase in the linear dimensions and from 12 to 24 is roughly 42%

X x 1.5X = 12, x = sqrt of 8, x = 2.8, so a 12 mp nikon is 2.8 million pixels by 4.2 million pixels

same calc for a 16mp nikon gives a sensor of 3.3 by 4.9, hence the 21% dimension increase and 24 mp camera has a 4 x 6 million pixel sensor thus a 42% increase from 12 mp.

 

[robbins.photo]

There is a monumental difference in your ability to crop a photo taken with the D5200's 24 megapixel sensor and the D5100's 16 mp sensor - I know for a fact because I've owned and shot both cameras. I can't even imagine how much difference you'd see between the D5200 and the 12 mp sensor of the D5000 when you go to crop. The differences there would be mind boggling I would think.

Monumental? Mind boggling?

Not to be too pedantic but here are the numbers:

From 16 to 24 mp is roughly a 21% increase in the linear dimensions and from 12 to 24 is roughly 42%

X x 1.5X = 12, x = sqrt of 8, x = 2.8, so a 12 mp nikon is 2.8 million pixels by 4.2 million pixels

same calc for a 16mp nikon gives a sensor of 3.3 by 4.9, hence the 21% dimension increase and 24 mp camera has a 4 x 6 million pixel sensor thus a 42% increase from 12 mp.

I've shot both, real world. I've cropped with both, and yes the differences really are night and day between the 24 and the 16 mp sensor in level of detail after the crop. Something that a simple math equation probably won't really allow you to appreciate - but having seen both and worked with both I stand by my original statement.

 

[astroNikon]

I hope the OP doesn't get confused.
Cameras and lenses can be awefully confusing with all the minor versions.

A 70-200/2.8 lens is fantastic in low light. A cheaper version would be something that uses a fixed f/4 aperture, but with the smaller maximum aperture would not be as good in low light.

I use a 80-200/2.8 lens for my kids outdoor soccer. It does fantastic in low light paired with either my d7000 or d600. But the shooting style is completely different as the lens is an older screw focus version versus the modern ones with a faster builtin focus motor in the lens. It's also a heavy tank.

But either way you go you'll enjoy taking those photos.
Then you'll have to learn how to postprocess them


Ironically, I ordered a Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS from a TPF member and I just opened the box. A left furry gorilla arm is in the box instead of the lens. Makes me wonder ...

 

[robbins.photo]

I hope the OP doesn't get confused.
Cameras and lenses can be awefully confusing with all the minor versions.

A 70-200/2.8 lens is fantastic in low light. A cheaper version would be something that uses a fixed f/4 aperture, but with the smaller maximum aperture would not be as good in low light.

I use a 80-200/2.8 lens for my kids outdoor soccer. It does fantastic in low light paired with either my d7000 or d600. But the shooting style is completely different as the lens is an older screw focus version versus the modern ones with a faster builtin focus motor in the lens. It's also a heavy tank.

But either way you go you'll enjoy taking those photos.
Then you'll have to learn how to postprocess them


Ironically, I ordered a Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS from a TPF member and I just opened the box. A left furry gorilla arm is in the box instead of the lens. Makes me wonder ...

Geez.. I used shampoo and conditioner and even combed it before I put it in the box. Picky Picky... lol

 

[tia81280]

can't thank you enough for all your input. one more questions.
So i am going to go with the D5200 for now and upgrade to the 7100 later...but for lenses

Would you guys pick the SIGMA 70-200MM F/2.8 APO D EX HSM (N90S & LATER) AUTOFOCUS LENS FOR NIKON {77} for $578 brand new

or a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Nikon AF for $635.


And again, the goal is for friday night lights football and also other uses.

 

[robbins.photo]

can't thank you enough for all your input. one more questions.
So i am going to go with the D5200 for now and upgrade to the 7100 later...but for lenses

Would you guys pick the SIGMA 70-200MM F/2.8 APO D EX HSM (N90S & LATER) AUTOFOCUS LENS FOR NIKON {77} for $578 brand new

or a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Nikon AF for $635.


And again, the goal is for friday night lights football and also other uses.

I'd probably go Sigma, the VC version of the Tamron lens is outstanding, but in the reviews I've read on the older non-vc version it has a tendancy to be slow to autofocus at times. I can't speak from experience mind you, I've never owned one, but from what I understood just from what I read before buying my 70-200 the Tamron non-VC version did have some AF speed issues.

 

[ruifo]

can't thank you enough for all your input. one more questions.
So i am going to go with the D5200 for now and upgrade to the 7100 later...but for lenses

Would you guys pick the SIGMA 70-200MM F/2.8 APO D EX HSM (N90S & LATER) AUTOFOCUS LENS FOR NIKON {77} for $578 brand new

or a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Nikon AF for $635.


And again, the goal is for friday night lights football and also other uses.

Among those two, I'd go with the Sigma lens.

However, if you change your mind for the newer version of the Tamron, it's so much much better that all of them.

I have the newer Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC version, and auto focus is pretty good and fast when paired with the D5200 and with the D810.

 

[tia81280]

Thanks, Guys. I'll go with the Sigma and be back for some constructive criticism. Thanks !

 

[tia81280]

another question for you guys - is $1275 a good deal for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VRI used? or should i stick with the Sigma for $578?

 

[Tailgunner]

another question for you guys - is $1275 a good deal for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VRI used? or should i stick with the Sigma for $578?

You could probably pick up a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 (stick with the 2 ring model) for around $800. The 80-200mm is still a great performing lens. Then at the same time you could pick up a used or refurbished D7100 for the same price -/+ $100. I started off shooting our son's basketball games with a D7100 w/70-200mm VR II and it did great. But you can't be afraid to crank up the ISO. You're going to need fast shutter speeds to stop the action and reduce blurring. I never shot football but I use 1/500-600 shutter speeds for basketball. This means having to crank up the ISO...even being indoors. Honestly, I've kinda digging Derrel's idea of getting down by the sidelines with a 85mm 1.8. The 1.8 is a much faster glass, aka allowing in even more light and 85mm should be enough to get some good shots depending on your location.

 

[PropilotBW]

another question for you guys - is $1275 a good deal for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VRI used? or should i stick with the Sigma for $578?

maybe this was already mentioned, but that Sigma lens is so cheap because it doesn't have OS (optical stabilization). It Might be a feature you want at the long end of the lens, especially at night! You could probably find a used one for $900.
Now you're into the range of buying a used Nikon 70-200 VR1. I would go with any image stabilization over a lens that doesn't offer it.

 

[tia81280]

I got the 70-200 VR1 - SUPER EXCITED!

 

[Mach0]

I got the 70-200 VR1 - SUPER EXCITED!

It's a nice lens. I've used both the VR1 and vr2. Never any issues on my end. I know the vr1 is softer in the corners but I've never put anything that was in focus in the corner. If you are on DX- you should be more than fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tia81280]

Alright guys....I shot my first Friday night football game last night. I had no idea what I was doing, so looking for pointers. I have never shot action photography before and not skilled enough to do full manual yet. Here are the pics.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tiaobrienphotography/sets/72157647248541596/

 

[robbins.photo]

Alright guys....I shot my first Friday night football game last night. I had no idea what I was doing, so looking for pointers. I have never shot action photography before and not skilled enough to do full manual yet. Here are the pics.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tiaobrienphotography/sets/72157647248541596/

Wow.. some really great shots in that set. Looks like for your first time out you scored a touchdown.. or hit a home run.. or.. um.. caught a golden snitch or something.. lol.

Seriously though, really outstanding - I have no doubt your boys will be thrilled with these.