Tamron 28-200 Lens

[Laxdad80]

I just bought a Nikon D7000 camera and was wondering how well the Tamron AF 28-200 lens will work for sports photography (lacrosse)? My understanding is that this now will go too 300mm. If this is not good for sports photography which lens should I buy? What will the new lens give me that the old one won't?

 

[MReid]

Don't have the lens.
My concerns would be how fast will it focus, will it track and focus fast enough to freeze the action.
Not sure you have a fast enough f-stop to make that work for sports.

 

[Laxdad80]

What would you suggest I buy?

 

[Dao]

Do you have a budget in mind?

 

[gsgary]

What would you suggest I buy?

Sigma 100-300F4, Sigma 120-300F2.8, 70-200F2.8 just for starters

 

[DiskoJoe]

An ideal lens for sports would be something that would have an constant aperture of 2.8. You could possibly get decent shots with the 28-200 but that lens is kind of sub par for the motor you have. If you could afford it I would recommend a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or maybe a 135mm f2. But the 70-200 give you much more versatility.

 

[MReid]

300 f4's are usually a good bang for the buck...but of course not as versatile as a zoom like those mentioned above.

 

[Laxdad80]

Is 200 enogh zoom power?

 

[MReid]

What do you want your pictures to look like?
Do you want closeups of the action with 1 or 2 people, or shots where there are 4 or 5 people in them, or entire sections of the field.
How close are you to the action, sidelines or up in the stands.

 

[TheInformer]

A great, well priced, lens to consider would be the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR.You can get it for about $150 refurbished, which is what I did. I love it. It is sharp and focuses pretty quickly. For $150 bucks,, you can not beat it. The only downside is it wouldn't be too swell for low-light (night time) sports and similar.

 

[sovietdoc]

Pairing a camera like D7000 with a lens like 55-200 may not be a good idea. The better the camera, the more obvious it will be when you take a shot with cheaper lens and it will ruin all the quality for you.

200 mm on a crop body is enough for sports because of the crop factor.

I'd recommend sigma 70-200 f/2.8 if you want the best performance for a decent price.

 

[Laxdad80]

thanks to all of you!

 

[Laxdad80]

I just read a review on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and didn't see that it had VR? Is this true and if so is that an issue with regards to motion? Where would you suggest I purchase this lens?

 

[TheInformer]

Yea I have the d7000 paired with a 55-200 and the quality is excellent.. It is an excellent alternative.. I wouldn't have suggested it if I never had any experience with it in the first place..

 

[lonewolfsx]

I just read a review on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and didn't see that it had VR? Is this true and if so is that an issue with regards to motion? Where would you suggest I purchase this lens?

VR isn't really that useful for sports, so no VR is no big deal.

I can definitely recommend that Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro, it's fantastic. I used one (I've stated before in some other thread...) for a bunch of football games and other sports. I never got to shoot lacrosse (I was always playing... I was starting "attack." Good times, wish I had pictures because I had some pretty sick games.), but I'm familiar with the game and can imagine the kind of shots you'd want.

For the most part you'll be focusing on players cradling, shooting, or passing the ball. The ball itself is too small and fast (plus it's white, and most stick heads are white as well) to really concentrate on, so most of your shots you're going to want the player primarily in focus, maybe with the ball leaving the stick on a pass, but it's not like football where I'd get focus on a receiver and you'd see the ball's trajectory from the QB. You could also frame a few, say your team is on offense in 1-4-1, and you're near midfield... you could shoot a shot with the middie at the point (or the attackman at "X") throwing a pass to one of the wingers and have the winger out of focus (but with his stick up ready for the pass) in the background. Or vice versa, the winger with his stick up ready to catch and the playmaker making the pass out of focus in the foreground. On defense you could get the players making checks (maybe a little blur from a slap or wrap check could look good here), and the goalie making saves (probably don't want those blurred).

Critical part of sports: Anticipation. Getting a few shots of players running around is useful sometimes, but for the most part you want players in action, checking or doing something with the ball. A player moving to a new position is interesting but not as a photograph since you have no relation to what's happening outside the frame.

So in this respect, the fast AF and 2.8 aperture of the sigma would be ideal. When I shot football I was using the school's Rebel body (max ISO of 1600), the field was dark as crap, and I still had shutter speeds of 1/200 to 1/250. If your games are in the daytime then that's even better, you can stop down the lens and get a wider DOF, so more players in focus.

Oh and the sigma could also double as a decent portrait lens, if you wanted to do individual player no-helmet shots. Keep your tamron 28-200 though, and use the 28mm to get the whole team into the shot.
Oh and just to be clear since Sigma lens names are complicated, this is the lens I'm referring to:
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA09999043586K?r=FE
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...ex-hsm-apo-dg-macro-nikon-review--test-report