Telephoto Lens help.

mcleish · Jul 17, 2012

Hey all. Sorry if this has been discussed before.

I currently own a 55-300 which I think is an ok lens, but not for sports. Its slow a focusing which makes it difficult at getting the action shots.
Im wanting to upgrade but unsure what to get. Ive looked at the 70-200 vr2 which I've read is a pretty good zoom lens, which could be a possibility, but i think i may miss the extra 100mm. My budget i reckon will be around $2500, so i was wondering if there is a lens that matches the 70-200 performance but with the extra 100mm?

orb9220 · Jul 17, 2012

For which camera body? As the body will have more impact on faster AF acquisition and lock then the lenses. As more capable camera with more AF sensors and Better AF detection will be suited for sports. And sports requires fast body and fast lenses.

If you are talking entry type cameras like D3xxx or D5xxx series than that's the problem right there. And would look to upgrade body.
.

Big Mike · Jul 17, 2012

Also, what time of day (lighting) do you most often shoot in? If you're always shooting in daylight, then you might be able to get away with a lens that has a smaller maximum aperture or maybe a faster lens with a teleconverter. Also, if your camera can handle higher ISO, that would help.
Typically sports lenses have a max aperture of F4 or F2.8, but with modern cameras being so good at higher ISO, you can get away with a less expensive lens...I would think.

For example, you could get the 70-200mm F2.8 and then add a 1.4X or 1.7X teleconverter to give you more reach when you need it.

Nikon has a great 200-400mm lens, but it's really expensive. If you really need the reach, you might look at Sigma's 150-500mm or 50-500mm.

mcleish · Jul 18, 2012

Thanks for the quick replies.

I have a D90. Lens wise i have a 50 1.8, tokina 12-24 and the 55-300. The 50 and 12-24 are really quick at focusing so i can't say its the body? I like the idea of the 70-200 with a teleconverter. Is there a drop in quality once you add that though?
As of now I've mainly shot in daylight but id like the option of shooting at night if the chance came up.

Solarflare · Jul 18, 2012

Yes, a teleconverter will cause a drop in quality, and a drop in maximum aperture as well.

Even with the teleconverter, the 70-200mm will still be better than cheap telephoto lenses, though. And it still have the fast autofocus.

Big Mike · Jul 18, 2012

I like the idea of the 70-200 with a teleconverter. Is there a drop in quality once you add that though?

Yes, the quality will be affected, but with a high quality teleconverter, it shouldn't be much of an issue.

mcleish · Jul 18, 2012

Man those teleconverters aren't cheap! $500 give or take for a nikon x2. I reckon ill take the dive for the 70-200... see how it goes and get a teleconverter if needed. Thanks for the help.

orb9220 · Jul 18, 2012

Yep shot an nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with a tamron 1.4x and became a 120-280mm f4 with minimum impact hits in Image IQ and speed.

But seen outstanding shots with the 70-200 f2.8 and using a 1.7x and 2.0x. 1.7x would make a 340 f5 kind of setup. or 2.0x for 400mm f5.6.
.

Infinite_Day · Jul 19, 2012

If you don't need zoom capability there's also the 300mm f/4 but it has no VR. You might also look at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. It's a bit higher than your budget but you might be able to find one used and it's a good lens by most accounts.

TonysTouch · Jul 20, 2012

If you are shooting sports from a distance, you cannot beat the speed of manual focus. Practice a lot. If you are shooting from the same spot each and every time, you will eventually get a feel for where to focus from different focus lengths, especially with sports like football where there are marks on the ground that can help give you a reference.

mcleish · Jul 20, 2012

Thanks for the info everybody. Im still thinking of going for the 70-200. I know its a good piece of glass and ill be able to use it for other things too. I may rent one out and see how i feel about the focal distance. Then i may add a 1.4 teleconverter too.