photography peeps.

[terribleclio]

New lens for my D40 in a couple of weeks. Shall be shooting mainly sports stuff (motorsport, BMX, Kayaking)
Looking at getting a nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR. Now i've heard from some people i wouldn't really be quick enough for motorsport ect....is this right and if so what would you recommend?

Thanks
Dean

 

[dick]

without knowing nikons im not a great help,
had a quick google, saw it was 145 quid ish, so for that money im guessing itll be about 4.5-6.3, or 4.5-5.6

HOEVER! you wont want to freeze motorsport action, youll want to see the wheels spinning and panning etc.
SO in that case i think it should be ok?!

things where you will want to freeze action tho youve no chance. ie. kayac/ BMX without bumping the ISO to silly levels in good light.

Personally, id drop the VR and pay a bit more and go for something with a wider apaerture!
and use lower ISO, smaller DoF(wont matter with motorsport admittedly), faster shutterspeed
Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens

altho #450ish quid.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO MACRO HSM Lens
or that about the same cost.

DEPENDING on the reviws i read and sample shots i look at. but as its not for me i cant be arsed as its a LONG process. sorry!

but ive had cheap lenses before and ther not worth the packaging they come in half the time. and end up upgrading and then the #200 or whever could have been half way to buying a decent bit of glass.

 

[terribleclio]

i'm not willing to pay £500 on a lens to be honest....not just yet anyway

 

[ukaskew]

Tough one,

In short, freezing action is extremely hard unless you pay for a very fast lens (f2.8 will cover pretty much any conditions), however, if you will mainly be panning and having plenty of motion etc in your shots then the lens is almost irrelevant as your technique will achieve 90% of what you're after.

So it depends what sort of shots you are after really, if you like motion then the Nikon 70-300 or Sigma 70-300 will be excellent and they don't cost too much (both around £100). If you want to freeze stuff and isolate the subject by blurring the background you probably want the 70-200 2.8 (£1k +) Only issue is the D40 without the af motor, so obviously you would need to make sure whichever of the 70-300 has AF-S or equivalent so autofocus works. I can't recommend them enough though (I had the Sigma), I only sold it as I managed to get an 80-200 2.8 AF-S extremely cheap second-hand.

Frozen shot, 130mm, ISO 200, 1/2500 at f2.8.

The 70-300 would probably give you a black image at that shutter speed in those conditions (under trees) but the 80-200 does it without breaking a sweat.

However go with some motion and there isn't too much in it...

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6. 1/320 @ f8.0

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8. 1/125 @f7.0

That's a £1000 difference in lens in the above 2 pics, but you would be hard pressed to see the difference unless you frequently blow your pics up pretty big. Obviously the 80-200 2.8 comes into its own in other situations, but the 70-300 will do the business as long as you play to its strengths.

 

[terribleclio]

Thats the sort of advice i was after. Thanks Chris

 

[Rasclart]

Chris is that the same lens I am borrowing at the moment? amazingly sharp and crisp!!!! Much better now it auto focus's on the D80 as well

 

[ukaskew]

Chris is that the same lens I am borrowing at the moment? amazingly sharp and crisp!!!! Much better now it auto focus's on the D80 as well

There are about 4 versions of the 80-200, all have essentially the same glass but the auto-focus design is a bit different on each. Apart from that they are all ridiculously sharp and pretty much look the same. If your one didn't auto-focus on the D40 then it will probably be the AF-D version (#4 on the list linked below)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm

I was lucky, I managed to get the AF-S version (#5 on the list, the heaviest, which has the quickest autofocus you could ever imagine) but priced in the more common AF-D price-range. The vast majority of people have the D version (which is annoying for D40 owners as that means there isn't really a cheap way into the 70/80-200 2.8 market.)

End result is the same with all of them though, f'ing fantastic!

 

[dick]

Thats the sort of advice i was after. Thanks Chris

was a good reply by him, but only concerning the motor racing,

I had said that it would be fine for planning shots motor racing, as it would be, as you dont need such a quick shutter speed

he missed out that you want to take photos of BMXing which needs very fast shutter speeds as they tend to fly past you a few meters away. hence the reason i suggested the other lenses instead.

some people.

 

[Rich]

200mm is to short for most UK circuits unless you can get trackside.

 

[ukaskew]

he missed out that you want to take photos of BMXing which needs very fast shutter speeds as they tend to fly past you a few meters away. hence the reason i suggested the other lenses instead.

As I said, depends what type of shots he is after, with virtually any moving object you can still do a relatively fast pan (i.e. 1/320) and get the majority of the object frozen but still with a nice hint of movement (such as in the wheels).

This, for example, was taken at 1/250. By my standards it's a 'frozen' shot (there is virtually no movement in the background), but you still get a bit of blur on the wheels to imply movement as I had to pan ever so slightly for it to work at 1/250, and at that sort of speed you can get away with reasonable apertures.

With the fast f2.8 at my disposal I could easily have got a shot that was 90% identical to that by using something like 1/2500, but by using a slower shutter speed you get a slightly more dynamic shot and don't need a fast aperture.

And something slightly more on the BMX theme (i.e. a bike in the air), both at 1/400 and therefore well within the capabilities of an f4-5.6 lens on a reasonable day...

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/157159583-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/157159566-L.jpg

There is more than one way to crack an egg. My 'frozen' shots are pretty much all done between 1/150 and 1/400 now, where as many other people would use 1/1000, 1/2000 and so on. I learned using a slow lens so I had to do it that way, that's now what I'm comfortable with (despite it being harder to do) and imo you get a more pleasing result.

 

[terribleclio]

200mm is to short for most UK circuits unless you can get trackside.

Bugger. Tbh i've decided i hate having the D40 now....damn crappy AF-S system.

It might be me but i can only find the 70-300 Chris is talking about with the AF system that works with everything BUT the D40. Unless i fork out and get a 70-300 VR which seems the only one with AF-S

 

[ukaskew]

200mm is to short for most UK circuits unless you can get trackside.

Bugger. Tbh i've decided i hate having the D40 now....damn crappy AF-S system.

It might be me but i can only find the 70-300 Chris is talking about with the AF system that works with everything BUT the D40.

That's the problem you see, it's a great camera but it immediately removes loads and loads of good cheap lenses out of the equation.

I've had a look and the only 70-300 lens compatible with the D40 is the Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 VR, fantastic lens but that's £300.

It would be cheaper to sell the D40 and get a decent second hand or refurb D50.

 

[terribleclio]

That's the problem you see, it's a great camera but it immediately removes loads and loads of good cheap lenses out of the equation.

I've had a look and the only 70-300 lens compatible with the D40 is the Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 VR, fantastic lens but that's £300.

It would be cheaper to sell the D40 and get a decent second hand or refurb D50.

Yeh that's what i've looked at doing, Either D50 or 70 tbh.

 

[ukaskew]

It would be cheaper to sell the D40 and get a decent second hand or refurb D50.

Yeh that's what i've looked at doing, Either D50 or 70 tbh.

Make sure you get the 2005 model if going with a D70 (D70s), autofocus was a bit iffy on the original version apparently.