Which Lens? (Nikon)

syke · 13 Jun 2007 at 17:20

Looking to get a new lens for shooting Sports (Football) and also some advertising photography, such as cards, people & movement.

This could mean getting two lenses though?

Which lenses would you recommend?

Budget ~£350?

Helium_Junkie · 13 Jun 2007 at 17:38

For the sports you'd likely want a telephoto zoom up to 300. Image stabilisation would be useful for sporty shots

Scam · 13 Jun 2007 at 17:46

Off the top of my head, a Sigma 70-300 Macro APO for sports, and a Nikkor 50mm 1.x for portraits? :confused:

Should be under budget i believe. I just got the Sigma and it's brilliant.

syke · 13 Jun 2007 at 18:11

Scam said:
Off the top of my head, a Sigma 70-300 Macro APO for sports, and a Nikkor 50mm 1.x for portraits? Should be under budget i believe. I just got the Sigma and it's brilliant.

Yeah thats similar to what i was thinking.

Whats the Sigma like? Auto Focus or MF?

Joe T · 13 Jun 2007 at 18:50

With a D40, you need an AF-S or HSM lens. I'd go for the Nikkor 70-300 VR AF-S f4-5.6 @£330 UK price. It that is too step, try the Nikkor 55-200 VR AF-S @£250 (maybe less)

Kona* · 13 Jun 2007 at 18:54

You can get the 55-200mm AF-S DX VR for £159 + £10 postage if you look around

(not from HK either)

Craig

divine` · 13 Jun 2007 at 19:21

Scam said:
I just got the Sigma and it's brilliant.

It's a good budget zoom for the money, it is not however 'brilliant' by any stretch of the imagination.

It is noticeably soft past 200mm, has appalling CA and is bloody loud. You can't really complain for £130 but you can't describe it as brilliant as it is anything but that.

King4aDay · 13 Jun 2007 at 19:25

Cr4iG said:
You can get the 55-200mm AF-S DX VR for £159 + £10 postage if you look around (not from HK either)

Craig

Is that definitely the VR version and not the older non-VR?

Kona* · 13 Jun 2007 at 20:20

[font=&quot]

Email from Kerso said:
Nikon 55-200mm AF-S DX VR £159

Straight from the horses mouth

When I come to order it I will double-check with him though.

Craig
[/font]

Scam · 13 Jun 2007 at 20:35

divine_madness said:
It's a good budget zoom for the money, it is not however 'brilliant' by any stretch of the imagination.

It is noticeably soft past 200mm, has appalling CA and is bloody loud. You can't really complain for £130 but you can't describe it as brilliant as it is anything but that.

I think that's fairly harsh. With a hobby like this, everyone talks in terms of their own budget. I think that's fairly obvious. Dissing a lens and talking like you're comparing it to L-class stuff is silly. Of course it's not going to be perfect, if it was it would be a darn-sight more expensive wouldnt it?

I can't comment too much on the specifics you mention (i only got it a week ago) but i researched on it a fair amount and i never heard much talk of it being worryingly soft >200mm, i thought the non-APO was the only version that suffered badly from CA, and the AF is well, a bit loud but nothing daft. For someone like me who didnt want to spend over £200 on my hobby, who's getting a perfectly-decent lens with a great zoom range, Macro ability and what i'd class as decent results.. i stand by my statement of calling it brilliant!!

L0rdMike · 13 Jun 2007 at 20:51

My 70-300 seems to blur nearly everything, I took a shot at 1/1000 and it was still blury, I cant be shaking that much can I?

King4aDay · 13 Jun 2007 at 20:56

L0rdMike said:
My 70-300 seems to blur nearly everything, I took a shot at 1/1000 and it was still blury, I cant be shaking that much can I?

Either the focus is out or the lens is faulty if you're getting blurred images at 1/1000.

divine` · 13 Jun 2007 at 21:35

Scam said:
I think that's fairly harsh. With a hobby like this, everyone talks in terms of their own budget. I think that's fairly obvious. Dissing a lens and talking like you're comparing it to L-class stuff is silly. Of course it's not going to be perfect, if it was it would be a darn-sight more expensive wouldnt it?

I can't comment too much on the specifics you mention (i only got it a week ago) but i researched on it a fair amount and i never heard much talk of it being worryingly soft >200mm, i thought the non-APO was the only version that suffered badly from CA, and the AF is well, a bit loud but nothing daft. For someone like me who didnt want to spend over £200 on my hobby, who's getting a perfectly-decent lens with a great zoom range, Macro ability and what i'd class as decent results.. i stand by my statement of calling it brilliant!!

It's not harsh at all, I own the lens as my only telephoto and it's good for what it is, a cheap telephoto zoom. I'm not comparing it to anything else in those statements, just talking from over a years experiance using one.

I quite happily paid the £130 or so when I got mine, and it's done its job well but it is not a 'brilliant' lens. It is a good lens for the money. But like I said, it has sharpness issues, CA issues and noise issues and as such talking it up and calling it brilliant is misleading, it's average to good.

Good value, average quality.

L0rdMike said:
My 70-300 seems to blur nearly everything, I took a shot at 1/1000 and it was still blury, I cant be shaking that much can I?

It's probably not blur strictly speaking, just softness, most are like that. Some aren't. Sigma's quality control on their cheaper lenses leaves a bit to be desired really.

Scam · 13 Jun 2007 at 21:52

divine_madness i dont think you understand what i'm getting at. You saying it's a good lens for the money is the same as me saying it's brilliant, because that's what i was willing to pay for a lens. If you dont think much of it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

divine` · 13 Jun 2007 at 21:56

You just called it brilliant though, which is misleading, because it isn't. It is however a good value budget tele zoom.

GeX · 13 Jun 2007 at 22:11

stop arguing semantics!

Scam · 13 Jun 2007 at 22:39

divine_madness said:
You just called it brilliant though, which is misleading, because it isn't. It is however a good value budget tele zoom.

It is brilliant. I wanted a zoom with a decent range. Check. Macro ability. Check. Decent build quality. Check. Well recommended. Check. Etc etc..! Do you see what i mean? Sorry to be pedantic but it is currently my *new toy* and i think i'm perfectly entitled to love it to bits! I think we've derailed enough

alexisonfire · 13 Jun 2007 at 22:53

I have to agree with divine on this, describing a lens as brilliant and a lens as brilliant value are two completely different things, and is misleading. The sigma 70-300 APO is a very low budget telephoto lens, and does exactly what it says on the tin. Offers a large focal range, with IQ to match the price.

Football pitches are big, and people are small. I doubt 300mm is going to be near enough unless your happy with shooting at one position, or you don't mind cropping. Slightly over budget, but the sigma 50-500 has a fantastic focal range, especially for football photography, and the IQ is excellent. Well worth the money, if its still out of your budget theres always 2nd hand.

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 50-500mm HSM would be a lovely pair.

unknowndomain · 13 Jun 2007 at 22:53

Defiantly the Nikon 70-300 mm VR £399 RRP, probably could be less if you look about. Very nice lens VR active will be good for Sports. Worth the strech of £49

Messiah Khan · 13 Jun 2007 at 22:59

alexisonfire said:
The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 50-500mm HSM would be a lovely pair.

My intended lineup is;

Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 50mm F1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8
Sigma 50-500mm HSM
+ a 2X TC for even more flexibility. That lot should hopefully cover most of my needs.

Edit; Oh, and possibly a Nikkor 18-200mm as a walkabout lens. Damn I think ive got the glass fever.