Digital camera & digital photography resources
for professional & amateur photographers

I'm interested in buying a 70 mm-300mm lens for my nikon D50. I want to use it mainly for sports shots...basketball/football. What types of qualities in a lens should I look for. The lens I was considering was the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor. I'm trying to keep it affordable. Any info would be great! Thanks, Matt

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Have a look at the SIGMA 70 - 300, value for money.. I mean you can pick one up from £90

Last edited by GCB on Nov 23rd, 2006 at 01:54 AM

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

G'day mcarson and welcome to Byte.

The question of what lens to get is almost like asking how long is a piece of string...it's not easy to answer.

There's tons of different aspects to look at when you're buying lenses. Performance, quality, weight, price, functionality...it's almost endless.

But there's some good news, Firstly, good cameras benefit from good quality glass (nickname for an entire lens), and adversely, 'cheap' glass will give you less than desirable results. The D50 is a huge seller and not just because of its lightness and ease of use. It's also capable of delivering excellent images (as you may already know) It has most of the guts of the D70/D70s and will definitely deliver better results with good quality glass.

Essentially, a good rule of thumb is (as with most things in life) you get what you pay for. Nikon itself is primarily a lens and optics company ahead of a camera company, and as such you can easilly spend $8,000 + on a 300mm Nikkor lens.

Now, at the time I bought my D70 - 2 years ago - Nikon had released 2 70 - 300 lenses intended mainly for DSLRs, the 70 - 300 G (no aperture ring) and the 70 - 300 D lens (aperture ring) the G lens aperture would be changed via the command dial on the camera, and you could choose what to do with the D lens. I have the D lens and it's excellent.

So how is it you pay less for a lens? Well the G lens (because it has less moving parts) will cost less. It also has less glass elements than the D and probably lesser quality than the most expensive types, and like the D, has a plastic barreled body, so costs less to manufacture and to purchase. They also weigh less. The G and D lenses are built to a price, essentially destined to be bundled with a camera as a kit. Not that that is a bad thing. I have got some really good quality images from my D70 and the 70 - 300D.

The compromise of these lenses (and many other 'off brand') lenses against say an $8,000 lens, is the image quality may be softer at each end of the zoom range (possibly correctable in post processing), focus speed will be slower, the speed of the lens will be far less (maximum aperture), as a more expensive lens may have such features as image stability and constant aperture, metal body etc...so each of these features adds complexity and therefore cost. I read you mentioned sports shooting, just bear in mind that focus may be a little slower with the lenses around this end of the spectrum, I find prefocussing on or about your subject and maybe choosing AF-C focus will get you good results.

I think both the G and D lenses have been discontinued as Nikon continues to release new lenses, such as the 70 - 300 VR (stabilised) etc. But I'll bet you can still get existing or good quality 2nd hand 70 - 300s...I'd go for the D lens because the quality of both image and lens will be better and is more controllable. Definitely consider Tokina, Sigma and Tamron options if you wish for the same type of lens, but you shouldn't be paying too much more for the Nikon (being discontinued)

Good luck and let us know what you end up with (or if you have any more questions!)

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Upon bytethis's recommendation (as detailed as the one he gave you), I have been successfully using the
AF-S Nikkor 70-300 4.5-5.6 D ED Lens with my D50 for over a year now. The only very minor drawback is stability handheld - and I know myself that zoom shots should always have a tripod or monopod - just sometimes I get lazy. And occasionally it's tough/slow to get the autofocus just right. If I run into that, I simply flip it to manual focus, then put it back on auto to finish it off. Piece of cake!

It takes shots like this:
http://www.photoswithfinesse.com/Im...stouchdown.html

or this:
http://www.photoswithfinesse.com/Im...iciouseyes.html

or this:
http://www.photoswithfinesse.com/Im...adathistle.html

But I have also used Sigma and Tamron in the past and as long as you get good glass equivalents, they are also great lenses.

__________________
Suzan...
www.photoswithfinesse.com

Last edited by smcevoy on Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:31 AM

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

I shot HS and College baseball for years with a 400mm on film and tossed more than I kept because of a little shake from hitting the shutter at the perfect time. Especially outdoors at night. I now have afforded the 18-200mm Nikkor VR and love the ability to all but hit the shutter as it is coming to my eye (letting AF do it's job as well). That way as the continuous frames are firing off I don't worry about missing that perfect moment or the little shake I have in hitting the shutter to hard. Of course now it's digital and I don't loose the cost of film either.

Check out "Extra Distance" in my gallery. That was taken at max zoom then cropped (which in turn zoomed a touch more). granted it was about a 60' field across but still good coverage. Plus there is no shake from my (yelling) instruction while I was snapping away.

Scott.

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged