Recommended zoom lenses for action shots?

[Fenixgoon]

Hey guys! I played photographer for my friends today at a track day, and it was a ton of fun! I used a Nikon D5100 with a Nikon 55-200mm lens. Having something with larger zoom would be nice, but those lenses can get crazy expensive!

I was wondering if there were any decent 300mm+ lenses that wouldn't cost me thousands. I imagine for this type of shooting autofocus is a requirement, but what about vibration reduction and other things like that? I really don't know where to start, so I thought I'd start here.

I'll post a couple of photos I took today once I get them all on my computer (I took about 4000 - very easy with continuous shooting).


Thanks in advance!

 

[Berliner]

I was wondering if there were any decent 300mm+ lenses that wouldn't cost me thousands. I imagine for this type of shooting autofocus is a requirement, but what about vibration reduction and other things like that? I really don't know where to start, so I thought I'd start here.

No, they all cost a lot of money. Best (cheapest, yet very good) bet might be a used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR.

Speaking of VR, you don't need it for action shots, since you need a fast enough shutter to stop the action anyway. I would consider switching it off for action with high enough shutter speeds (1/500s and faster).

Don't throw your money at anything that is f/5.6 or worse for action, unless you can live with a lot of unsharp shots. But I guess you would not be asking then?

If money is a concern, I would not think about going above 200mm. Just get a little closer.

 

[CuriousMike]

Crop the shit out of the photos you took - your D5100 has good resolution. See if that gets you where you need to go.

Your first step up would be the Tamron or Nikon 70-300 - ( $350-$500 )

Beyond that, you're getting into money - the 80-400 first gen or maybe the 300f4.

I went down the following road for cheap more reach, and it didn't work out for me but might for you (google it - lots of people have done with and been happy): A refurb Nikon V1 ($250) and an adapter ($200) to slap your 55-200 on would give you 200 * 2.7 = 540 mm with a fast frame rate. Get that setup and add the 55-300 or 70-300 for > 800mm.

 

[CuriousMike]

Going long on DSLR's is not cheap.
The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever the latest is ) can be found used for ~$600, but I don't know how fast the AF is. But if you're panning a lot, it might not matter.

The newer bridge super-zooms might do it for you too.

 

[Fenixgoon]

so just for example, here are a couple of different 70-300mm lenses with prices for $150-600. what separates them?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_6_DG_OS.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._70_300mm.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_6_Di_LD.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...om_Nikkor.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_Di.html

also, i don't mind springing for a D5100 - it's a camera body I'm familiar with (you can get them for like $350 now) and know how to use somewhat well.

what's good in terms of maximum aperture size for this type of lens?

i absolutely plan on cropping the shit out of my photos once they've been sorted

 

[CuriousMike]

Without having used any of what I'm about to crap on (but I've read enough reviews on all) , I would say any of those $200 Sigma and Tamrons are poor choices due to slower focusing, no VR and generally poor sharpness.

To be cheap, I'd say your minimum entry point is the Nikon 55-300.
The Tamron or Nikon 70-300 VR's would be next up - the Tamron is said to be slightly sharper at 300mm - it can be found after rebates in that 350-450 range.

I misread your original post - so it sounds like your were borrowing a body... which means you need a body.

Not knowing budgets, my default thinking is "value."

I'd look for a D5200 - more megapixels to crop.
Alternatively, a used/refurb D7000 = good AF system, good framerate better build.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Without having used any of what I'm about to crap on (but I've read enough reviews on all) , I would say any of those $200 Sigma and Tamrons are poor choices due to slower focusing, no VR and generally poor sharpness.

To be cheap, I'd say your minimum entry point is the Nikon 55-300.
The Tamron or Nikon 70-300 VR's would be next up - the Tamron is said to be slightly sharper at 300mm - it can be found after rebates in that 350-450 range.

I misread your original post - so it sounds like your were borrowing a body... which means you need a body.

Not knowing budgets, my default thinking is "value."

I'd look for a D5200 - more megapixels to crop.
Alternatively, a used/refurb D7000 = good AF system, good framerate better build.

the d5100 i used was "mine" from work, so yes, it is technically not mine, but i was thinking of getting a d5100 body since i'm used to it so much.

is the AF on the d7000 better? would probably work better for grabbing pics of people at 150mph

 

[CuriousMike]

the d5100 i used was "mine" from work, so yes, it is technically not mine, but i was thinking of getting a d5100 body since i'm used to it so much.

is the AF on the d7000 better? would probably work better for grabbing pics of people at 150mph

AF is where the body and the lens come into play.

I struggled with my D5000 and my 55-200 to nail focus on my dog running directly at me, let alone a fast moving motorcycle.

I upgraded to the D7100 and the 70-200f4, and my keeper rate went up, but it's not 80% that some people will claim.

It really depends on your budget how to do this - I would say your minimum you should strive for would be the D5200 and one of the $400 70-300's.
A better spot would be the D7000 and one of the $400 70-300's - the D7000 has good AF system.
The step-up 70-300's are better build quality and faster focusing than the cheap 70-300's or the 55-300.

Have you looked at the photos you got from the D5100 + 55-200 ? You might just be pleased with those and then you're done.

 

[Fenixgoon]

here are a couple of photos (among the better ones) that I took with the D5100 - can't remember whether I was using the 55-200 or the 70-300 lens.

1
2
3
4
5

 

[OctaneZ]

here are a couple of photos (among the better ones) that I took with the D5100

Results in

Your client does not have permission to get URL from this server.
Forbidden That’s all we know.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Results in

fixed! though the pics i uploaded to bbzzdd are not full res. i don't have enough space

 

[iGas]

What shutter speed are you shooting at?

It may suit you just fine, but it seems as if your pictures are a bit soft due to slow shutter speed.

How to shoot fast-moving objects: free photography cheat sheet

You don't need AF for your type of photography. The best is pre focus at a marker on the track, use mirror lock up, use remote trigger (I prefer corded shutter release trigger), and practice your timing between pressing the trigger and actual time of shutter released (use the marker/s infront of pre focus point for timing).

A used Tokina 400mm (or Vivitar, was made by Tokina) is the best telephoto lens for the price that get you into the range that you want.

Full-size sample photos from Tokina 400mm F/5.6

Perhaps, a used Tokina or Tamron 300mm f/2.8 if you need a fast lens.

 

[CuriousMike]

Some of those look pretty good - i like the last one. The last one shot looks like you have good technique for that particular type of shot - i.e., you panned nicely and kept the shutter speed slow enough to have background blur but the rider in focus.

Looks like Picasa stripped the EXIF info away from the photos, so we can't see the shutter speed/aperture/iso/focal length.

My guess is basic gear and practice will up your game a solid notch or two.

To *really* up your game is going to cost $$$$ for some of the f2.8 type lenses.

 

[Fenixgoon]

here's the stats for the pictures:

#1 - 200mm, 1/400s, f/7.1, iso-100
#2 - 200mm, 1/4000s, f/7.1, iso-1600
#3 - 90mm, 1/400s, f/7.1, iso-100
#4 - 200mm, 1/4000s, f/5.6, iso-1600
#5 - 175mm, 1/250s, f/7.1, iso-100

based on what i've been reading, here's what i'm thinking for body/lens combos

D7100
Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens - good general purpose
NIKON AF NIKKOR 70-210mm 1:4-5.6 ZOOM LENS - apparently this guy is one of the fastest focusing lenses < $800 from what i've been reading.

and then add that tamron later on

 

[Berliner]

NIKON AF NIKKOR 70-210mm 1:4-5.6 ZOOM LENS - apparently this guy is one of the fastest focusing lenses < $800 from what i've been reading.

I have that one, and it's not very fast, neither in aperture nor focussing.

 

[CuriousMike]

#4 looks flat, like he's just standing there. That's your fast shutter speed. Sharp. Lifeless.
#5 shows action - not perfect sharp, but a MUCH better photo.

I have the 18-140 and it is a VERY good general purpose lens.

I don't know anything about the 70-210 - I'd be double-dog checking your facts on that one.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I have that one, and it's not very fast, neither in aperture nor focussing.

boo i guess for the review i read it was fast at the time. the "D" version was supposed to be even faster.

 

[Berliner]

boo i guess for the review i read it was fast at the time. the "D" version was supposed to be even faster.

Yes sorry, I have the D version. Did you maybe read about the f/4 version? Not sure if that is faster or slower.

It might also be that it's just slow on my D70s. I mean, it's not a bad lens overall and you can get it used quite cheaply, so it might not hurt to try. Everyone else seems to say it focusses quite fast.

Oh yeah, you can't use autofocus with it on a D5100.

 

[iGas]

I wouldn't waste $800 for a lens that doesn't give me the focal length that I need, and at that price it isn't far from the Tamron 150-600 at $1069 on Amazon. And, the Tamron at 400mm wide open at f/5.6 is just as sharp as the Canon 400mm f/5.6L prime and slightly sharper than the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S (the Nikon is slightly sharper at focal length below 400mm). The Tamron wide open at 500mm is still as sharp as the Canon at 400mm, and the bonus is that it have the extra reach up to 600mm.

Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality vs. Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR

 

[CuriousMike]

If you have a budget of $500-$600, the Bigma comes to mind.
If you're spending big money, the Tammy 150-600 would be a good choice.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I have that one, and it's not very fast, neither in aperture nor focussing.

The 70-210 AF-D is much faster focusing than the 70-210 AF. Super deal for the price if you have plenty of light.

The 80-200 AF-D F/2.8 can be had for around $900 refurbished and is a great lens.

JR

 

[Fenixgoon]

hey guys, just thought i'd bump this thread as i just started my photography website, so i could use a camera/lens set now

what are the advantages of those uber 80-200mm lenses that cost ~$1000?

one person's suggestion, and i don't know how true this is, is to not have lenses that overlap in focal length, so to that end i was thinking of getting a nikon 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 and then a sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6, which prettymuch covers everything i'd ever need.

but there's a reason people make so many different types of lenses. what's the advantage or disadvantage of having something at a fixed focal length (say 35mm) versus a zoom that covers 18-105?

 

[ElFenix]

hey guys, just thought i'd bump this thread as i just started my photography website, so i could use a camera/lens set now

what are the advantages of those uber 80-200mm lenses that cost ~$1000?

one person's suggestion, and i don't know how true this is, is to not have lenses that overlap in focal length, so to that end i was thinking of getting a nikon 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 and then a sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6, which prettymuch covers everything i'd ever need.

but there's a reason people make so many different types of lenses. what's the advantage or disadvantage of having something at a fixed focal length (say 35mm) versus a zoom that covers 18-105?

at 35 mm, the widest relative aperture of the 18-105 is f/ 4.5. for the fixed focal length, it's 1.4 or 1.8, depending on which you get. even the 1.8 is 2 2/3 stops faster than the zoom. that's like moving from ISO 1600 to 500.

on top of that, from photozone's results, the zoom isn't as sharp as the fixed focal, shows pincushion distortion (though the 35/1.8 shows barrel), has more vignetting, and i'm going to guess the bokeh isn't particularly nice looking.

 

[CuriousMike]

what are the advantages of those uber 80-200mm lenses that cost ~$1000?

1. Fastest focusing lenses you can "reasonably" afford
2. Best micro-contrast you can "reasonably" afford - i.e., the best image quality
3. Best control over DOF - although most of the shooting you're doing is in bright light.

I think you'd be well served renting a couple of lenses;

70-200 f/2.8 - best "affordable" quality - might be short
80-400 f/4.5-5.6 - great mix of fast focus and bigger reach

If the purpose is still to shoot motorcycles, you want something fast focusing.
Whatever lens you think you want, spend an extra minute verifying it's not known as a hunter.

 

[Fenixgoon]

1. Fastest focusing lenses you can "reasonably" afford
2. Best micro-contrast you can "reasonably" afford - i.e., the best image quality
3. Best control over DOF - although most of the shooting you're doing is in bright light.

I think you'd be well served renting a couple of lenses;

70-200 f/2.8 - best "affordable" quality - might be short
80-400 f/4.5-5.6 - great mix of fast focus and bigger reach

If the purpose is still to shoot motorcycles, you want something fast focusing.
Whatever lens you think you want, spend an extra minute verifying it's not known as a hunter.

what's a hunter?

edit: and yes, my main goal is still action/sports photography

if you guys want to check out more of my photos (and the type of photos i want to take), check out my site (any kind of feedback is welcome!) - www.dsphotoltd.com