Need advice-which Lens for Sports?

[Karinu]

For Nikon D90, I have settled on 2 possible choices for shooting sports, both baseball (outdoor, mostly daylight) & gymnastics (indoor, lower light). Prices are comparable on both.

Do you recommend:

1. Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
2. Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 (w/motor)

I am not a pro and also don't want to spend big $ on the 70-200 f/2.8 (even though that'd be my first choice!)

[sk66]

Too many variables to decide...Are you going to be able to move around and get close, or will you be shooting from the box seats?

Off hand I'd say go with the VR, but it won't help that much because your subjects will be in motion.

[jdepould]

18-270 is a definite no. The 70-300 is fine outdoors, but inside ... less so.

[inkista]

I'm a Canon shooter, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but for the gymnastics, I'd think an 85/1.8 would be the better way to go.

[Karinu]

Nice feedback. But now I just have more questions.

Let me clarify some of the variables: For the baseball I'll have the ability to get close to the field a lot of the time. Less often I'll be in the stands. For gymnastics, I'll definitely be shooting from further away.

Question: Why is the 18-270mm a no-no? Could you give me some specifics on why? I guess I was thinking the bigger f-stop range would be a plus over the 70-300mm which has a smaller range? From what I've read up on this lens it seems to be a pretty good all-around lens which would be the "pro". Definitely interested in the "cons".

Inkista-thanks for the insight. When it comes to this type of question, I'm sure being a Canon shooter doesn't skew your advice! Thanks!

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Karinu

Nice feedback. But now I just have more questions.

Let me clarify some of the variables: For the baseball I'll have the ability to get close to the field a lot of the time. Less often I'll be in the stands. For gymnastics, I'll definitely be shooting from further away.

Question: Why is the 18-270mm a no-no? Could you give me some specifics on why? I guess I was thinking the bigger f-stop range would be a plus over the 70-300mm which has a smaller range? From what I've read up on this lens it seems to be a pretty good all-around lens which would be the "pro". Definitely interested in the "cons".

The reason why the 18-270 would be a no is because at the high end of the zoom the f/stop is higher than the f/stop of the 70-300. So at 270mm the lowest f/stop you'd be able to get is f/6.3 while at 300mm the lowest f/stop you'd get is f/5.6. This coupled with the fact that you'll get a longer zoom on the 300 and you'd want the lowest f/stop possible when shooting indoors then you'd want the 70-300.

At least that's my guess.

[sk66]

Neither lens is going to suit both situations particularly well...
The problem with the gymnastics is that the artificial lighting is deceptively dim. You'll need a faster lens or the ability to get closer with those lenses.

I would suggest the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or their 70-200f/2.8 (leaning towards the 70-200).....a bit more money, but better options.

I personally own an older Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f/2.8 I bought used for the price you are looking at...There are compromises with it (slower focus, "clunkier" operation) but I do quite well with it.....

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Karinu

Question: Why is the 18-270mm a no-no?

The main reason is image quality compromises to cover the very large zoom range. Most superzooms are relatively close to an 18-55 kit lens in terms of image quality. That doesn't mean they're bad, just that you gave up image quality for the framing versatility. And they're always slow, and so relatively expensive for what you get. Using an 18-55/55-200 combo typically gets you the same or slightly better image quality for about half the cost.

I guess I was thinking the bigger f-stop range would be a plus over the 70-300mm which has a smaller range?

Just to clarify, that f/3.5-6.3 on the lens isn't the "aperture range" of the lens, it's the maximum aperture of the lens.

The reason there are two numbers is that that lens's maximum aperture varies with the focal length. At 18mm, the max. aperture is f/3.5, and at 270mm, the max. aperture is f/6.3. The farther in you zoom, the smaller your max. aperture gets. You won't actually be able to use f/3.5 throughout the entire range. And the smallest aperture is, naturally, at the telephoto end of the lens which is probably where you want to use it the most.

For available light shooting (i.e., indoors without a flash), f/2.8 is considered to be the borderline aperture needed to get shutter speeds high enough to freeze the action/handhold. (And it may still not be enough). That's why I recommended the 85 f/1.8. Stabilization will NOT help you freeze action. Stabilization can only help you eliminate camera shake blur. But subject motion blur depends soley on the shutter speed, and you can only get that via the iso or your aperture.

This is why max. aperture is so important, and why sports lenses (particularly for indoor sports) tend to be so damn expensive: you need both reach and speed together. Individually either of those factors cost. Together, it gets pretty expensive. Indoor sports is probably the most demanding subject when it comes to glass.

Remember, too, that the longer the lens is, the faster the shutter speed you need to eliminate camera shake blur (which is why you still want a lens that's stabilized). The rule of thumb with an unstabilized lens is that your shutter speed should be at 1/focal_length or faster to eliminate camera shake blur while handholding. That means if you're shooting with a 50mm lens, you need to be at 1/50s or faster. If you're shooting with a 300mm, lens 1/300s or faster. The longer your lens gets, the harder it gets to use in low light because of this.

[Karinu]

Being new to interchangeable lenses/SLR, I was misunderstanding that the range was the max aperture--I guess I was thinking that I'd have that full range to play with regardless of focal length used.

I think I'm going to go with the 70-300mm for now and do what I can. Should be great for outdoor ball but I may have to use a tripod inside...which wouldn't be horrible. I'm sure I'll still get better results than with my old Lumix (superzoom, not DSLR) which had a great zoom but didn't shoot well in low light.

Thanks everyone.

[LoveDSLR]

You don't have to second guess lens selection. To shoot in any situations, you just have to find out the required exposure value (EV) range beside the right focal length.

Then you note the highest ISO value (that you can accept the noise level) of your camera and find a lens with the right focal length & maximum aperture that supports both EV and necessary shutter speed. Later you can work out the VR/Monopod etc.

For example, if the indoor game requires EV 7 then a 300mm lens at f/2.8 1/500s ISO 3200 (EV 6.9) can be considered.