Indoor sports lens suggestions

[Geoff_M]

The D90 was a nice camera, and does work "better" at higher ISOs than the D40... but it too is quite out-of-date. Technically, the D90 only goes to ISO 3200. You "sorta" get to 6400 by using the "Hi 1" setting, but the only time you're going to want to use a "Hi" setting that is, by definition outside of the range that the sensor can be reliably be calibrated, is for emergency purposes only. By that same token, the D5300 can go up to 12,800 with "Hi 1". In all likelihood, ISO 1,600 is about as high as you're going to want to use with a D90 before the noise really starts to take over your images (particularly in "darker" gyms). With a camera like the D5300, that useable ISO will likely be 3200.

The bottom line is that a D90 will give you about 2/3-stop ISO performance jump, and allow you do use order Non-AF-S lenses. I like the flexibility of using the older (cheaper) "screw-drive" lenses that I already own, but the drawback (and it's an issue with sports) is that they focus a LOT slower than AF-S versions.

 

[threecrazykids]

The D90 was a nice camera, and does work "better" at higher ISOs than the D40... but it too is quite out-of-date. Technically, the D90 only goes to ISO 3200. You "sorta" get to 6400 by using the "Hi 1" setting, but the only time you're going to want to use a "Hi" setting that is, by definition outside of the range that the sensor can be reliably be calibrated, is for emergency purposes only. By that same token, the D5300 can go up to 12,800 with "Hi 1". In all likelihood, ISO 1,600 is about as high as you're going to want to use with a D90 before the noise really starts to take over your images (particularly in "darker" gyms). With a camera like the D5300, that useable ISO will likely be 3200.

The bottom line is that a D90 will give you about 2/3-stop ISO performance jump, and allow you do use order Non-AF-S lenses. I like the flexibility of using the older (cheaper) "screw-drive" lenses that I already own, but the drawback (and it's an issue with sports) is that they focus a LOT slower than AF-S versions.

So, you feel the D5300 would be better money spent? In looking at the comparisons, the D5300 is even cheaper than the D90! I like that!

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5300-vs-Nikon_D90

Just curious - why is the D90 more expensive than the 5300? Is it because the 5300 doesn't have the built in focus motor?
I don't currently have the focus motor with the D40 so my lenses are AF-S which would work on the D5300...

 

[hakepb]

If you want an internal focus motor and better high ISO in a used body, I'd consider the D7000
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm
(Ken is not my favorite site, but he is correctly clear about the focus motor)

(Yes, Snapsort is wrong on the D7000, its a website created by "Bot's" and isn't always accurate. It's an interesting starting point of a comparison, but it's up to the user to research the real data)

Now, you mention the D5300. If you don't need some of the D7000's semi-pro features/controls (or AF moror) them the D5300 is a great choice. The D5300 has the nice AF system from the D7000, and has great high-ISO, also. And you get 24MP for great detail.

 

[xlxo]

If you don't need the D5300 flip out screen.... save money by getting the D3300.

Just curious - why is the D90 more expensive than the 5300? Is it because the 5300 doesn't have the built in focus motor?
I don't currently have the focus motor with the D40 so my lenses are AF-S which would work on the D5300...

Yes, the D90 has the AF motor and has been replaced by the D7%00 series. The premium models with the motor means I can use cheaper AF-D lenses. For example on a 50mm prime...

• http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/766516-USA/Nikon_2199_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_8G.html
• http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

Love the 85mm AF-D. It appears to be discontinued now.

 

[Geoff_M]

So, you feel the D5300 would be better money spent? In looking at the comparisons, the D5300 is even cheaper than the D90! I like that!

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5300-vs-Nikon_D90

Just curious - why is the D90 more expensive than the 5300? Is it because the 5300 doesn't have the built in focus motor?
I don't currently have the focus motor with the D40 so my lenses are AF-S which would work on the D5300...

It has to do primarily with the classification of each camera. Nikon brands its purely "pro" level DSLRs with single number identifiers (D3, D4), it's middle-ground "pro-sumer" models with three digits IDs (D300, D600) and it's "consumer" DSLRs with four digit IDs (D5300, D7000). The D90 came out before Nikon settled on this branding scheme and nowadays would be considered a "pro-sumer" model.

"Pro-sumer" camera support both cam driven AF as well as AF-S focus, have more weather sealing than consumer models, and have more of their parts made of metal versus polycarbonate. You'll notice the difference between a D90 and a D5300 in the "heft" when you pick each one up. This doesn't mean, however, that consumer bodies are "all plastic" or "fragile". They're just aimed at a different type of user and environment.

But, you can easily find current consumer models that will "out perform" older "pro-sumer" models in certain key areas, such as image quality.

As for the aforementioned D7000. I own one, and it's not a bad camera. But for me, and a lot of reviewers on the Internet, I found the images it produces are often too soft until I crank up the in-camera sharpening. My son currently has it at college.

 

[threecrazykids]

Hmmm...since all of my current lenses are AF-S, they could be used on any of these cameras then.


It's just a matter of spending the money wisely - I just don't want to "overspend" on the body with a bunch of features that you pros use that I would likely never venture upon.

I know, I'm cheap.

I am certainly not a pixel peeper and have had great luck (so far) being able to print out shots (only as big as 8x10) and have seen no issues at all with blur or less than crisp results. I likely wouldn't ever need to print a huge canvas or anything like that so I'm not sure where my money would be best invested.

I just want to be able to get great indoor action shots and not have to forego a limb for it.

 

[hakepb]

If you don't need the D5300 flip out screen.... save money by getting the D3300.



Yes, the D90 has the AF motor and has been replaced by the D7%00 series. The premium models with the motor means I can use cheaper AF-D lenses. For example on a 50mm prime...

• http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/766516-USA/Nikon_2199_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_8G.html
• http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

Love the 85mm AF-D. It appears to be discontinued now.

Since we are talking sports, the better AF system in the D5300 might be used enough to be worth it.

 

[fritodenny]

These were taken with my D5200 and Tameron 70-200 f2.8 without VC in the 100m dash

f4.5 1/1000 sec 200mm ISO 400

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[threecrazykids]

Great shots! My 70-300 f/4.5 does great for covering the outdoor shots. It's my indoor shots that are where I'm left struggling because of the limitations on the aperture.

 

[mom2rtk]

Great shots! My 70-300 f/4.5 does great for covering the outdoor shots. It's my indoor shots that are where I'm left struggling because of the limitations on the aperture.

OP, I was thinking of you tonight as I was shooting my daughter's first volleyball game of the season. I have a Canon T2i and swapped back and forth between my 17-55 f/2.8 and my 50-150 f/2.8. I started at ISO 3200 with shutter speed of 1/500 but that required shooting wide open at 2.8. If I went with ISO 6400 I could stop down a tiny bit. But I'm usually not happy with my ISO at 6400, even with noise reduction.

I'm thinking I might have to dig out my little-used 50mm f/1.8.

But honestly, if you don't have a usable 3200 ISO, I would be trying very hard to find a way to upgrade your body.

Here's one shot from tonight. It's still a little softer than I like, probably because of the shallow DOF. Of course, if that's it, then I'll be less happy if I swap to the 1.8 lens.

IMG_9799 by mom2rtk, on Flickr

 

[threecrazykids]

That shot looks like a bunch of the ones I took tonight with my 50mm! It's amazing how fast the lens has to be when it comes to shooting volleyball. The swinging of arms or the blur of the volleyball itself is where it gets me hung up. Capturing reactions to a spike or a team celebration I have pretty much nailed down - it's the actual spike or serve where that blur sneaks its way in.

I'm thinking the body upgrade is something I need to strongly consider. That ISO bump may make a fairly significant difference in how my lenses shoot.

Christmas is just around the corner ya know!

 

[mom2rtk]

That shot looks like a bunch of the ones I took tonight with my 50mm! It's amazing how fast the lens has to be when it comes to shooting volleyball. The swinging of arms or the blur of the volleyball itself is where it gets me hung up. Capturing reactions to a spike or a team celebration I have pretty much nailed down - it's the actual spike or serve where that blur sneaks its way in.

I'm thinking the body upgrade is something I need to strongly consider. That ISO bump may make a fairly significant difference in how my lenses shoot.

Christmas is just around the corner ya know!

This was the first time we've even watched a school volleyball game. I really wasn't sure what focal length I would need or how the viewing would be. But based on that experience, I'm thinking my 50mm lens is going to be my "go to" from here forward. I'm still struggling at 3200 so I can't imagine how frustrating it would be using an older body that doesn't do well at higher ISOs.

I'm sure each gym we go to will have slightly different lighting and seating, but I'm just thinking a 2.8 lens just isn't going to do the trick for volleyball for me.

 

[xlxo]

Christmas is just around the corner ya know!

You mean Black Friday???

 

[threecrazykids]

You mean Black Friday???

That too!

 

[threecrazykids]

This was the first time we've even watched a school volleyball game. I really wasn't sure what focal length I would need or how the viewing would be. But based on that experience, I'm thinking my 50mm lens is going to be my "go to" from here forward. I'm still struggling at 3200 so I can't imagine how frustrating it would be using an older body that doesn't do well at higher ISOs.

I'm sure each gym we go to will have slightly different lighting and seating, but I'm just thinking a 2.8 lens just isn't going to do the trick for volleyball for me.

My 50mm 1.8 is for sure my "go to" lens right now for volleyball, as it's all I have with an aperture that won't leave me with blur. I just sit in the front row to get those up close shots of spikes and celebrations. The faces of the players and team reactions are so fast to capture, that if I didn't sit right down next to the action I'd never get them.

I have tried every setting under the sun with my 70-300mm 4-5.6 but that ISO can't be bumped enough to eliminate the blur. I have salvaged a few shots in post processing that turned out ok with that lens, but the more I can get SOOC, with little to no post processing, the happier I am.

 

[mom2rtk]

My 50mm 1.8 is for sure my "go to" lens right now for volleyball, as it's all I have with an aperture that won't leave me with blur. I just sit in the front row to get those up close shots of spikes and celebrations. The faces of the players and team reactions are so fast to capture, that if I didn't sit right down next to the action I'd never get them.

I have tried every setting under the sun with my 70-300mm 4-5.6 but that ISO can't be bumped enough to eliminate the blur. I have salvaged a few shots in post processing that turned out ok with that lens, but the more I can get SOOC, with little to no post processing, the happier I am.

I'm just saying that the 2.8 zoom seems to be the gold standard of sports. But if you are used to shooting with a 1.8 lens, you might spend all that money on a new lens and still come away disappointed.

I sat fairly high up in the bleachers last night hoping to get a better angle on things. A woman up behind me had some sort of DSLR and I think a kit zoom (so not fast). Her flash kept going off and then I kept hearing her express disappointment when she looked at her screen. I would have offered some suggestions, but with that lens it was almost pointless.

I do remember back when my boys were younger and playing basketball. This was back when I shot on automatic with a kit lens for everything. If I needed help, I turned on the flash. It was basketball that drove me to the DIS photography forum to finally figure this all out. High speed + gym lighting = frustration.

 

[threecrazykids]

I'm just saying that the 2.8 zoom seems to be the gold standard of sports. But if you are used to shooting with a 1.8 lens, you might spend all that money on a new lens and still come away disappointed.

I sat fairly high up in the bleachers last night hoping to get a better angle on things. A woman up behind me had some sort of DSLR and I think a kit zoom (so not fast). Her flash kept going off and then I kept hearing her express disappointment when she looked at her screen. I would have offered some suggestions, but with that lens it was almost pointless.

I do remember back when my boys were younger and playing basketball. This was back when I shot on automatic with a kit lens for everything. If I needed help, I turned on the flash. It was basketball that drove me to the DIS photography forum to finally figure this all out. High speed + gym lighting = frustration.

You're very right...the 2.8 would be a dream lens. I wish I could justify spending that much on a lens. And yes, the high speed and gym lighting is the worst. I'm very glad I have all of you here to help me try to sort it out. Thanks so much for all your help!

 

[mom2rtk]

You're very right...the 2.8 would be a dream lens. I wish I could justify spending that much on a lens. And yes, the high speed and gym lighting is the worst. I'm very glad I have all of you here to help me try to sort it out. Thanks so much for all your help!

I actually just got the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but never considered it for sports. Maybe I'll bring it next week and sit down closer. Or crop more.

 

[threecrazykids]

I actually just got the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but never considered it for sports. Maybe I'll bring it next week and sit down closer. Or crop more.

Story of my life...

 

[firemanchip]

I actually just got the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but never considered it for sports. Maybe I'll bring it next week and sit down closer. Or crop more.

I was out on the beach the other day taking some shots with my new Sigma 18-35 and the surf was up, so the surfers were out in full force. I took some pictures of them surfing and when I got home and put them on my computer I was pleasantly surprised with the results. I had to really crop them but the results were way better than I expected. I was using a 70D.