Lens advice

[mom0299]

I have a Nikon D3000 DSLR that I've had for two or three years. I have Nikor 55-200mm and Nikor 18-55mm lens. I am happy with the pictures I get for the most part. However, I want to be able to zoom farther as well as get fast action shots without the blur. My son plays golf so I want the zoom to get close-ups. My daughter plays volleyball and I want good action shots in a gym without getting all the blur of the ball. Is there a lens that will do both of these things for me? What should I get? Can I do what I want with the lenses I have but with a different setting, such as changing the f-stop? I try to research online, but I just get confused with all the photography lingo and numbers of lenses.

 

[havoc315]

Same zoom, but will give you the frozen action and the shots in a gym.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200m...d=1380332288&sr=8-4&keywords=nikon+2.8+lenses

 

[mom2rtk]

Zoom plus fast action plus poor lighting (as in a gym) is one of the main reasons people spend top dollar on camera lenses.

To get rid of the blur, you need a faster shutter speed. One thing you can do to accomplish this is to increase your ISO, but keep in mind that will give you more noise in your photos. You can also do this by increasing your aperture (by using the smallest number f-stop your lens allows) to allow more light into the camera, resulting in a faster shutter speed.

The issue with the lenses you have is that they are variable aperture lenses, so the more you zoom the smaller the maximum aperture available to you. The lens Havoc linked has a constant 2.8 aperture so will definitely get the job done, which is why it has a high price tag.

 

[havoc315]

All lenses are about compromises. Even if the linked lens is within your budget, you wouldn't necessarily want to use it all the time --- it's massively heavy because of the constant aperture.

There are more affordable lenses that give you more zoom -- I own and love the Tamron 70-300 usd. But that's not really significantly more zoom than the 200.... And it won't help you get faster shutter speeds or help in low light. It is great in good light -- it freezes the action for me in day time little league games. But it would be quite poor in a gym.

For indoor telephoto, I have a 135/2.8 prime lens. (I don't know the price of an equivalent Nikon lens). It's less reach than the 200 or 300. There is no zoom -- you're stuck with a single focal length. But it's a fair telephoto reach, and it's useful in low light.
Even more useful in low light, is something like a nifty fifty -- 50/1.8. Fantastic in low light and a very affordable lens. But no telephoto reach.

 

[photo_chick]

I have a Nikon D3000 DSLR that I've had for two or three years. I have Nikor 55-200mm and Nikor 18-55mm lens. I am happy with the pictures I get for the most part. However, I want to be able to zoom farther as well as get fast action shots without the blur. My son plays golf so I want the zoom to get close-ups. My daughter plays volleyball and I want good action shots in a gym without getting all the blur of the ball. Is there a lens that will do both of these things for me? What should I get? Can I do what I want with the lenses I have but with a different setting, such as changing the f-stop? I try to research online, but I just get confused with all the photography lingo and numbers of lenses.

This is probably the biggest contributing factor to any issues you have with blur. Shooting in low light is fairly technically oriented and you really do have to have a decent grasp of basic photography. What happens with a long focal length is that you need a faster shutter speed to overcome camera shake. That plus the increased shutter speed you need to stop motion means very little light entering the lens. So you need to make up for that with a larger aperture.

Like already said in other posts.. low light + long lens + action generally means a more expensive lens.

 

[hakepb]

Same zoom, but will give you the frozen action and the shots in a gym.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200m...d=1380332288&sr=8-4&keywords=nikon+2.8+lenses

And with a price like that, I'd probably stay looking at body upgrades.

If you want to stick wih Nikon and want critically great stop action, I'd be looking at least at a used D7000 or the new D5200, both have a fairly advanced AF tracking system an both hav much better High ISO than a D3000

A D3200 or a used D5100 would get you much better high ISO but wouldn't gain much in AF tracking. High ISO would help some with using slower lenses.

The other option, would be considering a Panasonic FZ200 point and shoot. It won't be as critically great as a good DSLr, but with a constant aperature f/2.8 out to 600mm, it would give you the possibility of really nice Facebook pictures at zoom, but keep the DSLR for portraits and good lighting.

But, as the PP just mentioned, learning the "lingo" should be understood before a big expense.

 

[photo_chick]

And with a price like that, I'd probably stay looking at body upgrades.

Good point. This is one thing many people don't consider because a few years ago it would have been unheard of. Normally I'm a glass before body proponent but I'm finding lately there are more and more exceptions. As an example, I shoot at 12800 with my 6D often. It's THAT clean. As a result I can get away with slower lenses where with my 50D I stopped at 3200 and just couldn't do those lower lighting shots without a fast lens. So a big leap up like that with a body can essentially make every lens faster. It still doesn't make for better photographs overall but it does expand technical capability. You just have to weigh what's right for you.

 

[havoc315]

And with a price like that, I'd probably stay looking at body upgrades.

If you want to stick wih Nikon and want critically great stop action, I'd be looking at least at a used D7000 or the new D5200, both have a fairly advanced AF tracking system an both hav much better High ISO than a D3000

A D3200 or a used D5100 would get you much better high ISO but wouldn't gain much in AF tracking. High ISO would help some with using slower lenses.

The other option, would be considering a Panasonic FZ200 point and shoot. It won't be as critically great as a good DSLr, but with a constant aperature f/2.8 out to 600mm, it would give you the possibility of really nice Facebook pictures at zoom, but keep the DSLR for portraits and good lighting.

But, as the PP just mentioned, learning the "lingo" should be understood before a big expense.

From what I've seen of the fz200... While the aperture helps, it is defeated by the small sensor in low light.
That is-- with a dSLR and a kit 200mm lens... At 200mm, you get a 5.6 aperture. So let's assume you use ISO of 1600, which is pretty clear on most newer dSLRs. Th fx200, with 2.8 aperture, would save you 2 f stops-- so you can shoot at ISO 400. Problem is, with the small sensor, ISO 400 already starts to lose quality on the fz200. In other words, it's fast lens helps it compared to other p&s cameras. But the 2-stop lens advantage isn't enough to overcome the sensor size difference, compared to a dSLR.

 

[traylorc]

Good point. This is one thing many people don't consider because a few years ago it would have been unheard of. Normally I'm a glass before body proponent but I'm finding lately there are more and more exceptions. As an example, I shoot at 12800 with my 6D often. It's THAT clean. As a result I can get away with slower lenses where with my 50D I stopped at 3200 and just couldn't do those lower lighting shots without a fast lens. So a big leap up like that with a body can essentially make every lens faster. It still doesn't make for better photographs overall but it does expand technical capability. You just have to weigh what's right for you.

I am also a glass before body proponent. But I have to agree there are exceptions to that argument.

The one thing for the OP to consider is that IMHO great glass holds it's value better than a camera body. I have owned the lens recommended by Havok for more than two years. I bet I could sell that lens on e-bay tomorrow and receive what I paid or take a minimal loss.

But at the same time I realize that "with great optical power, comes even greater financial responsibility". Therefore upgrading to a newer body may be a more practical option for most of our fellow photographers.

 

[hakepb]

From what I've seen of the fz200... While the aperture helps, it is defeated by the small sensor in low light.
That is-- with a dSLR and a kit 200mm lens... At 200mm, you get a 5.6 aperture. So let's assume you use ISO of 1600, which is pretty clear on most newer dSLRs. Th fx200, with 2.8 aperture, would save you 2 f stops-- so you can shoot at ISO 400. Problem is, with the small sensor, ISO 400 already starts to lose quality on the fz200. In other words, it's fast lens helps it compared to other p&s cameras. But the 2-stop lens advantage isn't enough to overcome the sensor size difference, compared to a dSLR.

Yes, and that's why I suggested a modern DSLr body. The D3000 has a 10MP CCD sensor with a real ISo1600 max, that may be the same one from the old Sony A100.

 

[havoc315]

Yes, and that's why I suggested a modern DSLr body. The D3000 has a 10MP CCD sensor with a real ISo1600 max, that may be the same one from the old Sony A100.

Yes... Agreed.. The newer generation of dSLRs have a maximum ISO 2- 4 stops higher. Useable ISO... 1-3 more stops. On my old a100, didn't really like going higher than 800. Will stretch to 3200 on the a55. (Can go to 12800 but lousy results).