Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007
Best sport lens for Nikon
|
|
Thread rating:  |
MAL - 14 Feb 2007 16:36 GMT Hello! I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport lens (Formula 1) for Nikon?
MAL
Joseph Meehan - 14 Feb 2007 17:56 GMT > Hello! > I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best > outdoor sport lens (Formula 1) for Nikon? > > MAL What sports?
 Signature Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
David J Taylor - 14 Feb 2007 18:06 GMT >> Hello! >> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What sports? He said: "Formula 1"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm
David
Joseph Meehan - 14 Feb 2007 18:19 GMT >>> Hello! >>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David Yea, I guess I went over that a little too fast. I am not a big race car fan so I guess it did not hit me.
 Signature Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2007 23:02 GMT >>>> Hello! >>>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yea, I guess I went over that a little too fast. I am not a big race > car fan so I guess it did not hit me. Hell no, can hardly call it a "sport." I certainly don't think of it as such. -- www.mattclara.com
RichA - 15 Feb 2007 17:49 GMT > >>>> Hello! > >>>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > such. > --www.mattclara.com Anything that requires coodination is a sport. Which is WHY some dominate F1 just like baseball, football, etc. Put the average fat, bloated American in an F1 car and they'd die of heart attack or heat stroke. Why not just answer the guy's QUESTION instead?
tomorrow@erols.com - 14 Feb 2007 18:03 GMT > Hello! > I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport > lens (Formula 1) for Nikon? I am not a professional photographer, nor do I play one on TV. However, I do take lots of motorcycle and sports car road racing photos, and I used my Nikon D70S and Nikon 80-400 VR f/4.5-5.6D to take almost all of the photos posted here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/zkocf
At the 2006 Formula One USA race at Indy.
I was very happy with the lens' performance for my needs; although there is a photo in there of another photographer whom I think might be a bit more advanced than me, and he is using a very different lens. Perhaps you would be more interested in obtaining one like his. I am sure that one of the more advanced photographers here in this forum would be able to look at the picture of his lens and tell you what make/model it is.
(And please, no mocking of my amateurish efforts if you care to visit the referenced site. My baby photography ego is fragile!)
Tim
Adrian Boliston - 14 Feb 2007 18:34 GMT > I am not a professional photographer, nor do I play one on TV. > However, I do take lots of motorcycle and sports car road racing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > this forum would be able to look at the picture of his lens and tell > you what make/model it is. I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L. Not cheap I bet!
Paul Furman - 15 Feb 2007 01:58 GMT > I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L. Not cheap I bet! If it's an 'L' it doesn't fit on a Nikon. If it's the Nikon 400, that one doesn't have VR and I think that's a problem for panning. So the best choice would be the 300mm f/2.8 VR. If you can get a better seat then the 200mm f/2.8 VR and if you need zoom for varied distance & framing then either the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the 200-400mm f/4 VR.
JR - 15 Feb 2007 19:22 GMT > > I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L. Not cheap I bet! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then the 200mm f/2.8 VR and if you need zoom for varied distance & > framing then either the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the 200-400mm f/4 VR. he doesnt need VR for panning shots.....Use a 70-200/AFS VR, not for the VR but for the AFS focus speed, he can also use a 80-200/2.8 AFS....Also a 300/4 AFD, or AFS will work as well....
these are done with a D2x and the 70-200 AFS-VR, with VR OFF....at Laguna Seca, American Lemans race....
http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700780b.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700477.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082701965.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082702860.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082703486.jpg
All done from the spectator area on the front straight.....
JR
Paul Furman - 15 Feb 2007 20:24 GMT >>>I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L. Not cheap I bet! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > these are done with a D2x and the 70-200 AFS-VR, with VR OFF Doesn't VR help though with panning? Maybe not the older models? Those are great shots, I like how the guard rails are sharp as you pan parallel to them, I'd guess that takes some practice.
> ....at Laguna Seca, American Lemans race.... > http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700780b.jpg [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > All done from the spectator area on the front straight..... JR - 16 Feb 2007 21:59 GMT I dont think the VR helps at all when panning.....
> >>>I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L. Not cheap I bet! > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > All done from the spectator area on the front straight..... David J Taylor - 16 Feb 2007 22:08 GMT > I dont think the VR helps at all when panning..... Yes, it does. Some systems even have a special "panning mode" setting for the VR.
David
JR - 19 Feb 2007 02:31 GMT In article <PXpBh.1338$I46.6@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
> > I dont think the VR helps at all when panning..... > > Yes, it does. Some systems even have a special "panning mode" setting for > the VR. > > David Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for if you are moving, as in if you are in a car or plane and wanna use VR....but other than that it will not help...if you have used a VR lens, it must lock on a subject and it takes a second for the VR to lock on the subject....nearly impossible if a car is moving at 150+ mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR with regards to this lens.
JR
tomorrow@erols.com - 19 Feb 2007 03:11 GMT > In article <PXpBh.1338$I4...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR > with regards to this lens. Don't know about the 70-200/2.8 AFS VR, but the owners manual for my AF VR Zoom Nikkor ED 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D states:
"The vibration reduction mechanism reduces camera shake. However, if you move the camera quickly, vibration in the direction of that movement may not be affected. For example, if you pan the camera horizontally, only vibration in the vertical direction is reduced, making smooth pans much easier'"
And Ken Rockwell's site says:
"I have also tried panning shots, the VR system is supposed to feel that you are panning and only correct on the non-pan axis. This works, I shot a few rather sharp pictures of a landing swan the other week, panning with the bird..."
And the panning shot that I referenced earlier in this thread:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g3tj3
was taken with the above lens with VR on. I tried panning with VR off and did not get as sharp a result. (Not claiming this shot is particularly sharp, just that comparatively it was sharper than the photos taken with VR off!)
Paul Furman - 19 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT >>>>I dont think the VR helps at all when panning..... >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I shot a few rather sharp pictures of a landing swan the other week, > panning with the bird..." Does that refer to the older VR on a 70-200 or the newer VRII?
> And the panning shot that I referenced earlier in this thread: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > particularly sharp, just that comparatively it was sharper than the > photos taken with VR off!) That shot would seem to be with the 80-400 not the 70-200. Is that a newer VRII type?
tomorrow@erols.com - 19 Feb 2007 20:46 GMT > tomor...@erols.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > That shot would seem to be with the 80-400 not the 70-200. Is that a > newer VRII type? It was, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to my 80-400 lens. That lens came out in 2003 (?) or so; don't know it is VRII or not. I didn't even know that there WAS a VRII type!
Paul Furman - 20 Feb 2007 00:27 GMT >>tomor...@erols.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > That lens came out in 2003 (?) or so; don't know it is VRII or not. > I didn't even know that there WAS a VRII type! Hmm ok so apparently there are 3 flavors of VR and the 70-200 does not support panning but the 80-400 does. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
The 105 VR macro & 70-300 have this description: New VR II Vibration Reduction allows photographers to shoot hand-held at up to *4* shutter speeds slower than otherwise possible, providing sharper images in general and close-up photography
Your 80-400 and the 200-400 have this: Result of VR (Vibration Reduction) is equivalent to using a shutter speed *three* f/stops faster VR is automatically detected during *panning* operation. Two modes of VR: Image plane and Viewfinder
And the 70-200, 200, 300, 24-120 descriptions say: VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed *3* stops faster. In addition, *active* vibration mode selection is possible. For using in an active situation such as in a car, boat or plane.
Robert Brace - 20 Feb 2007 21:02 GMT >>>tomor...@erols.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > faster. In addition, *active* vibration mode selection is possible. For > using in an active situation such as in a car, boat or plane. Paul: The 24-120 AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor does not have an ACTIVE vibration mode. The VR choice is ON or OFF. It does, however, detect horizontal panning. The operators manual states "the lens automatically distinguishes panning from camera shake and vibration reduction works effectively" (Pg. 15 second bullet point down). Bob
Paul Furman - 20 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT >>Hmm ok so apparently there are 3 flavors of VR and the 70-200 does not >>support panning but the 80-400 does. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > states "the lens automatically distinguishes panning from camera shake and > vibration reduction works effectively" (Pg. 15 second bullet point down). OK looks like I simplified in trying to summarize, that's a fourth flavor of 3 options... the Nikon web site says:
"-VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 3 stops faster at 120mm [presumably less at 24mm?] -First Nikon wide-angle zoom lens with Vibration Reduction (VR)"
They don't mention panning... but I believe you :-)
-3 vs 4 stops (less at wide angle, doesn't work for 1:1 macro)
-active mode
-horizontal panning detection (horizontal only presumably means it might get confused pointing straight up in the sky at a bird)
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 20 Feb 2007 23:49 GMT >Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it >does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR >with regards to this lens. Might I suggest you RTFM. From p. 15:
.. Panning is also possible, as the lens automatically distinguishes panning from camera shake and vibration reduction works effectively (in the NORMAL mode).
Also see the diagram on p 17 and two other mentions of using normal mode for panned shots, as well as one on p18.
 Signature Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Paul Furman - 21 Feb 2007 00:22 GMT Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
>>Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it >>does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Also see the diagram on p 17 and two other mentions of using normal mode > for panned shots, as well as one on p18. Ah yes, they do flesh it out much better in the manual although that diagram is confusing. So while the web site description doesn't mention panning, it's in the manual for the 70-200.
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 21 Feb 2007 00:44 GMT >Ah yes, they do flesh it out much better in the manual although that >diagram is confusing. So while the web site description doesn't mention >panning, it's in the manual for the 70-200. Does a little bit of Engrish translation help? The abscissa is the amplitude and the ordinate the frequency of the vibrations. In panning the frequencies are reduced because your muscles aren't fighting to hold the camera statically still.
 Signature Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
mattster - 17 Feb 2007 23:53 GMT > he doesnt need VR for panning shots.....Use a 70-200/AFS VR, not for the > VR but for the AFS focus speed, he can also use a 80-200/2.8 AFS....Also [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JR Nice shots. very well crafted. Can you tell me if you need to stop down for these in order to get some DOF on the cars? Also, I sold my 80-400 4-5.6 vr because it was too slow for this sort of thing. I did have some amazing results with it panning on birds flying past though. The literature with it claimed that it could improve your panning but I'm not sure how.
Neil Harrington - 14 Feb 2007 22:43 GMT >> Hello! >> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/zkocf Very nice!
Were most of those (cars on the track) at or near the long end of the 80-400?
Neil
tomorrow@erols.com - 14 Feb 2007 22:50 GMT > Very nice! Hi Neil. Thanks; I'm learning but I have a very long way to go. Especially when I look at some of the links others post here to their photos; I'm really awestruck at some of the talent out there!
> Were most of those (cars on the track) at or near the long end of the > 80-400? Yes, almost all of them were close to the full 400mm. I was, of course, shooting from designated spectator areas in the stands, so I couldn't really get very close to the cars.
I appreciate your response. If anyone who looks at the photos has some constructive advice on how I can improve my autosports photos, I'm all ears. I'm just not very creative or analytical, so I tend to make the same mistakes over and over. When I read photography magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it all when I'm actually at the track, shooting!
Neil Harrington - 14 Feb 2007 23:16 GMT >> Very nice! > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it > all when I'm actually at the track, shooting! Most of those shots look just great to me!
Neil
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 15 Feb 2007 00:16 GMT >I appreciate your response. If anyone who looks at the photos has >some constructive advice on how I can improve my autosports photos, >I'm all ears. I'm just not very creative or analytical, so I tend to >make the same mistakes over and over. When I read photography >magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it >all when I'm actually at the track, shooting! It's not clear what exposure mode these were shot in viewing the exif info. You might try experimenting with either shutter priority or full manual mode and drop the shutter speed so as to introduce a bit of blur in the tires/wheels due to their rotation. As you get slower and slower you'll need to pan with the car to keep it stationary in the frame but get linear motion blur in the background due to panning if the car is going fast enough, the car clear, and the wheels slightly blurred in rotation. Not easy at all, takes quite a bit of practice to perfect this technique. Similar to taking shots of propeller planes or helicopters in flight, you don't want the shutter speed so fast as to completely stop the blades.
One of my better shots of this can be seen at: http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_1055.html
 Signature Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
tomorrow@erols.com - 15 Feb 2007 01:29 GMT On Feb 14, 7:16 pm, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usen...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's not clear what exposure mode these were shot in viewing the exif info. > You might try experimenting with either shutter priority or full manual [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > One of my better shots of this can be seen at:http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_1055... Great shot! Thanks, Ed, that's exactly the kind of feedback that helps me. As a coincidence, I was at Roebling Road Raceway outside of Savannah, Georgia, last weekend, where my son was taking the SCCA double weekend licensing school. I was there taking photos, and while reviewing them after one track session, my son asked why all the pictures made his car look as though it were standing still. Good question!
So, I found a spot trackside that allowed me to pan, and I set the camera to shutter priority, tried different shutter speeds from 1/30 to 1/125 second, and got the following as the best result:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g3tj3
This one was taken at 1/60, f18, 175mm with the same 80-400mm lens. I left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed to in this case.
The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son hadn't asked me that question. I'm afraid that I'm just not really creative. That may just be the death knell for me ever becoming a really good amateur photographer!
Neil Harrington - 15 Feb 2007 06:28 GMT > On Feb 14, 7:16 pm, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" > <egruf_usen...@cox.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed > to in this case. That's very good too, but it really depends on what's important to you. Personally I like your long lens shots taken at obviously higher shutter speeds better, even though they do not convey the sense of fast movement that this sort of panning shot does. This is because I'm interested in seeing the cars as sharp as they can be. I already *know* they go fast, and don't need the camera to tell me that. But others less interested in the cars themselves probably will like that kind of panning shot better because it effectively communicates motion. So there really isn't any "best" way of doing it as far as I'm concerned.
I like to shoot old aircraft at air shows. There there's a problem with propellers. Airplanes in flight look all wrong with the prop frozen by high shutter speeds, so to give a realistic blurred look to the prop arc I have to use 1/250 or slower -- much slower especially with WW I era planes with their slow-turning engines. But that's the *only* case where I use slow shutter speeds deliberately to blur any part of the photo. Events like motorcycle hill climbs, etc., I want everything sharp. Others may prefer blur to show motion.
> The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other > failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son > hadn't asked me that question. I'm afraid that I'm just not really > creative. That may just be the death knell for me ever becoming a > really good amateur photographer! I don't think that's true, but why even worry about it anyway? I think what you're doing is good already, and will probably get better the more you do it. As for being "creative" and "really good," whatever those terms mean to you, as long as such things are important to you they too will probably come to you the more you work at it. But the desire to be "really good" suggests that perhaps the opinions of others are more important to you than they need to be. Do you enjoy what you're doing, and like the results yourself? I'm an amateur too, and have been for 50+ years. Some of my photographs are "really good," which simply means I like them a lot. Others like them too, and praise is always pleasant to have, but I really do this stuff primarily for my own enjoyment.
Neil
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 15 Feb 2007 11:15 GMT >Great shot! Thanks, Ed, that's exactly the kind of feedback that >helps me. As a coincidence, I was at Roebling Road Raceway outside of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed >to in this case. There you go. I believe there's three techniques to use:
1. fast shutter speed to freeze everything and get the sharpest image of the car, this is the easiest in good light. Personally, a couple of these tend to be more than enough for me. Of course if you are capturing something else, such as a wheel in the air over a bump or just due to cornering forces or crossed up action that's different and much better, imo.
2. slow shutter, NOT panning the camera, so the background is sharp and the car/mc is blurred. Be careful here to have a good background here.
3. Slower shutter panning as previously described. And yes, you can and should use VR here. Always good to have this technique in your pocket, for when it's just too dark for anything else.
>The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other >failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son >hadn't asked me that question. I'm afraid that I'm just not really >creative. Look for positions which convey the actions of not only the car/mcs, but the driver/rider if possible. Exits of corners where there is sliding/crossed up action or even run offs. Can you get close enough and are conditions such you can focus on the driver/rider in a spot showing the effort required? Of course passing spots are another thing to look for, such as this: http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_0819.html
 Signature Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
M-M - 15 Feb 2007 12:30 GMT Another example of a panning action shot. This is my Radio Control Airplane being flown by a buddy while I manned the Coolpix 990 with 3x teleadapter:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg
 Signature m-m
Gizmo. - 15 Feb 2007 13:24 GMT > Look for positions which convey the actions of not only the car/mcs, but > the driver/rider if possible. Exits of corners where there is > sliding/crossed up action or even run offs. Look for where the marshals are stationed - that's where the action will be ;o)
C J Campbell - 14 Feb 2007 23:26 GMT >> Hello! >> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (And please, no mocking of my amateurish efforts if you care to visit > the referenced site. My baby photography ego is fragile!) Well, if he isn't more advanced, he certainly is rich. That is a very long, very expensive Canon lens.
Don't mind the mocking. We do that here to toughen you up. After a year on rec.photo you should have a skin thick enough to find work as a paparazzi.
:-)
 Signature Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
Fletis Humplebacker - 17 Feb 2007 15:18 GMT >> Hello! >> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Tim Hey Tim, Good to see you do something besides terrorize the community with your loud pipes! I have the D70 and D200 but not the same lens as you. That's a pretty good range and lens from what I hear. I have a 70-200 2.8 VR and 1.5 teleconverter for my long stuff.
I have a dialup so your page takes too long for me to see it all but that Canon shooter probably has a 400 2.8. The Canon guys will know. Looks like it weighs more than him. Rather than forking over enough coin to get a new scoot you can always manually focus in the area you know they will be at. Cars and bikes will be on a predictable path, unlike field sports.
tomorrow@erols.com - 18 Feb 2007 21:17 GMT > ... you can always manually focus > in the area you know they will be at. > Cars and bikes will be on > a predictable path, unlike field sports Good point, thanks.
Bruce - 14 Feb 2007 20:37 GMT Try the Nikon 200-400mm F4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor Lens @£4000.
Bruce
|
|
|