Which lens to get for D50?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#1
I'm deciding between 2 lenses here

1) Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM ($1399 quoted by MS)
2) Tokina AT-X 828 AF PRO 80-200mm F2.8 ($980 - MS)

1st question: What's the difference between the above 2 to justify the ~$400 difference?

Will be using a D50 body.

Mainly using for sports photography (soccer to be precise).

I've read several threads here regarding the lenses I've mentioned above. Most ppl commented that a constant F2.8 will be very useful for indoor/event shooting but I won't be shooting indoors that often, mostly outdoors.

So do you guys think i should save some money by buying a cheaper non F2.8 telezoom lens? eg. Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 DG
Will this lens be sufficient for my sports shooting?

I don't mind getting a 2nd hand lens.

Comments are greatly appreciated :)
 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
38
KFC
#2
dun buy any of the 2.. save up and get at least the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D or save up even more and get the afs 70-200mm f2.8 vr..
and u wont have any regrets..
:thumbsup:

u look at this thread u will know why dun get the sigma http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=189953&highlight=sigma+horror+stories

and the tokina one.. i read that its slow in focusing so if u are going for sports.... u know la..
 

yyD70S

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2005
2,454
0
0
Singapore
#3
Yes. Agree with kcuf2.

Save. Buy a good one. Buy once.
 

Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#4
Hmmmm.. then i might have to save a longer while to get it then.

I know the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D and afs 70-200mm f2.8 vr are really heavy, im thinking whether it will be a hindrance to move around? is a monopod needed? Can any experience users give some advice?

Then is a costant F2.8 lens neccessary for outdoor sports photography? Or should i just get a normal zoom lens eg. AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED since i think there should be sufficient light in outdoors. Im considering its weight as well.
I've read that the latter is sufficient for outdoor photography since the lack of brightness is compensated by the DSLR's high ISO.

Im now quite a loss whether to save up to get the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D or the cheaper AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED.
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#5
sound-of-rev said:
Hmmmm.. then i might have to save a longer while to get it then.

I know the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D and afs 70-200mm f2.8 vr are really heavy, im thinking whether it will be a hindrance to move around? is a monopod needed? Can any experience users give some advice?

Then is a costant F2.8 lens neccessary for outdoor sports photography? Or should i just get a normal zoom lens eg. AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED since i think there should be sufficient light in outdoors. Im considering its weight as well.
I've read that the latter is sufficient for outdoor photography since the lack of brightness is compensated by the DSLR's high ISO.

Im now quite a loss whether to save up to get the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D or the cheaper AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED.
go for a proper zoom lens as it's a known fact that when there is too much steps of zoom (am I saying it correctly???) i.e. the zoom range is too much (more than 3x), the quality of the lens is not really there. When compared to the standard zooms of course.

As for outdoors, well, it all depends on you and how you use it. If one uses it mainly in the bright sunlight and does not really require the speed, then I believe the second option may be able to do the job. But in low light or action shots, then you may find it difficult to track your objectives (focusing is not that high speed, pretty slow in fact...)
 

HLL

New Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,364
0
0
#6
I have a D50 too.

I use both my 80-200mm f2.8D (one-touch) & 75-240mm f4.5-5.6 and for both the photos are excellent.

But the 80-200mm is super heavy.... I tend to carry the 75-240 more.

The focus speed is not that fast but OK. If taking photo of soccer you won't be that near so not a big problem.

The very cheap 80-200mm kit lens for the D50 is AF-S only $199. Can go for that? SHould be super fast focus speed. If you are going to be holding a big lens for 90 mins in hot sun you will be glad that you got small lens...
 

drazic

New Member
Apr 12, 2006
375
0
0
Kayu
#7
hey... the 80-200 f2.8 has a one touch vs two touch version ?
how different are they ?
 

vbs1979

New Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,550
0
0
Lot One
vbs1979.multiply.com
#8
drazic said:
hey... the 80-200 f2.8 has a one touch vs two touch version ?
how different are they ?
one touch is the older push-pull version and the two touch is a newer version.

for futher details,u can ask at the nikon sub forum.

basically, if you want to take action photography, a fast lens (constant f2.8) with built in image stabilizer such as VR in nikon. If you think of buying the sigma one, i suggest u top up a bit more to get the nikon one cos the AF will be faster. If not, just go for the tokina one.
 

HLL

New Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,364
0
0
#9
drazic said:
hey... the 80-200 f2.8 has a one touch vs two touch version ?
how different are they ?
One touch version was superceeded by 2 touch version.

2 touch supposed to be faster but now long ago got AF-S version - so very little difference.

Also 1 touch got zoom creep but depending on preference moving the zoom forwards and backwards can be faster then turning ring...

Optically they are the same 100%
 

Apr 12, 2005
1,767
0
0
#10
Many soccer matches are held at night. So a fast F/2.8 would be handy then. Has VR is the best.

Also I think 200mm is not long enough, considering how large the field is and you are very far from the action most of the time.
 

Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#11
HLL said:
I have a D50 too.

The very cheap 80-200mm kit lens for the D50 is AF-S only $199. Can go for that? SHould be super fast focus speed. If you are going to be holding a big lens for 90 mins in hot sun you will be glad that you got small lens...

very cheap 80-200mm AF-S $199 ?!?!? so cheap??? wads the full name for this lens? have to buy with D50 kit??
 

Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#12
Clockunder said:
Many soccer matches are held at night. So a fast F/2.8 would be handy then. Has VR is the best.

Also I think 200mm is not long enough, considering how large the field is and you are very far from the action most of the time.
actually im mainly using the camera to shoot my own team... so is not stadium matches. i can just stand next to the field. :)

so i guess i can move around the pitch to get a better shot.. and most of our games are in the morning, so i think brightness shouldnt be a problem. :)
 

cikgoo

New Member
Nov 21, 2005
296
0
0
#13
sound-of-rev said:
very cheap 80-200mm AF-S $199 ?!?!? so cheap??? wads the full name for this lens? have to buy with D50 kit??
think he meant 55 200
 

Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#15
Guys, how about the new AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED?
good enough for fast action outdoor sports?
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,184
0
36
not here often anymore
#17
acutally don't get both, becos yr body(D50) is too light to "hold" it.

I'll prefer to get the nikkor AF-D 80-200mm F2.8.(you'll know why once you'll upgrade to another lens.)

AF-S 18-200mm VR will be a better option, as it a all-rounder lens + VR.

As for sports shooting, you will tend to upgrade to a better body after you been shooting it for a while, as the D50 maynot be able to statisfy your needs.
 

Aug 23, 2004
371
3
18
North
#18
kcuf2 said:
dun buy any of the 2.. save up and get at least the af nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D or save up even more and get the afs 70-200mm f2.8 vr..
and u wont have any regrets..
:thumbsup:

u look at this thread u will know why dun get the sigma http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=189953&highlight=sigma+horror+stories

and the tokina one.. i read that its slow in focusing so if u are going for sports.... u know la..
so bad meh..... sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is so far my favourite len for sport.
 

Reno

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2005
2,324
1
38
Land of the Teddy Bear
#20
get the nikon AF-D 80-200/F2.8, AF-S 80-200/F2.8 or AF-S 70-200/ F2.8 VR... you won't go wrong. There are a couple of AF-D 80-200/F2.8 and a AF-S 80-200/F2.8 for sale in the B&S thread. So go take a look. The speed, built and image quality is very good for 3 lens. AF-D is a bit slower as than the 2. The nikon price is higher but it is only a one time investment and you won't regret getting either one of them. Take your time to go throught and dun rush into buying.

I am selling off my AF-D 80-200mm/F2.8 in the B&S threa. Let me know if you are interested... ;p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom