I would like to be able to zoom in on my daughter playing soccer, but get more of the field with my Sony HDR-XR100. Is this the right lens for me?
1759682
Sorry meant to hit NO. This lens has a very limited zoom length before it starts to blur and distort. A "fisheye" lens is meant for very very close up filming where or getting a very wide angle (similar to a panoramic. I think you will just want to find a wide angle lens.
910056
i have taken some great close ups of my kids with the ef 50mm f/1.8 lens. although it's inexpensive and this shows in the build quality the lens is SHARP!!! how can you go wrong for under 100 bucks.... buy one just to see if you like the 50mm prime range... you won't regret it...
1681728
This is an outstanding, fast lens used by photojournalists, sports photographers, and enthusiasts the world over. It is one of three zooms carried by nearly every Nikon-shooting professional. it would depend on several factors: your camera body, is it APS or Full Frame, what is it's resolution (if you want to crop), and how well does it control digital noise at high ISO. Also, the actual distance you are from your subject. This lens should meet most of your expectations. If it doesn't, you might need a much more expensive, longer lens, say a 300mm.
2093006
In every comparison, you have a couple of considerations. I recently shot with the SONY RX100, and was really impressed with its performance. The images are very nice, low noise, fast focus, and of course, it is small. The image on the D800 is amazing. You have a ton of functions to play with, but what stands out is the image quality that is superb. In short, if you want a small camera for travelling, today my favorite is the SONY RX100. If you want a professional grade interchangeable lens camera, you can't go wrong with the D800.
1877497
No, I would not recommend this lens for sporting events. It doesn't zoom, which will limit your ability to compose when you have limited ability to move yourself closer to subject. Plus the apertures aren't super great for low light of a gym. (Although tripod will help with that). In same price range I think you would be better served by the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 with a tripod. (Or if you can spend a bit more go with the 80-200mm f/2.8)
282216
Mike, I did buy this lens and used it on my Nikon D70 and Nikon D200. I used the lens to take pictures of birds mostly. For me personally, the lens would be too heavy/bulky for sporting events. It does take great pictures.
1759798
I dont know about "ideal" for sports in any sense. Sure, it's a great lens but for sports you'd be better off with the flexibility of the 70-200 IS Mk II. If your game is landscape... This is also not your lens, as 135mm is just far too long a focal length for probably 90% of lanscape applications. You want the 16-35 F4 L for that. Now.... If you want the best lens ever made for portraiture.... Trade money for this lens immediately. I own all the lenses Ive mentioned. Perhaps tell me more about what you're really looking to do with this lens and I'll be happy to offer suggestions. To be clear this is a jaw dropping amazing piece of glass.... im just concerned it may not be what you need based on the question you asked
1547551
This lens is not a sports lens. You'll be too far from any action to even when cropped. The 70-200 f2.8 is one of the best sport lenses for up close. If you want even closer I'd recommend buying the 300mm or 400mm but its might be easier to buy a tube extender that will increase the range of your lens. This lens is great for landscape, portraits, and Weddings.
2148233
I've taken some nice shots of football players with this lense, but they were day games. It's a bit dark when fully extended (300mm), but if your camera handles ISO's of 400 - 800 well, it can be used. IMHO, it's as good as any in this price range. Idealy you would want a faster lense for sports, and that speed will cost you.
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
1945787
I used this lens for evening HS football games with a D800E. I did use with a monopod, and ran higher ISOs to keep the shutter speed as hi as possible.
2064344
Thanks for your reply. I need a good lens to photograph swim meets and football, both for children. Maybe I should consider the 70-300. I want sharp pictures.
2034642
I would not use my 85mm for sporting events, I would use my AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED. And use the sports mode on the dial. I am not a pro though.
2058092
I am using this lens primarily for sports - synchronized swimming. So far only outdoors (wish you would ask it a few months out -the indoor meet is coming up then). It is a beautiful lens for landscaping or nature shots, but so far i cannot say i am 100% satisfied with it for sports. Based on what i see, i can imagine it might be problematic with low-light conditions and sports as even outdoors it still hunts that focus point. But off course reflections can be the cause, at least for me. It probably as good as we can go at this price point, but definitely do not expect flawless photos. As to comparing it against Tamron - sorry, no experience there. I am using this lens primarily for sports - synchronized swimming. So far only outdoors (wish you would ask it a few months out -the indoor meet is coming up then). It is a beautiful lens for landscaping or nature shots, but so far i cannot say i am 100% satisfied with it for sports. Based on what i see, i can imagine it might be problematic with low-light conditions and sports as even outdoors it still hunts that focus point. But off course reflections can be the cause, at least for me. It probably as good as we can go at this price point, but definitely do not expect flawless photos. As... » Read More I am using this lens primarily for sports - synchronized swimming. So far only outdoors (wish you would ask it a few months out -the indoor meet is coming up then). It is a beautiful lens for landscaping or nature shots, but so far i cannot say i am 100% satisfied with it for sports. Based on what i see, i can imagine it might be problematic with low-light conditions and sports as even outdoors it still hunts that focus point. But off course reflections can be the cause, at least for me. It probably as good as we can go at this price point, but definitely do not expect flawless photos. As to comparing it against Tamron - sorry, no experience there. « Show Less
394706
Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want a small hybrid, you could consider the Lumix GF1, but they aren't cheap. Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want... » Read More Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want a small hybrid, you could consider the Lumix GF1, but they aren't cheap. « Show Less
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
878159
Sorry, it should be no. 800mm is too much zoom and the f/8.0 aperture is not fast enough. Also this is a MANUAL focus lens. For fast action/sports you would want an Auto Focus lens, probably 70-200mm and something wider than f/8.0.