 Kay T. Bailey |
Shooting Tae kwando, karate tournaments Hi everyone. I need to get a new lens to shoot Tae kwando tournaments. I am shooting using the Nikon D200 and have been using the (don't laugh)60mm micro lens which is an f/2.8. It works well for the action but I need something more versatile for team photos and the action without changing lenses. I was looking at the 24-120mm with VR and the 18-200mm with VR. I have had to shoot using ISO 800 because they prefer I not flash(I take a lot of shots). I read mixed reviews on both lenses. At these tournaments there is no great vantage point to choose to shoot from and your dealing with a lot of people and in close quarters. Which of the two lenses would be better or shout look at something else? I am staying away from the 70-200 with vr because of its size and the tight quarters. I am trying for lower ISO but with speed to stop the action. My images with the lens I have been using have fairly good would be better with a monopod but the monopod takes away from the vertical shooting with the lenses and flexible areas to shoot in. Also with the 60mm team photos and group shots are difficult to get. I like the fact that that lens is fast and good in lowlight but I need to handhold the camera and the versatility. Again which lens the 18-200mm Nikon or the 24-120mm both vr or should I look at something else? all suggestions welcome. Kay Bailey
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Bailey, as we all must, you have to make a decision on a compromise. The situation you describe is one where lighting is not great, there's lots of motion and you need variability in the lens' angle of view to capture shots from many angles and distances. Not an uncommon situation at all. On the one hand, a fast lens is better suited for the indoor use where you need to maintain a fash shutter speed yet at the same time keep ISO low enough to reduce unwanted noise artifacts. You are using an f2.8 lens now; the 70-200 f2.8 will allow the same amount of light but, as you point out, won't be a flexibly in tight corners. Perhaps the 15-55 f2.8 would be worth checking into? At the long end, it's close to your macro lens, but it widens quite a bit to give you more flexibility when you're close to the action. The 18-200 and 24-120 are both pretty good lenses (I have both; the 18-200 is actually a bit sharper and of course more wide-ranging, particularly at the wide end). f the two, I'd suggest the 18-200, but here you will have to contend with a stop or two slower lens (depending on what focal length you use) which will translate into having to use a slower shutter speed (motion blur alert!) or a higher ISO (noise?) I believe Sigma and Tokina make f2.8 wide-to-moderate-tele zoom lenses, so if the Nikkor is too pricey, you could at least check these out. I use the 18-200 for event shoots (weddings, even) but on those occassions I use a flash; and you don't want to do that in this situation. So. Perhaps looking into a faster lens (maybe even a prime lens that's f1.8 or 1.4, but then you're back to less flexibility) is an idea worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay T. Bailey |
Thank you Bob F. How long have you owned both of those lenses I mentioned. Only because in one feedback comment I read a person that used the 18-200mm lens said it didn't last well and he owned for approximately a year and frequently used it. My impression was that it was not well maintained or taken of...because I own 2 cheap lenses I have had for over 20 yrs and they are still in prime working order(also nikon lenses). I have been leaning toward the 18-200mm knowing what I would have to give up. Just for the flexibility. Thanks again-Kay
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
I've had the 24-120 for a few years, and the 18-200 for less than one year (it was hard to find for a while). The build isn't as high-end as the 'pro' level Nikkors (17-35 2.8, 270-200 2.8) and it does suffer from "zoom creep" (where the untouched lens will expand when pointed down). Still, with the 1.5 crop factor of the DX Nikons the 18MM wide end was far better than the view afforded by the 24MM end of the 24-120. Again, for your purposes, without a flash, I think the 18-200 would force you to use too high an ISO or too slow a shutter speed, so if you can afford it that 17-55 2.8 might be a better option.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||