Very New Need Help

wjchiefs · 05-13-2010, 07:39 AM

Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol. I just bought 2 lenes ROKINON 500mm and 800mm i was wondering if anyone can tell me if they are good for shooting sports hockey and baseball? I am very new i dont know if i wasted my money or if they will work can anyone help me out.
Thanks
Derrick

Alfisti · 05-13-2010, 07:52 AM

You'll need light, lots of daylight. IQ will be poor as these are mirror lenses (notice they were cheap and small for their reach?) but a decent starting spot for you.

wjchiefs · 05-13-2010, 08:12 AM

not good as most game are at nite lol what should i get?

northcoastgreg · 05-13-2010, 08:18 AM

Those Rokinon lenses can be fun to play with, but I doubt they'll be all that useful for shooting sports (particularly hockey, which is usually played in doors). Those lenses are very hard to focus because they're rather dark and they have a very shallow depth of field. They are also manual focus. You'd be better off with a zoom lens, something like a 70-300mm lens. Or, if you want better IQ and are willing to focus manually, you might want to track down some older telephoto primes lenses: you may be able to find something with pretty good IQ for around what you paid for the two Rokinon lenses. You just have to make sure that the older lens is not a "non-AI" lens, since they tend not to work with Nikon DSLRs. You may also want to track down some Nikon related sites to get more specific advice on what are your options with D60. Most of the folks here are Pentax shooters and don't know a huge amount about Nikon.

Nowhere Matt · 05-13-2010, 09:19 AM

Yeah I think you will find the 800 and maybe even the 500 will get you just too close.
If you are talking about shooting professional sporting events, it's likely they will not let you in with those kinds of lenses anyway. If you are talking about amateur or semi professional sports, you should be able to be close enough that a 300mm will prove more flexible and suitable. Your pictures of the goalie taken from section 218 on the opposite end or images of the right fielder from the third base GA section will suffer using a 300mm but...
Find your budget, think about a suitable __-300mm and find good positioning. Save the 500mm and 800mm for moon, mountains and some animals.
But if you have $1000 for a Bigma, disregard everything else I have said. And become my friend.

SpecialK · 05-13-2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

But if you have $1000 for a Bigma, disregard everything else I have said. And become my friend.

New version of the Bigma (50-500) has gone up to $1,600. The 150-500 is $1,000, however.

Parallax · 05-13-2010, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by wjchiefs

Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol. I just bought 2 lenes ROKINON 500mm and 800mm i was wondering if anyone can tell me if they are good for shooting sports hockey and baseball? I am very new i dont know if i wasted my money or if they will work can anyone help me out.
Thanks
Derrick

Please don't shout. Regular size font is works just fine around here.

**blackcloudbrew** · 05-13-2010, 11:38 AM - **1 Like**

I think these lenses will be difficult to use for your application. Really it's the lack of adequate light, image quality, and manual focus that are the issue. I have a Vivitar 500mm lens that's similar to the rokinon and it's an ok lens but I only use it in broad daylight for fun stuff (generally non moving subjects). It also gives a somewhat flat color contrast and there tends to be some barreling to the images. In response to your 'have I wasted my money' question, I'd say no, as these are fun to shoot other stuff with but these aren't the ones I'd pick to meet your application.

Generally, if I were going to do a lot of action (which is what sports is all about), I'd go with a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens for starters. That length is (as I understand it) very commonly used by pros in those applications.

WMBP · 05-13-2010, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by wjchiefs

Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol.

Derrick,

First, please don't use that huge font again. Gives everybody a headache.

Now, to your question. What's wrong with the photos you took with the 18-55? I'm going to guess that the main problem is that you can't get close to the action, and you feel that a telephoto lens would be better.

I agree with the comments already made about the lenses you already bought.

The solution to your problem has a couple of parts.

First, you need to know what focal length you DO need. Or if you are looking for a zoom lens, what focal range would be appropriate? I'm going to suggest that you consider the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD lens. Focal range is probably good for your purpose. And I'm guessing you're on a tight budget, too, and this lens is very reasonably priced. There's a Sigma counterpart as well, which is also good. Or, you might even consider one of the superzooms (from Tamron, Sigma or Pentax) in the 18-250 range—but these are more expensive than the Tamron 70-200 that I mentioned first.

Now, second, there's the problem of actually making the lens work. To capture sports action you need to use a fast shutter. And there's another rule of thumb suggesting that you keep the shutter speed faster than the reciprocal of the focal length, in other words, if you are shooting at 300mm, you'd want to use a focal length no slower than 1/300th sec. So you need a fast focal length for a couple of reasons. But now what you need to make that fast focal length work is LOTS OF LIGHT. Because the Tamron 70-300's minimum aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm isn't especially "fast", that is, it doesn't let in a lot of light.

If you are shooting in the daylight, might not be a problem. Most of these non-prime zoom lenses are really daylight lenses.

If you are shooting a night game in a ball park that has great stadium lighting, well, that might work too.

But if the lighting won't work, then you will need to increase the ISO until you can get the shutter speed you need.

*

Another approach is not to worry about going all the way to 300mm and simply learning to make the best use of what you've got (your 18-55). Or perhaps getting a slightly longer zoom lens (like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5) or even a prime lens. You can make anything work for you if you understand what the lens can and can't do, and take advantage of what it can while working around what it can't. And if you really want to take sports photos that look like the cover of Sports Illustrated, well, then you really will need to spend some money on a sharp, fast, telephoto lens.

Will

thrillerb · 05-14-2010, 06:58 PM

What age range are the kids you're shooting? My kid is 6 and there's not a great deal of action in pee-wee ball (one step up from tee ball). I use the KX with the 55 - 300 kit zoom. It an be a bit slow to focus but b/c the kids aren't movng quickly, it's fine for my purposes. Also, we play during the day.

fccwpe · 05-14-2010, 08:06 PM

I have the Rok 800mm and it takes some practice to get the focus right because it requires such minute adjustments to get it into focus. For action it's tough, I practiced by shooting planes on approach to land. Still it wasn't easy. On a limited budget, you might want to start with a Tammy 70-300 for the outdoor sports. As long as you keep it under about 280mm it's pretty clear and they're cheap (~$140).

I don't shoot sports much, but I would use my Sigma 150-500mm. One of the previous responses said to go with a F2.8 lens and I agree. The faster the better! This applies to indoor and outdoor sports. Just ,my 2 cents...

In any case, ENJOY!!

05-13-2010, 07:39 AM	#1
wjchiefs Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Location: Jeannette PA Posts: 2	Very New Need Help Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol. I just bought 2 lenes ROKINON 500mm and 800mm i was wondering if anyone can tell me if they are good for shooting sports hockey and baseball? I am very new i dont know if i wasted my money or if they will work can anyone help me out. Thanks Derrick

05-13-2010, 07:52 AM	#2
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	You'll need light, lots of daylight. IQ will be poor as these are mirror lenses (notice they were cheap and small for their reach?) but a decent starting spot for you.

05-13-2010, 08:12 AM	#3
wjchiefs Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Location: Jeannette PA Posts: 2 Original Poster	not good as most game are at nite lol what should i get?

05-13-2010, 08:18 AM	#4
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,176	Those Rokinon lenses can be fun to play with, but I doubt they'll be all that useful for shooting sports (particularly hockey, which is usually played in doors). Those lenses are very hard to focus because they're rather dark and they have a very shallow depth of field. They are also manual focus. You'd be better off with a zoom lens, something like a 70-300mm lens. Or, if you want better IQ and are willing to focus manually, you might want to track down some older telephoto primes lenses: you may be able to find something with pretty good IQ for around what you paid for the two Rokinon lenses. You just have to make sure that the older lens is not a "non-AI" lens, since they tend not to work with Nikon DSLRs. You may also want to track down some Nikon related sites to get more specific advice on what are your options with D60. Most of the folks here are Pentax shooters and don't know a huge amount about Nikon.

05-13-2010, 09:19 AM	#5
Nowhere Matt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,362	Yeah I think you will find the 800 and maybe even the 500 will get you just too close. If you are talking about shooting professional sporting events, it's likely they will not let you in with those kinds of lenses anyway. If you are talking about amateur or semi professional sports, you should be able to be close enough that a 300mm will prove more flexible and suitable. Your pictures of the goalie taken from section 218 on the opposite end or images of the right fielder from the third base GA section will suffer using a 300mm but... Find your budget, think about a suitable __-300mm and find good positioning. Save the 500mm and 800mm for moon, mountains and some animals. But if you have $1000 for a Bigma, disregard everything else I have said. And become my friend.

05-13-2010, 09:30 AM	#6
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	Quote: But if you have $1000 for a Bigma, disregard everything else I have said. And become my friend. New version of the Bigma (50-500) has gone up to $1,600. The 150-500 is $1,000, however.

05-13-2010, 09:31 AM	#7
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by wjchiefs Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol. I just bought 2 lenes ROKINON 500mm and 800mm i was wondering if anyone can tell me if they are good for shooting sports hockey and baseball? I am very new i dont know if i wasted my money or if they will work can anyone help me out. Thanks Derrick Please don't shout. Regular size font is works just fine around here.

05-13-2010, 11:38 AM - 1 Like	#8
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	I think these lenses will be difficult to use for your application. Really it's the lack of adequate light, image quality, and manual focus that are the issue. I have a Vivitar 500mm lens that's similar to the rokinon and it's an ok lens but I only use it in broad daylight for fun stuff (generally non moving subjects). It also gives a somewhat flat color contrast and there tends to be some barreling to the images. In response to your 'have I wasted my money' question, I'd say no, as these are fun to shoot other stuff with but these aren't the ones I'd pick to meet your application. Generally, if I were going to do a lot of action (which is what sports is all about), I'd go with a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens for starters. That length is (as I understand it) very commonly used by pros in those applications.

05-13-2010, 12:08 PM	#9
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by wjchiefs Hi I am New to this whole thing lol. I have been trying to shoot baseball games using a Nikon D60 with 18 to 55mm not so good lol. Derrick, First, please don't use that huge font again. Gives everybody a headache. Now, to your question. What's wrong with the photos you took with the 18-55? I'm going to guess that the main problem is that you can't get close to the action, and you feel that a telephoto lens would be better. I agree with the comments already made about the lenses you already bought. The solution to your problem has a couple of parts. First, you need to know what focal length you DO need. Or if you are looking for a zoom lens, what focal range would be appropriate? I'm going to suggest that you consider the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD lens. Focal range is probably good for your purpose. And I'm guessing you're on a tight budget, too, and this lens is very reasonably priced. There's a Sigma counterpart as well, which is also good. Or, you might even consider one of the superzooms (from Tamron, Sigma or Pentax) in the 18-250 range—but these are more expensive than the Tamron 70-200 that I mentioned first. Now, second, there's the problem of actually making the lens work. To capture sports action you need to use a fast shutter. And there's another rule of thumb suggesting that you keep the shutter speed faster than the reciprocal of the focal length, in other words, if you are shooting at 300mm, you'd want to use a focal length no slower than 1/300th sec. So you need a fast focal length for a couple of reasons. But now what you need to make that fast focal length work is LOTS OF LIGHT. Because the Tamron 70-300's minimum aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm isn't especially "fast", that is, it doesn't let in a lot of light. If you are shooting in the daylight, might not be a problem. Most of these non-prime zoom lenses are really daylight lenses. If you are shooting a night game in a ball park that has great stadium lighting, well, that might work too. But if the lighting won't work, then you will need to increase the ISO until you can get the shutter speed you need. * Another approach is not to worry about going all the way to 300mm and simply learning to make the best use of what you've got (your 18-55). Or perhaps getting a slightly longer zoom lens (like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5) or even a prime lens. You can make anything work for you if you understand what the lens can and can't do, and take advantage of what it can while working around what it can't. And if you really want to take sports photos that look like the cover of Sports Illustrated, well, then you really will need to spend some money on a sharp, fast, telephoto lens. Will

05-14-2010, 06:58 PM	#10
thrillerb Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 60	What age range are the kids you're shooting? My kid is 6 and there's not a great deal of action in pee-wee ball (one step up from tee ball). I use the KX with the 55 - 300 kit zoom. It an be a bit slow to focus but b/c the kids aren't movng quickly, it's fine for my purposes. Also, we play during the day.

05-14-2010, 08:06 PM	#11
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380	I have the Rok 800mm and it takes some practice to get the focus right because it requires such minute adjustments to get it into focus. For action it's tough, I practiced by shooting planes on approach to land. Still it wasn't easy. On a limited budget, you might want to start with a Tammy 70-300 for the outdoor sports. As long as you keep it under about 280mm it's pretty clear and they're cheap (~$140). I don't shoot sports much, but I would use my Sigma 150-500mm. One of the previous responses said to go with a F2.8 lens and I agree. The faster the better! This applies to indoor and outdoor sports. Just ,my 2 cents... In any case, ENJOY!!