Originally posted by geomez I'm sure your experience helps. I very little experience tracking telephoto AF. Sportwise, I've only used the combo shooting soccer and basketball. Maybe there's better contrast for AF tracking with a surfer against the ocean?
There is no system that is good enough to make up for lack of technique. And as far as I know, there are no really good sports lenses under $5000. This is th lens the Toronto Star sports guy uses to shoot the Toronto Blue Jays.
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Lens with Built-in 1.4x 5176B002
If I were shooting professionally and someone else was paying for the equipment, that's probably what I'd ask for, with a 1DX.
SO right off the bat, you aren't talking about the best lens for the job, or probably the best body for the job.
SO, you are looking at a compromise solution squeezing into a $5,000 budget.
As mentioned above, the D500 looks good. Really good specs, 10 FPS, 200 image buffer 20.9 MP, all really good for a sports type camera. And about $2000 so that leaves you $3000 for lenses.
This looks like a nice lens but it take you over your budget.
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon 137306 B&H Photo
And that is going to be your issue. You didn't say indoor sports or outdoor sports. For indoor, you pretty much want at least ƒ4. For most sports you are going to want a zoom.
Lets be honest here, if you are super serious about being a versatile sports shooter then F4 is really just not gonna cut it when you are in low light of any kind. If you can’t afford a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens from Canon or Nikon then your best option currently is the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC
The Tamron 70-200 2.8 here is well within your budget and has tested out optically as good as both the Canon and Nikon offerings at twice the price. Get a 2x converter for it and you're laughing.
If I'm not getting paid, but was on the yearbook committee at a high school or something, that might be the way I'd go. It's a tough choice, because really I'd just use the equipment I have, K-3 and DA* 60-250 or DA*200 2.8 indoors. But if I had $5000 and had to spend it on a sports system, that's the way I'd go today. I might think differently after doing the endless research I'd do before actually spending money on such a system. But that's a good start.
The discussion here goes through the issues pretty thoroughly. even if his intel on camera bodies, lenses and preference for full frame is a little suspect as well as, he only knows canon, but his thought process can apply to any system.
Sports Photography – The Complete Guide From Lenses to Bodies | SLR Lounge
But that being said, a friends son shoots youth hockey tournaments in the Ottawa area, selling on-line for a sports photography with a Canon 6D and 70-200 and makes money doing it. He had to buy Canon because he wanted to borrow the company lenses, and he did admit most of his sales were to goalie's families, where he could pre-focus on the crease and wait for the action to happen. I can't see why a K-1 or K-3 with a 70-200 wouldn't do the job, most of the time.
If he can do it with a 6D and 70-200, you can do it with a K-3 or K-1 and 70-200. But it really depends on what you are going to shoot. I've shot daytime baseball with my K-20D Sigma 70-300 and was quite happy with the images. It's all depends on what you want, but, great top quality sports shots for every sport for $5000? It's not going to happen. You're going to have to pick your compromises and live with it.
Given that I already own a K-3 and a K-1, I'd just buy a Pentax DFA 70-200 and 1.4 TC and be done with it. K-3 outdoors, K-1 indoors.