# Good camera, lens needed for youth sports photos



## carryyourbooks (Feb 13, 2009)

my boys are in football, basketball, and little league. what is a good lens, camera for this type of setting? if you can provide links, that would be wonderful.


----------



## Formula4Fish (Apr 24, 2007)

First, and most important question... What's the most you are willing to spend?


----------



## camowag (Aug 25, 2005)

Formula4Fish said:


> First, and most important question... What's the most you are willing to spend?


Second, what type camera, Film or Digitial, seems you will be shooting indoors & outdoors. You probably what a mid-range tel-photo zoom.


----------



## camowag (Aug 25, 2005)

camowag said:


> Second, what type camera, Film or Digitial, seems you will be shooting indoors & outdoors. You probably what a mid-range tel-photo zoom.


Sorry didn't read "Camera" part,,, depends on your buget $$


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Seriously, your budget is the biggest limiting factor. 

You can take some great shots with any camera....if....you can get close enough....if ....you don't need to take too many shots rapidly......if...it is daylight out....if.....you don't need to stop action very much.

All of those issues come into play. Each of them increase the cost of the lens/camera. 

I used to take some pretty decent shots of my kids/grandkids playing soccer. I could get very close, walking the side-lines, in the sunlight. I was using a simple ULTRA ZOOM that anyone could buy for $500.00 or less. 

Jump forward ten years...I am sitting in the stands at a big high school stadium. I need long distance lenses; fast focus and action; big apertures for night game lighting.

Tell us more. R


----------



## carryyourbooks (Feb 13, 2009)

sorry. forgot to mention. i bought the sony nex 5n and extra lens (55-210). ordered it from amazon. got it. tried it. didn't like it. sent it back. i can go up to $1500 but would rather stay under a grand if i can. i'm not so concerned with weight and bulkiness. my buddy has an older canon slr (xti) that i like. his lens is a 70-300. i liked it when i took some shots for him. since his is older, i'm not sure what the latest and greatest "comparable" is. 

opinions, please?


----------



## mkk (May 7, 2009)

I started with a Nikon D3100, not because its any better than the rest, its what felt good - $$$$. It came with 2 kit lenses (18-55mm?? and 55-300mm) for $900. I use it for gymnastics (indoor, no flash) rodeo, from the deer blind, at the bay. The kit lenses work great outside with ample light but picture quality suffers when the light is lower. I quickly found I needed a larger f/ stop lens. I bought a 70-200mm f2.8 and can really see the difference in picture quality under low light conditions. If I had to do it again, I would buy a body only and skip the kit lenses. Spend as much as possible on glass. I've only had mine since July and I have learned alot by reading my camera model specific books. I have a couple of friends at work that have really helped me understand how to use the camera to suit my needs - they both shoot high end Canon


----------



## mkk (May 7, 2009)

Oh........one more thing, make sure your seated when you look up and price the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens


----------



## kenforu (Mar 16, 2006)

I have a Nikon d-200 for sale in the classified section if interested.


----------



## Whec716 (Apr 7, 2010)

the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vrii is the lens to get. Sigma has a les expensive version and you can also opt for the non vi version. 

because you need to stop the action you need to shoot and a somewhat high of a shutterspeed (depends on which sport you are shooting) - this higher shutter speed negates the need for vr (image stabilization). In fact, VR can hurt you in sports, make sure it's off!

That being said, if you are doing anything in poor light, you need to be able to crank up the iso.


----------

