Lens Reccomendations for Nikon F4?

ac12 · Oct 10, 2016

fstop said:
You're going to hobble an F-4 with a manual lens? why not just use a FM?

Nothing wrong with MF lens. That's what we used before AF lenses. And if you are half decent with focusing, and the F4 has a good manual focus screen, it isn't very difficult at all to MF a fast lens. Wrestling isn't like basketball, they are not moving around the mat a LOT, so you don't have to constantly follow focus.

ac12 · Oct 10, 2016

fstop said:
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens

I use one and its great. VR doesn't work with the F4 but its nice to have this lens when you upgrade. VR works with the F5 on up

IMHO, that is an outdoor lens.
The max aperture is way to small for shooting in a dim/dark gym.

CMoore · Oct 10, 2016

I certainly do not have anywhere near the photography experience that most of the Forum Members do. But i have shot a fair amount of high school sports.
Wrestling.?
Unless it is County, or wrestling is real big in your area, i would think you will be able to get pretty "close".?
85 f/2.0 would probably be great.
Would sure be nice to have also have:
50 f/1.8
and
105 f/1.8 or f/2.5

etn · Oct 11, 2016

fstop said:
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens

I use one and its great. VR doesn't work with the F4 but its nice to have this lens when you upgrade. VR works with the F5 on up

"G" lenses do not have an aperture ring. Does that work with the F4?

mesantacruz · Oct 11, 2016

I hope I don't offend, but let me be the first to suggest a 3rd party 85mm.

It would be the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower model.
I acquired mine from an apug member along with the 35mm. Let me say that I am extremely happy with it and it's quite compact for its aperture.

You can probably find one in ex++ shape for just under 300 or if your lucky for quite a bit less.

I don't think the manual focusing should be a problem, from the distance that you can capture both wrestlers, you should be fine with setting up a tripod and making only minor adjustments. My own opinion.

Leigh B · Oct 11, 2016

mesantacruz said:
it's quite compact for its aperture.

Since you have not old us what its aperture is...

It's difficult to evaluate your suggestion as compared with the other 85mm lenses already suggested.

- Leigh

ac12 · Oct 11, 2016

Wu Zixu said:
If you could get close enough to the action, maybe a Nikon E 75-150mm F3.5 will do just fine.

Too slow for use in a dim/dark gym.

Terry Breedlove · Oct 11, 2016

I have been to a few wrestling matches and my 85mm 1.8 did me just fine.

neilt3 · Oct 11, 2016

Leigh B said:
Since you have not old us what its aperture is...

It's difficult to evaluate your suggestion as compared with the other 85mm lenses already suggested.

- Leigh

The Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 85mm lens is f/1.4 .

It's a very nice lens giving good results .
I have one in Sony/Minolta A-mount but have since replaced it with a Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G .
When I get chance I will be changing the mount on mine to Nikon F .
As it's a manual focus , pre-set lens , this is easy enough to do . Just needs the correct amount of shims and the Infinity focus mark re-setting .

Very good value for money .

cooltouch · Oct 11, 2016

Just a quick comment for those who were suggesting that the 180mm f//2.8 was too much lens. The OP mentioned in two posts that he might be shooting from 40 yards away. Given that, I think the 180 would be the only practical prime to use. It might be a bit slow, but 200mm f/2's be a mite spendy.

Another brief comment on the F4. I have one, and I think there was a good reason why sports photographers began abandoning the Nikon ranks in the early 90s in favor of Canon. When it comes to tracking action, my F4 is a pretty miserable performer. Now, with a sport such as wrestling, there are seldom rapid posiion changes within the ring, so an F4 might work ok for that. But anything involving rapid movement is likely to be a study in frustration. BTDTGTTS.

etn · Oct 12, 2016

cooltouch said:
Just a quick comment for those who were suggesting that the 180mm f//2.8 was too much lens. The OP mentioned in two posts that he might be shooting from 40 yards away. Given that, I think the 180 would be the only practical prime to use. It might be a bit slow, but 200mm f/2's be a mite spendy.

Another brief comment on the F4. I have one, and I think there was a good reason why sports photographers began abandoning the Nikon ranks in the early 90s in favor of Canon. When it comes to tracking action, my F4 is a pretty miserable performer. Now, with a sport such as wrestling, there are seldom rapid posiion changes within the ring, so an F4 might work ok for that. But anything involving rapid movement is likely to be a study in frustration. BTDTGTTS.

Isn't the AF of the N90s / F90x, F100 and F5 faster than that of the F4? Those bodies can be had for quite cheap nowadays.

WILL WORK FOR FILM · Oct 12, 2016

sepiareverb said:
An FM? No comparison in handling, nor ease of shooting.

I like your suggestion of film tho.

I have used Fuji superia 400 and don't care for the flat greenish tones all that much. Does the whole line of Superia film share this trait? And if I were to use superia, maybe I would be better served with the 1600?

Leigh B · Oct 12, 2016

180mm f/2.8 ...

DoF @ 120 feet is 24.4 feet. That makes it effectively a fixed-focus shot.

I would start by focusing (manual) on the wrestlers at the center of the mat, then follow-focus as needed.
The required adjustments would be very slight.

-Leigh

RattyMouse · Oct 12, 2016

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:
Hello. This is my first post here. I have been lurking for a while.

I am new to film SLR's. Purchased a Minolta x-700 a few months ago and then a couple very nice prime lenses off the Bay. I am about half way through the Ansel Adams trilogy and have run several rolls of film through my X-700. My results vary but I am seeing gradual improvement. Mostly playing with B@W film (Tri-X).

More recently, I acquired a very nice Nikon F4 for the purpose of photographing my son's high school wrestling matches. It seems to be in perfect working order but I now find myself in need of an appropriate lens for the task at hand. I plan to play around with Ilford hp 3200 and Portra 800 to handle the awkward lighting conditions and fast action that are typical of indoor sporting events but am in need of advice as to which lens/lenses might be optimal for these conditions. So what would you mount on an F4 in this situation?

TMAX 400 easily shoots at ISO800 and this does not require any change in developing time.

sepiareverb · Oct 12, 2016

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:
I have used Fuji superia 400 and don't care for the flat greenish tones all that much. Does the whole line of Superia film share this trait? And if I were to use superia, maybe I would be better served with the 1600?

I've always found Fuji films to render more pleasing colors under mixed or indoor lighting, but that's a personal preference. I've only used the 400 myself.

cooltouch · Oct 12, 2016

etn said:
Isn't the AF of the N90s / F90x, F100 and F5 faster than that of the F4? Those bodies can be had for quite cheap nowadays.

I dunno about faster, but probably more accurate. Except the F5, which I know is way faster and way more accurate.

CMoore · Oct 12, 2016

RattyMouse said:
TMAX 400 easily shoots at ISO800 and this does not require any change in developing time.

Just 2x checking, not trying to sound dense...i ask because i am a beginner.
You are saying if you push Kodak TMax 400 to 800 ASA, you use the same development times, and the negatives look fine.?
Doesn't that, effectively, underexpose by one stop if you do not adjust the time.?
Thank You

MattKing · Oct 12, 2016

CMoore said:
Just 2x checking, not trying to sound dense...i ask because i am a beginner.
You are saying if you push Kodak TMax 400 to 800 ASA, you use the same development times, and the negatives look fine.?
Doesn't that, effectively, underexpose by one stop if you do not adjust the time.?
Thank You

You are under exposing by one stop even if you do adjust the development time. In either case, you lose shadow detail, and we tend to rate the "speed" of film based on its ability to render shadow detail.
Increasing development has very little effect on the sensitivity of the film. Increasing development does have an effect on the contrast of the film.
So when you under-expose the film and then increase the development time (a "push") what you are doing is accepting that your dark shadows will be rendered with very little detail, in return for having more pleasing contrast in the mid-tones, lower mid-tones and near shadows. In addition, the "push" will make the highlights more dense and contrasty and therefore may make them harder to print in a pleasing way. It is, however, a compromise.
TMax 400 exhibits a very long straight section in its characteristic curve (with most developers). For that reason, when you under-expose it by one stop (meter at an EI of 800 instead of the ISO speed of 400) it isn't as necessary to increase the contrast in the mid-tones, lower mid-tones and near shadows in order to print those areas in a pleasing way. And if you develop it normally, the highlights are more likely to print in a pleasing way. So Kodak's recommendation about how best to make the compromise when light is low is to meter at an EI of 800, develop normally and use the inherent qualities of the film along with the tools available to the printer to obtain the best print.
With other films, Kodak's recommendation about the low light compromise is different.

RattyMouse · Oct 13, 2016

CMoore said:
Just 2x checking, not trying to sound dense...i ask because i am a beginner.
You are saying if you push Kodak TMax 400 to 800 ASA, you use the same development times, and the negatives look fine.?
Doesn't that, effectively, underexpose by one stop if you do not adjust the time.?
Thank You

That's true, you are under exposing by one stop, but according to Kodak, you should develop at the same time as ISO400 even if you shot at 800. It works, I've done it lots of time.

I used to use a lot of TMAX400 before the backing paper fiasco (120 size).

cooltouch · Oct 13, 2016

Back to the subject of lenses that work well with the F4, while not an answer that addresses the specific needs of the OP, for general photography, at least, I find these two zooms work very well:

Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED AF-D

They make for a good pairing because of the comfortable overlap between them. Because these are "D" lenses (which I prefer), they can often be found on eBay for cheap. I acquired both of mine as components when I bought outfits, so I got great deals on both, especially after selling off other pieces in the outfits.

Another lens worth picking up is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D. It's reasonably well made, and, in what seems to be a characteristic of "D" lenses, works well in manual focus mode. All the "D" lenses I've used have comfortably sized and well-damped focusing collars and a reasonable focusing throw.

fstop · Oct 14, 2016

shutterfinger said:
Do you have any negatives made with this lens that will produce a Gallery quality 11x14 or 16x20 prints? My AF version from the mid 1990's won't, other lens mentioned in this thread will. (I made the 1997 Photographer's Forum Best of Photography book with the 35-135 I suggested.)

Hes is shooting sports, not fine art...the real solution is to switch to a dslr and use lenses that will give results.

shutterfinger · Oct 15, 2016

The OP stated he prefers prime lens. Primes are sharp. Sharp images are necessary to meet gallery quality. A soft focused image with a prime looks better than a lesser lens correctly focused.
I have a 75-300 f4-5.6 AF zoom. I have gotten some good images with it but if put up against a prime of equal focal length the prime images will be sharper. It would be my last choice for gymnasium photography whether used on a chemical based recording system camera or an electronic sensor recording medium camera.
I'm glad you like yours, enjoy it.
And, yes many a good sports photo was made with f4.5 and f4.7 single focal length lens from the 1930's through the 1950's both indoors and outdoors.

fstop · Oct 15, 2016

I have a 300 prime, it doesn't hold a candle to the VR when hand held. Sports photography does not need to meet "gallery" quality, its more important to get the shot than to worry about minor "flaws". btw a dslr can white balance for fluorescent lighting in gyms, you need to add stop adding filters to balance the color when shooting film.
Film is application oriented, there are better choices in sports, outdoor and wildlife photography.
What does Nat Geo use these days?

shutterfinger · Oct 15, 2016

A monopod compensates for lack of VR.

ac12 · Oct 15, 2016

shutterfinger said:
A monopod compensates for lack of VR.

Partially.
The monopod provides vertical stability, but not horizontal stability and it can rock from side to side.
Horizontal stability still depends on your stance.
Something is better than nothing, but it still relies on technique.

Lens Reccomendations for Nikon F4?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency