Lens Reccomendations for Nikon F4?

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

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?

 

[chromacomaphoto]

Not a direct answer to the question but just a confirmation that Ilford 3200 (Delta) is good for low (awkward) light with a bit of action to catch. I think that is on the right lines. You'll be perhaps looking for long and fast (as possible or affordable) prime then really. Second hand 180 2.8mm would play lovely with that but not cheap.

 

[sepiareverb]

Was going to suggest the 25~50 zoom based on the title, but not after reading about what your shooting. A 135 might get you close enough? There were tons of 70~210 zooms made as well, workhorses for editorial photogs in the F3/F4 era.

Edit: was confusing the more recent 80~200/2.8 with the 70~210/4 of the F3/F4 era. Apologies.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

Was going to suggest the 25~50 zoom based on the title, but not after reading about what your shooting. A 135 might get you close enough? There were tons of 70~210 zooms made as well, workhorses for editorial photogs in the F3/F4 era.

Are you referring to the Nikkor 70-210mm AF-D F4-f5.6? if so, would that be fast enough for tricky indoor fluorescent lighting? I have to admit that my MC rokkor 130mm pf f2.8 has me spoiled in low light scenarios. A flash would be considered "bad etiquette" in this situation.

 

[narsuitus]

... am in need of advice as to which lens/lenses might be optimal for these conditions.

Here are the Nikon zoom lenses I would consider:
80-200mm f/2.8 AF
70-200mm f/2.8 AF

Here are the Nikon prime lenses I would consider:
180mm f/2.8
135mm f/2
85mm f/1.4

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
I agree with the lenses listed. I would add the 17-35mm and 28-70mm to that list. Not knowing exactly what you plan to shoot and your style it's difficult to pick out lenses for someone. You have lots of Nikon glass to choose from. I prefer fast primes myself.
Between these two sites you should be able to make your own choices:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm
I'll be going against the grain here, but if your intent is to shoot indoor sports in color and available light you should go with a DSLR like the Nikon D750 that will shoot high quality images at ISO 6400-12,800 and have auto white balance and a much better AF tracking than an old F4.
Read those reviews.
Rick

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

Yes this is a dilemma for me. I have grown rather fond of prime lenses. Particularly their build quality and light gathering capabilities. The price is an obvious plus as well. I suspect that the slower Af lenses, while versatile and quick to focus, would probably require a flash. This is a "no-no" at a wrestling match. So it looks like my choices are to purchase a few primes to cover the spectrum of focal length requirements, (next to the mat approx. 10-15yds/balcony viewing approx. 40+ yds) or drop $300-$500 on a fast zoom. Sound about right?

 

[sepiareverb]

Are you referring to the Nikkor 70-210mm AF-D F4-f5.6? if so, would that be fast enough for tricky indoor fluorescent lighting? I have to admit that my MC rokkor 130mm pf f2.8 has me spoiled in low light scenarios. A flash would be considered "bad etiquette" in this situation.

My bad, was confusing those 70~210s with the 80~200/2.8. 2.8 is certainly as slow as one should go in a gym. If you're after primes then a 180/2.8 and/or the 135/2 are good options. Should be plenty to choose from on eBay.

Note- I've edited my previous post.

 

[Leigh B]

For fast action you do not want a long lens.
Too hard to keep centered on the subject, too slow an aperture, and too little depth of field.

If the desired image is too small you can always enlarge.
But if it's out of the frame there's no way to recover it.

I would suggest a prime in the 85mm to 120mm range, as fast as you can afford.
You can probably leave the camera pointed at the center of the mat and catch most action.

You can get a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF lens used in good shape for about $300 (I have the faster version $$), or
the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS manual focus for around $250, or
the ever-popular 180mm f/2.8 AIS manual focus for around $400.

The 180mm is probably too long for what you're doing, but I have that lens and love it.

- Leigh

 

[faberryman]

What prime lenses do you have for your Minolta X700? I'd would have thought you would have used those to determine what focal length you needed for your son's wrestling matches and then bought the corresponding Nikon version.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

What prime lenses do you have for your Minolta X700? I'd would have thought you would have used those to determine what focal length you needed for your son's wrestling matches and then bought the corresponding Nikon version.

I currently have the MD 50mm f2 and a MC Rokkor-x pf 135mm F2.8 His season has not started yet so I have not had the opportunity to get inside the gym to check. Need to put that on my to-do list. Having played around with the 135mm Rokkor-x I think it would be very useable but possibly long. The Minolta lenses are certainly a better bargain. Now if I could just get them to fit my F4.

 

[shutterfinger]

The Nikkor 35-135 f3.5-f4.5 AF zoom is a nice piece of glass.
One will be hard pressed to distinguish its photos from most primes photos.

Example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-Ni...174326?hash=item41b2c5aff6:g:2qkAAOSwvzRX1c3L

 

[Alan Gales]

I've shot a lot of sports including high school and college fast pitch softball. Each sport has it's own rules of where spectators can be. You need to talk to your coach about where exactly you will be able to shoot from. This will help determine the focal length of the lenses you will want to use.

 

[fstop]

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

 

[faberryman]

I would caution against using an f3.5-4.5 or f4.5-5.6 lens indoors, particularly a zoom lens, where there may not be enough light to get a shutter speed sufficient for hand holding / action shots.

 

[John Koehrer]

So you're working in available dark and people are suggesting 3.5-4.5 lenses. Seems illogical but they're zooms.
Along the prime lens suggestions Nikon's 105/1.8. it's manual focus though. 85/1.8 AFd or 135/1.8 getting into
stressful dollars though.

 

[Alan Gales]

So you're working in available dark and people are suggesting 3.5-4.5 lenses. Seems illogical but they're zooms.
Along the prime lens suggestions Nikon's 105/1.8. it's manual focus though. 85/1.8 AFd or 135/1.8 getting into
stressful dollars though.

You got it right, John. Available dark in a gym.

Zooms are great for sports because sometimes you can't zoom with your feet and a zoom lens will get you where you want to be. The problem is that they are slower than fast primes. I would want fast primes in a gym situation with a 35mm film camera.

To be perfectly honest though, the ability to raise your ISO high and also have control of color balance would be nice under those gym lights.

 

[ac12]

Based on my experience in high school, gyms can range from dim to DARK.
Thus, FAST glass is my recommendation. And IMHO, f2.8 is NOT a fast lens.
Depending on how far away you are, I would start with the 50/1.4, then the 85/1.8 or 85/2, then the 105/1.8 or maybe the slow 105/2.5.
As I recall, I used a 50/1.4 with Tri-X (ASA 400) which we sometimes pushed (depending on the gym).
Although as a school photographer, I could get on the floor closer to the action, so the 50 was just fine.
Check with the coach and the officials to see how close you can get and where you can shoot from. If you politely ask, you might be surprised.

Still, I would use a shorter (50 or 85mm) FAST lens, rather than a longer (105 or 135) slow lens. I went though that in high school, and pushing film leaves you at an image quality disadvantage to someone shooting FAST glass and does not need to push the film.

As far as autofocus. IMHO, with a FAST lens you can easily focus MANUALLY in the gym, I did. So AF is a 'nice to have,' not a necessity.

Although personally, today I would shoot a DSLR with the ability to go to HIGH ISO levels, to combat the "available darkness" light situations that you will likely run into. And the unknown of how dim/dark the different gyms are.

FAST glass also gives you the option of shooting color, if there is enough light. Whereas with a 2.8 lens, you are likely B&W only.

gud luk

 

[chromacomaphoto]

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

Never tried it (or at least if I did it was so long ago that I can't recall) but would think that lens is probably way too slow for the OP's intended purpose. 2.8 @ 3200 is doable though I would think.

 

[etn]

+1 on the 180 2.8 AF-D. It's an incredible lens (one of my all-time faves, but who am I to tell) which can be found in good condition for $300-400.
Regardless of whether you will need it for your intended purpose, it is too good not to get one at that price. You will not regret it.

A 50mm or 85mm might however be more suitable for what you want to do. The 50 1.8 AF-D is a great all-rounder, available new slightly above $100.
The 85 1.4D is incredible but more expensive (around $700-800 used perhaps?). The 85 1.8D ($300-400 used) is well regarded and performs flawlessly, but I think it lacks character, in particular compared to its brighter sibling. However this is "complaining at a high level" (as we say in German!). Really nothing wrong with the 1.8.

If you are good at manual focusing you can also look at AIS lenses. Forget about AF-S lenses, they will not work on the F4.

In your case a zoom might be more convenient, though, at the expense of speed. I cannot really comment on those so I'll let more knowledgeable persons comment here.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

last night I messed around with some lenses on my Minolta at approximate (edge of the mat) type distances. I think that those of you that have suggested 50-85mm are spot on. At least to start with. At most wrestling meets there are no problems with getting a stone's throw from the subjects. The only issue will be the occasional large tournament that takes place at one of the high schools that has a sub-seating floor. We have to spectate from a very large surrounding balcony. Prob about 40yds away and 20 yds higher than the mat. That might be a challenge but I have to start somewhere. Hell.... it's only money right? I think I will start with Ilford delta 3200 at iso 1600. Will give me some latitude to play with. Plus, i'm kind of into B@W lately. Thank you all for the constructive suggestions. Will save me some time and money in the long run.

 

[Alan Gales]

last night I messed around with some lenses on my Minolta at approximate (edge of the mat) type distances. I think that those of you that have suggested 50-85mm are spot on. At least to start with. At most wrestling meets there are no problems with getting a stone's throw from the subjects. The only issue will be the occasional large tournament that takes place at one of the high schools that has a sub-seating floor. We have to spectate from a very large surrounding balcony. Prob about 40yds away and 20 yds higher than the mat. That might be a challenge but I have to start somewhere. Hell.... it's only money right? I think I will start with Ilford delta 3200 at iso 1600. Will give me some latitude to play with. Plus, i'm kind of into B@W lately. Thank you all for the constructive suggestions. Will save me some time and money in the long run.[/QUOTE





My daughter started in CYC sports. Played Recreational baseball one year and then started playing fast pitch softball at the Select level at 10 years old. She started pitching at 11. I helped manage one of her Select teams for 3 years. I was also the unofficial team photographer. My daughter pitched in High School and a little college before she decided to concentrate on her studies.

My advice to you is to enjoy your son's sport while it lasts. It's over all too soon. I didn't bring a camera to every game. Sometimes it's best to just sit back and enjoy the sport with the other proud parents.

 

[fstop]

You're going to hobble an F-4 with a manual lens? why not just use a FM?
The spurts talk like I don't know anything about indoor sports photography, if they knew so much they might have suggested shooting
Superia X-TRA 800

 

[sepiareverb]

You're going to hobble an F-4 with a manual lens? why not just use a FM?
The spurts talk like I don't know anything about indoor sports photography, if they knew so much they might have suggested shooting
Superia X-TRA 800

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

I like your suggestion of film tho.

 

[shutterfinger]

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

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.)