Is Nikkor 180mm 2.8 by best choice for Hockey/Figure Skating on the cheap?
/forum/topic/1172169/0



shaolin95
Registered: Nov 27, 2012
Total Posts: 30
Country: United States

I know my SEl55210 is too slow (sony nex-6) so I was thinking that maybe that lens would be the cheapest way for me to get some decent shots at local hockey games and figure skating events.
I am trying the SEL55210 this Saturday anyway but I expect a tough day



ssnap
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Total Posts: 456
Country: United States

I had the 180mm 2.8 (not the D version) and it was a fantastic lens, but not for sports. The AF was too slow, but it was wonderful for portraits. I've heard that the 180mm f2.8D has quicker AF but I can't see it being ideal. Since it sounds like you are throwing this on an NEX-5 this may not matter too much. I can't imagine MF for hockey or figure skating. I do remember that part of the reason my 180 was so slow was because it took a lot of turning to go from minimum to infinity. I imagine that would be painful for MF scenarios.



freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5705
Country: United States

I don't think it's going to AF on his NEX, anyway, ssnap.

Depending on where you're shooting from, the 180 would be good. However, I think you're setting yourself up for some frustration shooting that long a tele. Are you not going to be able to shoot games from the glass? If you can, I'd go for a fast 50ish. The Rokkor 58/1.2 would be a good choice, since it's sharper at 1.2 then most 50/1.4s are wide open, but you have to be willing to MF your way through a hockey game, which is not a simple task. You might want to consider the 50/1.8, which is fairly snappy AF-wise and is stabilized, which could help with some cool tracking shots. But either of those will result in a great focal length for capturing action in front of the net from anywhere in the zone along the boards. End-to-end, I wouldn't look for something much longer than 135. It's easier to hand-hold, faster to focus, greater depth at f/2.8 and you'll run less chance of losing sight of the game. It's better to have to crop a little than not have enough space in your frame. Good MF 135's are fairly easy to find and typically pretty cheap. I'd go with Minolta or the E55 Leica R (prices may have gone up to silly levels on the Leica, but it was one of the good bargains in the line at one time). They tend to play better with the crappy ice arena lighting than the MF Nikons.

Just my two cents. As for figure skating... well, good luck with that.



briantho
Registered: Oct 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1099
Country: Sweden

A 50ish for a hockey game?

I'd bring my FD 300 f2.8 + maybe the 1.4x tele converter, and I'm sure I'd get hundereds of unusable photos, and about 10 great shots. That would be my expectation.

That's assuming the lens would be allowed inside the arena.

My .02



shaolin95
Registered: Nov 27, 2012
Total Posts: 30
Country: United States

I am guessing today based on what range I end up using most would be a good indication of what I will need. I will not be near the boards for this event so I will need my zoom for sure.



ytwong
Registered: Dec 29, 2003
Total Posts: 1536
Country: China

I have shoot soccer with 180 2.8, but with a D700. MF was an issue, but not impossible.. but a good viewfinder is really important. I can't imagine using NEX-6 with MF 180 2.8 for sports (I do have a NEX-7 but never used that combo).



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 7866
Country: Canada

ytwong wrote:
I have shoot soccer with 180 2.8, but with a D700. MF was an issue, but not impossible.. but a good viewfinder is really important. I can't imagine using NEX-6 with MF 180 2.8 for sports (I do have a NEX-7 but never used that combo).



I've shot sports with an EVF. With the G1 it was an exercise in frustration, but the NEX-7 does much better due to much improved lag times (and peaking).

Frankly I rate the NEX-7 EVF over the D700 OVF. But only by a small margin.