p.1 #1 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
Anyone adapting Nikon F mount lenses 70-200 2.8 V1 on Nikon Z6III? If so how are the results mainly focus wise and image quality. I simply cant affort a Nikon Z mount 70-200 2.8 or 135mm 1.8 which I would prefer as thats my second favorite focus length. Our kids are currently into soccer and our Nikon Z 85mm 1.8 is not long enough. Any thoughts or suggestions would be great. I did briefly use the Nikon Z 70-180 but found the focus to be too slow. Or maybe im not use to zooms as I prefer prime lenses. I did looked at some used 105mm 1.4 but not sure how quick that lens will focus.
p.1 #2 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
I used the 70-200 f/2.8G VRII up until the second Z 70-200 came out this year. It's a real workhorse of an action lens. The original VR is good too, but I'd consider how old the focus motors are now. The original didn't have a great reputation for corner performance, but I can't imagine that's a huge factor for soccer. The VRII has terrible reproduction ratio, but again, can't imagine that's a big issue for soccer.
You might also check out the AF-P 70-300 FX lens. The AF-P motors are supposed to be quite snappy, and you'd get a bit more reach. I've not used one to vouch for it, but it seems like it could be a good fit here.
p.1 #3 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
When I used to shoot kids soccer like 6 years ago.... I used both F 70-200 2.8 VR-I .. It did decent. However, I loved using the Z 70-200 2.8 VR S Lens.
p.1 #5 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
The 70-180mm is fast enough for running dogs which are certainly faster than kids playing soccer (maybe the Tamron-branded G2 has faster motors still, not sure). Depending on the pitch a 70-200mm type might be a bit short though. You could check how much you need to crop the 85mm files to get a feel for how long of a lens you need (full pixel long edge / cropped pixel long edge = your multiplier)
p.1 #6 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
I used my F-mount 70-200 on a Z9 to shoot humming birds. It did fairly well. If it is goof for hummingbirds. should be good for sports. Not sure the differences between Z6 & Z9 though.
p.1 #7 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
Going from 85 to 105 or 135 is not going to solve reach problem.
300mm PF f4 is an option, it might be cheapest as well when bought used. Be generous with shutter speed and don't mind culling photos, you will have so many great keepers.
p.1 #10 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
I would second the AF-P 70-300 E FX as an option if you are outdoors and don’t have to be at f2.8. It also works very well for video. The 70-200 VRII AF was very chattery/jittery where the AF-P was much better behaved when shooting video on my Z6.
p.1 #11 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
The 70-200 vr1 was designed in the era of APSC sensors before Nikon moved to full frame with the D3. Having said that, for your use case it would work well as you are photographing kids sports and the corners won’t be a big concern. I used a VR1 for years on full
frame and never had a quality complaint related to the files. It was mostly sports work but I also used it for occasional portraits and a few weddings. I replaced it with the 70-200 e which I still have.
p.1 #12 · Cheap quality sports lens? Nikon Z mount.
If we're talking about a standard soccer field here—that is, 115 by 74 yards—then 200 mm at the long end would definitely be too short for me.
I don't do this professionally either, but every now and then I've had the chance to get right up to the sideline.
These are photos taken with a Z8 and a Z 400/4.5 VR S, for example, and when you're sitting behind the baseline, behind one of the goals, 400mm is just enough to capture the action all the way to the center line.
If the action is in the other penalty area, you need at least 600mm.
To be honest, I'd also lean more toward the Tamron 50-400 for field soccer (regular pitch size), or possibly an AF-S 200-500/5.6 E ED VR with a monopod, if you can find one in good used condition at a reasonable price.
The AF-P 70-300 FX that's already been suggested would also be an option.
The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4 E PF ED VR was also mentioned; it would likewise be a good option if a prime lens is preferred anyway.
If it’s a small stadium, so you get very close to the edge of the playing field, a Z 70-200/2.8 might also work—at least if you have a teleconverter in your bag as well and one has to accept that only a fraction of the field can actually be depicted in a way that fills the frame with a 70-200.
So you can only fill the frame with action shots if the action is happening quite close by.
Given the size of a soccer field and the widely varying distances involved, you really need a wide range of focal lengths to cover the vast majority of situations.
At the long end, a 600mm lens is perfectly fine when capturing action in the opposite half of the field.
Now, as a dad who wants to take pictures of his kids playing football, you certainly don’t feel the pressure to be prepared for every situation in terms of focal length, which, given the size of a soccer field, means at least two camera bodies and different focal length lens setups.
Also, the distance from the center line to the respective end zones is shorter than if you were sitting on one of the end lines, but I wouldn’t go below 400mm at the long end.
