italy74
Well-known
75-150 F/3.5 series E, 52mm filter size, during the day is enough 
I have it, paid just 40€ (!) at a shop who wanted to get rid of it !
I have it, paid just 40€ (!) at a shop who wanted to get rid of it !
Last edited:
Frontman
Well-known
I am in the process of picking up one of the old 50-300 f/4 ED zoom lenses. Back when I was in high school these lenses cost over $3k, but you can get them pretty cheaply now. It's kind of a monster of a lens, but it was designed with sports photography in mind, so it's quick to use, and the focal range will cover everything you need, and then some. It'll look good on my F.
narsuitus
Well-known
I don't know how I missed this thread back in 2011.
Over the decades, I used a variety of telephoto lenses on Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4 bodies.
While I was working for a newspaper, the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 manual focus was my favorite telephoto. I usually used it with a 35mm f/2 (later replaced by f/1.4 version) and an 85mm f/1.8 (later replaced by f/1.4 version)
Years later, the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 auto focus telephoto zoom was my favorite. I usually used it with 20-35mm f/2.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 (later replaced by 28-70mm f/2.8) auto focus zooms.
Telephoto Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Over the decades, I used a variety of telephoto lenses on Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4 bodies.
While I was working for a newspaper, the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 manual focus was my favorite telephoto. I usually used it with a 35mm f/2 (later replaced by f/1.4 version) and an 85mm f/1.8 (later replaced by f/1.4 version)
Years later, the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 auto focus telephoto zoom was my favorite. I usually used it with 20-35mm f/2.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 (later replaced by 28-70mm f/2.8) auto focus zooms.
Telephoto Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Photog9000
Well-known
Depends on your finances. I used a Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f2.8 for several decades on both Olympus and Nikon film and Nikon digital cameras. A little less costly from the Nikkor and not quite as fast on autofocus but that off-brand lens was something I carried for my editorial and newspaper work on one body with a Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f2.8 on another body. When I dropped the wideangle zoom and could not afford to have it fixed, I picked up a Tokina 12-24 f4 which, if you believe reviews, was supposedly on par with its Nikkor counterpart. For sports, I opted for the Tokina ATX Pro 300mm f2.8. All four of these lenses were more than adequate for my professional and personal needs.
Last edited:
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
It's not photojournalism BUT...
It's not photojournalism BUT...
When my daughter was little I found my 85mm f/2 Nikkor FAR more useful
than the more highly regarded 105mm f/2.5 for portraits of active children.
Chris
It's not photojournalism BUT...
When my daughter was little I found my 85mm f/2 Nikkor FAR more useful
than the more highly regarded 105mm f/2.5 for portraits of active children.
Chris
Takkun
Ian M.
Another vote for the 80-200ED. I had the 'trombone' AF version. I haven't had the luxury of using any SWM lenses, but it was plenty fast, if noisy, on the D3 or F100.
Depends on what sort of journalism youre doing though—it's a good all-rounder for events, like you say, but really not enough reach for sports. Conversely, when I was doing events for a small magazine and covering live music, I switched to the 85AF and the AI 135/2. Both are a lot less physically obtrusive, and the prime-lens look really stands out on the page more.
The 135s were nice—I sold/traded most of my Nikon gear but definitely kept that 135.
Depends on what sort of journalism youre doing though—it's a good all-rounder for events, like you say, but really not enough reach for sports. Conversely, when I was doing events for a small magazine and covering live music, I switched to the 85AF and the AI 135/2. Both are a lot less physically obtrusive, and the prime-lens look really stands out on the page more.
The 135s were nice—I sold/traded most of my Nikon gear but definitely kept that 135.