Best budget fully-manual sports lens?

[kye]

I want a lens to shoot my kids sports games.  I will be using it with the GH5, which has IBIS, ETC crop mode, and (paired with a non-speedboosting adapter) the MFT 2x crop factor.  I'm therefore thinking a fully-manual vintage lens could fit the bill.

From shooting previously I've found that 600mm equivalent is enough reach, so if that's with the ETC mode, then the lens only has to be up to 200mm.  A zoom would be really handy.  My preferences are for a lens that has good IQ, is nice to use, has MF the right way, and has a longer zoom range.  I can probably extend into the $100-200 range if there's something really nice, but cheaper is better

What lenses should I be looking at?

[Mako Sports]

6 minutes ago, kye said:

I want a lens to shoot my kids sports games.  I will be using it with the GH5, which has IBIS, ETC crop mode, and (paired with a non-speedboosting adapter) the MFT 2x crop factor.  I'm therefore thinking a fully-manual vintage lens could fit the bill.

From shooting previously I've found that 600mm equivalent is enough reach, so if that's with the ETC mode, then the lens only has to be up to 200mm.  A zoom would be really handy.  My preferences are for a lens that has good IQ, is nice to use, has MF the right way, and has a longer zoom range.  I can probably extend into the $100-200 range if there's something really nice, but cheaper is better

What lenses should I be looking at?

I shoot sports Pro all the way down to youth Lacrosse. 600 is going to be way to long and a total pain to pull focus at, even if you stop down to F8. 

[kye]

2 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I shoot sports Pro all the way down to youth Lacrosse. 600 is going to be way to long and a total pain to pull focus at, even if you stop down to F8. 

When I was shooting with my Canon 700D and 55-250mm lens I used it in the Magic Lantern crop mode which turned it into a 264-1200mm equivalent lens.  The 1200mm took waist-up portrait shots from the other side of the field and I got a few really nice shots like that, so that was the most zoom I would want.  With a 600mm equivalent lens I'll be able to get 1200mm in 1080 by cropping into the 4K from the GH5.

The 55-250 was a total pain to pull focus with because it is a cheap plastic lens and had a bit of play in the focus ring which made small smooth adjustments very difficult.  Any half-decent manual lens should be 1000% nicer to use in that regard.

[Mako Sports]

1 minute ago, kye said:

When I was shooting with my Canon 700D and 55-250mm lens I used it in the Magic Lantern crop mode which turned it into a 264-1200mm equivalent lens.  The 1200mm took waist-up portrait shots from the other side of the field and I got a few really nice shots like that, so that was the most zoom I would want.  With a 600mm equivalent lens I'll be able to get 1200mm in 1080 by cropping into the 4K from the GH5.

The 55-250 was a total pain to pull focus with because it is a cheap plastic lens and had a bit of play in the focus ring which made small smooth adjustments very difficult.  Any half-decent manual lens should be 1000% nicer to use in that regard.

if you need more overall reach, like more than a 100 400 or 70 300mm equiv. Your best bet is to go with tele primes. 

[kye]

I just looked up how big a lacrosse field is, and our football fields here are quite a bit larger, so that would factor in too.

2 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

if you need more overall reach, like more than a 100 400 or 70 300mm equiv. Your best bet is to go with tele primes. 

Hang on, a 200mm lens is enough, because with the 1.4x crop of the ETC mode and the 2x crop of MFT sensor size, a 200mm lens will have the same FOV as a 560mm lens on a FF camera.

There are a bunch of lenses in the 70-200mm or 100-300mm range that look good.

[Mako Sports]

Yeah as i expected haha. Also if you talking about american football - field is only 10 yards longer. 

[Kisaha]

You want a better lens than the 55-250 but for the 1\3 of its price?

There is a problematic in your logic!

I like the Canon nano lenses, believe they are some of the greatest deals in photography, ever. The 70-300 is really good and really cheap for what it is. 

The new 70-200 4f is great also, but another league (especially moneywise).

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

Yeah as i expected haha. Also if you talking about american football - field is only 10 yards longer. 

Australian Rules Football..  Wikipedia says that fields are "typically 135–185 metres long goal-to-goal and 110–155 metres wide" but I don't think he's on the full-sized field just yet.  It's amusing that there isn't a standard size too - hooray for being Australian and basically not giving a sh*t about anything! ???

2 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

You want a better lens than the 55-250 but for the 1\3 of its price?

There is a problematic in your logic!

I like the Canon nano lenses, believe they are some of the greatest deals in photography, ever. The 70-300 is really good and really cheap for what it is. 

The new 70-200 4f is great also, but another league (especially moneywise).

I'm seeing lenses like the Nikkor AI-S 100-300 f5.6, Tamron 80-250 f3.8-4.5, Canon FD 75-200 f4.5, Vivitar 75-205mm f3.8, etc that I can get for under $100 including shipping.  

The problem is that I don't know which are good and which are lemons, and considering that I can basically adapt any lens mount, I have a huge number of lenses to choose from.  Today all lenses are optically excellent, but back in the day they weren't, so you can end up with something with nasty CA, isn't sharp (which matters as I'm seriously zooming in to its FOV).

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Australian Rules Football..  Wikipedia says that fields are "typically 135–185 metres long goal-to-goal and 110–155 metres wide" but I don't think he's on the full-sized field just yet.  It's amusing that there isn't a standard size too - hooray for being Australian and basically not giving a sh*t about anything! ???

I'm seeing lenses like the Nikkor AI-S 100-300 f5.6, Tamron 80-250 f3.8-4.5, Canon FD 75-200 f4.5, Vivitar 75-205mm f3.8, etc that I can get for under $100 including shipping.  

The problem is that I don't know which are good and which are lemons, and considering that I can basically adapt any lens mount, I have a huge number of lenses to choose from.  Today all lenses are optically excellent, but back in the day they weren't, so you can end up with something with nasty CA, isn't sharp (which matters as I'm seriously zooming in to its FOV).

I have a set of FD lenses, from the days of film, and the 200mm 4f is quite interesting, with good sharpness from wide open, very small, and very light, with a built in sun hood (!), nevertheless, I haven't used it for at least half a decade now. Modern lenses can't just be beat in ease of use and AF performance, something that is really a must for sports photography. 

I advice you to search for the cheapest equivalent of the Canon 70-300 on m43 land and be merry!

[leslie]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Australian Rules Football..  Wikipedia says that fields are "typically 135–185 metres long goal-to-goal and 110–155 metres wide" but I don't think he's on the full-sized field just yet.  It's amusing that there isn't a standard size too - hooray for being Australian and basically not giving a sh*t about anything! ???

 

well your not playing with marbles ,  one needs a bit of room to run around and kick a football..... its a no brainer really ?

i doubt every country town has a full size field however the bigger cities and capitals would have full size fields.

[noone]

I am dumb enough to shoot sports (including AFL and cricket) with old manual focus lenses.

I think pretty much any old zoom in the 70/80-200plus range will do and it will depend on the lens condition and how hard its life has been more than anything.

Most will not be that great but you will get something you like.

My favourite lens for this is out of budget (Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall) - photos from this lens used in  newspapers including Greyhound racing (Greyhound Recorder) as well as Australian football.

I had some  (Womens) AFL shots from a cheap old Tamron adaptall zoom (80-250 3.8-4.5) used in a Newspaper as well.

 

Two old zooms I had and liked  are the Canon FD 80-200 f4 L, Tamron adaptall 70-210 3.5 (model 19ah).

I also have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 4.5 that might be good for sports and while rare can be had cheap though is sometimes listed for much more than it is worth (it was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any fluorite or ED elements).      Many of these old timers have a bit of purple (or other colour) fringing.

Get the longest fastest you can find and bonus points for ED/Fluorite elements ( 70/80-200/210 2.8 if you can find one in your price range)

Other options would be the Canon 100-300 5.6 L EF.    Maybe a bit slow but still quite good and can be found cheap (maybe on Ebay from Japan) and is as old as some FD lenses (I regret selling mine) and also something like a Canon EF 70/80-200/210 f4 (there are a few but maybe look at the old constant f4?).

For evening/overcast afternoons in winter, 2.8 can be very useful with a longer lens.

For Australian football, even 600mm (FF angle of view) and except for one sided games, you can spend a lot of time watching from afar and more so for kids.

[BTM_Pix]

Obviously, you have to manage your expectations at that sort of price and its difficult to say definitively with lenses of this vintage whether you will be getting a lemon through it being a battered copy of a good lens or a mint condition copy of a bad lens

If you are looking to keep it really low then have a look at a Nikon Series E 70-210mm f4 which you can readily get for under £50.

As with the Canon FD80-200 that @noone referenced, it is a one touch design which might suit better for manual control in your application.

 

 

[kye]

I spoke to my dad and it turns out he has Minolta 135mm and 250mm fixed primes, which he'll be putting in the post and sending to me.  Win!!

He can't remember which versions, but he said that at the time they were better than the most common ones that people had.  I asked about how good they were optically and his answer was very interesting, he said that he couldn't really tell me because he only ever used them to take photos of things very far away, and at those distances atmospheric disturbances were the biggest challenge, not lens sharpness or film grain.

Anyway, we'll see when they arrive.

I'm managing my expectations though.  I suspect that lenses were made to be good enough for the resolution of the best film stocks and probably no more.  If we take a FF lens and then crop into it 2x for the MFT mode, and 1.4x more for the ETC mode, and if that is 4K video which is 8.3MP, that means I'm viewing the lens with the equivalent scrutiny of 65MP.  There is hot debate around what the resolution of film is, but most estimates are below that figure, so I'm anticipating that they will probably be a little soft!  Of course, I'm only using the middle of the lens, which is where it is the best, but 65MP might still be a stretch.. ???

[webrunner5]

I don't think the lens gives a rats ass what resolution you are shooting at. It just projects what you want it to see to a Sensor. It can project so many line pairs and that is it. What that is depends on the quality of it. But yeah if your math is correct, ? , than 65mp would be a Stretch no doubt for an old lens. Would be a stretch for a New FF lens to be honest.

[homestar_kevin]

Good Score on the primes. Can't beat free.

BTM_Pix had a great recomendation with the Nikon Series E 70-210mm f/4 I have that lens and love it. Really great for the price.

At the top top end of your posted budget, I would look for an AF-D Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 Push Pull.

The original push pull versions can be found really cheap now for how good the optics are.

[kye]

1 hour ago, homestar_kevin said:

Good Score on the primes. Can't beat free.

BTM_Pix had a great recomendation with the Nikon Series E 70-210mm f/4 I have that lens and love it. Really great for the price.

At the top top end of your posted budget, I would look for an AF-D Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 Push Pull.

The original push pull versions can be found really cheap now for how good the optics are.

Do you mean the Nikon 80-200mm AF-D f4.5-5.6?  The 2.8 version looks like they start at around $500!

My dad dug up his collection and the 250mm he remembered is actually a 500mm, so way too long for practical use on crop sensor, and not to mention it's about a foot long!  I'm still entertaining the idea of a nice zoom, just because they're so flexible, and a 70-200 would be both shorter and longer than the 135mm prime, so would be hugely more flexible to use.

[homestar_kevin]

Nah, I mean the 2.8.

The two ring zoom version usually sells for around $500, but there's an earlier push/pull version that sells for around half that if you're patient and find one.

Just checked, there are several on KEH.com right now for right around $250.

 

I've seen them sell for cheaper on ebay and locally.

[kye]

That KEH.com site doesn't look that great.  It doesn't show you photos of the actual product you're buying, and refers you to the condition rating and the notes section for details on the actual one you'd be buying. This page here lists four lenses, one is Excellent Plus, two are Excellent, and one Bargain, but for the bargain one there are no notes!  The description of Bargain says "glass may have marks or blemishes but should not effect picture quality", at least according to the intern who is opening the packages in the mailroom..

I'm guessing that if you're in the US you'd just buy it and return it if there are issues?  It looks a bit different once you've paid import duties, made international phonecalls to get a return authorisation, and waited around all day for their couriers (who will only give you a 12-hour window for pickup/delivery and charge a fee if you were in the bathroom when they knocked and they have to come out a second time).  Oh, to live in shoppers paradise, instead of Australia where the cost of shipping often doubles the price 

I'll have to create a eBay notification for the 2.8 version

[homestar_kevin]

Keh is awesome and I spend too much money there.

 

I have never received a dud or bad project, and would much rather buy from there than ebay.

But yeah, if you're not in the US I could see how you might have reservations.

 

Either way, that version of the lens is readily available for mid $200s

[Mako Sports]

1 hour ago, homestar_kevin said:

Keh is awesome and I spend too much money there.

 

I have never received a dud or bad project, and would much rather buy from there than ebay.

But yeah, if you're not in the US I could see how you might have reservations.

 

Either way, that version of the lens is readily available for mid $200s

KEH is a big seller on ebay actually 

1 hour ago, homestar_kevin said:

Keh is awesome and I spend too much money there.

 

I have never received a dud or bad project, and would much rather buy from there than ebay.

But yeah, if you're not in the US I could see how you might have reservations.

 

Either way, that version of the lens is readily available for mid $200s

KEH is a big seller on ebay actually