Is it worth getting a 55-200mm lens for a Nikon D40 when taking sports photography?

Answer 1

I would definitly answer "yes" to the best quality lens you can afford. I shoot soccer as an advanced hobby and find that even the 70-200mm VR lens is sometimes not long enough, so I've broken down and purchased the Sigma 50-500mm lens. It's about half the price as the shorter range Nikon and the photos are AMAZING!!! Because sport action happens so fast, there is no time to change lenses, so this one is perfect because of its range. Plus in sports, it's always exciting when you can get all those amazing expressions on the faces of the players, and that would not be possible with a normal or small telephoto lens. Most sport photo sites will tell you that a minimum of 300 mm is a necessity for decent photos because you'll be cropping like crazy with a shorter lens, and then of course the quality of the photo will be drastically reduced and the details will be absent. I was never able to shoot a decent sports photo without a nice long lens. Another factor when shooting sports, is that you need a good quality FAST lens. I find that when I'm out at dusk, or if its raining, the only way I can get a decent shot is if I'm shooting with a F 2.8 lens or better. If its a nice sunny day, or if the sport venue will allow you to use a flash, then the Sigma lens is amazing for the price of about $1,000.