200mm for Sports?

[gsgary]

I am about to purchase either a D40 or D50. So Derrel do you recommend i get the 135 f/2 or the tamron 70-200 2.8? Does anyone know how the af is on that tamron, thats all i am worried about with it. I heard it has awesome iq.

Those are Nikon cameras why are you looking at Canon lenses

 

[IDLaxStar]

Sorry I meant to say 50d or 40d.

 

[KmH]

Edit: I finally looked at page 2.

Carry-on :er:

 

[shaunly]

why don't you get the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS.

 

[IDLaxStar]

I would but I am on a little bit of a budget and that lens is a little to much for me. I might just wait and save up for it but I kind of want a lens now.

 

[Neil S.]

200mm is very limiting. A zoom would be much better. The 2.8 is of questionable "need" at the price level. Many sports shots have been taken with "slow" glass quite fine. I Have taken football games at night under the lights quite nicely with a 3.5

It depends on the individual and what they are trying to do.

"Fine" is subjective, and what you may feel to be fine someone else may feel is not.

A 2.8 lens will provide better low light performance, as well as shallower DOF allowing better subject isolation compared to slower glass.

These are facts and cannot be disputed.

Derrel is right that usually high school games are very poorly lit.

99% of the time you would be too far away from the subject to use a flash even if you wanted to, not to mention the fact that it is distracting to the players.

Because of this you are stuck with the field's lighting and need to plan accordingly.

Faster glass is better for night sports shooting all other things being equal. Period.

Some very fast special purpose lenses like the 85 1.2L have garbage AF and are not suited to night sports shooting though. This is why I said all things equal, which they are not in this specific case.

I agree that the 135L is a great lens for exactly this purpose. The only caveat is that it locks you into a focal length that may not be ideal for certain situations.

This is also why I really want the 200mm f/2 as well lol. Now to go strike it rich...

 

[gsgary]

It's great on full frame for portraits

 

[IDLaxStar]

I think I am going to go with the Tamron 70-200 2.8

 

[Destin]

I just got the sigma 70-200. Highly reccomend it. If you want to see examples of my high school football shots with it, look through these galleries. And I'm shooting on a d40, so my iso is only at 1600. It I could shoot at 3200 there would be no trace of motion blur.

Also shot these portraits with it.

 

[Derrel]

Here are a few shots I did in the spring of 2006, using a 200mm prime lens. These are sharpened for newsprint reproduction, so they have a bit of "tooth".

_DSC5965_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5884_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5743_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5643_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5856_for newsprint.jpgg.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

 

[IDLaxStar]

Oh my gosh. So many choices. I don't know what to go with.

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

Only you can make that choice.... Just don't settle... If you want the zoom, then save the $ and get it. That way, you know you'll be happy

 

[IDLaxStar]

Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.

 

[DerekSalem]

Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.

I would definitely say save up for Canon L glass in this case. I try to stick with L glass anyway purely because of the great weather-sealing (not really as important here, but when I'm in California I spend a lot of time on the beach and away from the house...and when it rains I have no chance of getting back to the house without getting soaked), but in this case it would be a good idea for you too.

For sports photography you need the ability to focus quickly. Since you're already somewhat hampered with using a Rebel body (in terms of focusing speed and accuracy) you want to fill the glass role with the absolute best and fastest-focusing lens possible. I have no problems with Tamron and Sigma (just sold a Tamron lens that I loved using), but they definitely will not focus as quickly as one of the Canon 70-200s. If you want to really be able to capture some of the better plays with precision...you're going to want to go Canon in this case.

On that note...I just purchased a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to replace my f/4L. $2300 gone in an instant lol

 

[Destin]

Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.

I would definitely say save up for Canon L glass in this case. I try to stick with L glass anyway purely because of the great weather-sealing (not really as important here, but when I'm in California I spend a lot of time on the beach and away from the house...and when it rains I have no chance of getting back to the house without getting soaked), but in this case it would be a good idea for you too.

For sports photography you need the ability to focus quickly. Since you're already somewhat hampered with using a Rebel body (in terms of focusing speed and accuracy) you want to fill the glass role with the absolute best and fastest-focusing lens possible. I have no problems with Tamron and Sigma (just sold a Tamron lens that I loved using), but they definitely will not focus as quickly as one of the Canon 70-200s. If you want to really be able to capture some of the better plays with precision...you're going to want to go Canon in this case.

On that note...I just purchased a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to replace my f/4L. $2300 gone in an instant lol

Not trying to start a nikon vs canon debate here, please dont take it that way:

But, I've shot with a nikon 70-200 vr 2, and yeah I was impressed with it's AF speed. I doubt that the canon is that much (probably not any) faster.

I couldn't afford to buy one, so I went with the sigma 70-200 DG EX Macro hsm 2, and you know what? It's AF is almost as fast as the nikon I used. The sigma uses an ultrasonic focus motor too, so it keeps up pretty darn well.

I highly reccomend the sigma if you are on a budget!!