200mm for Sports?

[Chiuy]

I've tried the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Homecoming football game, the autofocus is so slow that I switched to manual focus. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is really fast at autofocus and incredibly sharp. I think 200mm is very limited, sometime I wish that I could of zoom in more.

 

[gsgary]

EXACTLY! you had to either MOVE back or CHANGE CAMERA. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a BUDGET and can only buy ONE lens.

Yes thats why he is thinking of getting the 200mm instead of the 70-200 a 200mm prime is not a problem shooting sport, i shoot sports and print on site and don't have a problem if i need a zoom i use my 70-200F4 which is perfect for daytime shooting equestrian

See exactly, you already have a 70-200, so the next thing would be a 200/300 prime. You have option, where the OP does not, so the best thing for him right now is to get a lens with versatile. I don't understand how you can argue with that.

I can argue about anything

 

[Derrel]

I can argue about anything

Okay Gary, let's tackle the big issue that we Americans debated a few months ago: toilet paper OVER the top and coming off on the FRONT of the roll? Or coming off on the BACK side of the roll???

And, what lens is best for shooting the photos of the roll of TP?

Flash, or strictly available light?

 

[gsgary]

Coming off the back, 2 Ranger Qadra's, 5D and 300mmF2.8L wouldn't need a zoom because it'snot moving

 

[table1349]

What I was thinking though is that I will be able to get sharper better images with the 200 prime. I will have to work around it being a prime but with football being my main sport I shoot it would be easy to move around on the sidelines. I could always have myself positioned in a good place before every snap and such right?

Pretty mmuch yes. keep in mind the limitations of the focal lenth and you will do pretty well. 200mm is a bit short for across the field, especial since you need to be down the field a bit to get the action in front of you. As for moving it depends on where you can shoot from. I always stay of of the team area when I shoot. Yes the team I shoot for doesn't mind if I shoot from inside their area, however I still stay out as much as possible and never enter the other teams area.

The 200 would give you a decent focal length to start with. The 70-200 would be better for the versatility. I am almost always in the 70-100 range from behind the end line when it is short yardage goal to go.

 

[IDLaxStar]

But with a prime couldn't you just get different kinds of shoots. Like if the play is moving closer to you instead of getting a shot of the whole runner or a shot of the player being tackled you could get a close up of just his upper body. Do you guys see what I am getting at?

 

[shaunly]

But with a prime couldn't you just get different kinds of shoots. Like if the play is moving closer to you instead of getting a shot of the whole runner or a shot of the player being tackled you could get a close up of just his upper body. Do you guys see what I am getting at?

I totally know what you mean. I actually love shooting primes because it "forces" you to recompose and get you more involve. Where zoom lens will kind of make you "lazy". You could always just leave it on 200mm and see what kind of shot you can get but at least there's still the rest of the zoom range for other things too :mrgreen:. Really though, there is no wrong or right decision here. If you really feel like a 200mm range is all you really need for what you do then by all mean, save some money and get that great prime. How I thought about it was, since you're limited to only one telephoto, you'd probably want a lens that can do multiple things.

 

[Neil S.]

This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies.

Derrel...

No love for the slow and inaccurate focusing 85 1.2 lol?

Dont worry I forgive you...

 

[Derrel]

This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies.

Derrel...

No love for the slow and inaccurate focusing 85 1.2 lol?

Dont worry I forgive you...

Exactly...the 85/1.2-L's autofocusing is very,very,very slow...it's not fast enough for sports shooting to the degree that lower-priced lenses are...its focus by wire system kinda' sucks, in its own special way...