Kauz
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Madison, WI
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Hello Everyone,
I'm writing this time as the editor at a student newspaper at a school of 50,000 approximately, with a daily print run of 10,000. We're looking at buying a few piece of equipment, including a long sought-after Nikon 300mm f/2.8. We're having some trouble justifying the lens to interested alumni members and I want succinct proof/support that this is a better investment in the long-term of the paper over a Nikon 300mm f/4 or even a Sigma (which has been pushed for). From my personal experience and research, Sigma's aren't a long-term investment lens (though I know there will be a small number who will swear by them). Additionally, the fact that we are a top 10 BCS team (perennially in the top 15) who plays feature games at night, and our photographers have access to 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8 lenses that just don't cut it when we try to get photos of our run game down the center of the field and want them to be sharp.
I shot this past weekend on the setup of a D3/80-200 f/2.8 and a D7000/300mm f/2.8 combo and it was amazing. I also met Heinz Kluetmeier this weekend who recommended at least 300mm f/2.8 for football. Am I off in thinking that for not only football but our volleyball, basketball (another March Madness perennial), softball, and soccer teams, a 300, and particularly a 2.8 is important over a f/4?
Please advise me. We are probably pulling the trigger in the next week and I'm hoping people (who can maybe look past envy ) will support my evaluations that I've made after weeks of research and my own personal experience.
Thanks everyone!
I'm writing this time as the editor at a student newspaper at a school of 50,000 approximately, with a daily print run of 10,000. We're looking at buying a few piece of equipment, including a long sought-after Nikon 300mm f/2.8. We're having some trouble justifying the lens to interested alumni members and I want succinct proof/support that this is a better investment in the long-term of the paper over a Nikon 300mm f/4 or even a Sigma (which has been pushed for). From my personal experience and research, Sigma's aren't a long-term investment lens (though I know there will be a small number who will swear by them). Additionally, the fact that we are a top 10 BCS team (perennially in the top 15) who plays feature games at night, and our photographers have access to 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8 lenses that just don't cut it when we try to get photos of our run game down the center of the field and want them to be sharp.
I shot this past weekend on the setup of a D3/80-200 f/2.8 and a D7000/300mm f/2.8 combo and it was amazing. I also met Heinz Kluetmeier this weekend who recommended at least 300mm f/2.8 for football. Am I off in thinking that for not only football but our volleyball, basketball (another March Madness perennial), softball, and soccer teams, a 300, and particularly a 2.8 is important over a f/4?
Please advise me. We are probably pulling the trigger in the next week and I'm hoping people (who can maybe look past envy ) will support my evaluations that I've made after weeks of research and my own personal experience.
Thanks everyone!