Camera and lens for Wildlife and Sport photography

[table1349]

IS or VR serves no purpose for sports. Get the 70-200 with out it. They will be cheaper.

 

[stened91]

here where i live they cost almost the same used so i dont mind IS. But what do you think of a 135mm for sport?

 

[Overread19 7]

I would still suggest considering the sigma 120-300mm f2.8. You can't afford the OS edition, but a quick look on ebay and:
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG HSM Lens for Canon SLR #L115 0085126135546 | eBay US $1,890.00

Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX DG APO HS Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras 0085126529543 | eBay US $2,295.00

Those are both the Canon fit, there are similar Nikon fit versions, just search for "Sigma 120-300mm f2.8" on ebay. Remember that the OS edition will be more expensive. Also note that some descriptions have the lens listed as IF and others do not. These are the same lens, its just some place don't list the IF (stands for internal focusing) on the name - if its OS edition it will always state this.


That lens is heavy and big, but it gives you the 120-300mm f2.8 range which should be more than suitable for sports and also gives you a good reach for wildlife. You can also budget and include a Sigma 1.4Teleconverter to get you up to 400mm f4 with good optical quality.

 

[stened91]

but an F4 lens, whould do for sport and wildlife?

 

[SCraig]

Depends on the sport and the amount of light. You would be losing half your light going from f/2.8 to f/4 and in dimly lighted conditions that is significant. In bright daylight, not so significant. I shoot motorcycle and car races with a f/5.6 lens with no problems. I wouldn't even consider taking it for a night football game.

 

[Overread19 7]

Well the lens gives you f2.8 from 120mm to 300mm. So that should more than cover you for many sports. At the 400mm range (or correctly 420mm) with a 1.4 teleconverter you lose one stop of light, taking you to f4. However I'd point out that, with this price range and having to get a DSLR at the same time you'll be hard pressed to get any better - in fact barring a very old (and likely not brilliant) lens I don't think you can get faster than 400mm f5.6 (you might find an f4 prime if you are lucky).

So even if its limited you have no choice - there are 400mm f2.8 lenses on the market and they cost a very hefty sum.

 

[stened91]

ok i have almost decided for sony (might still take the 7D) But if i take sony, i wave between Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Sony 70-400 G.. who do you think is best? becouse both cost almost the same where i live

 

[MLeeK]

The sigma is going to allow you the light you need.
As for sharpness I don't know any website that bothers to compare Sony lenses. I can give you one that compares Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Canon, Nikon and Zeiss.
I assume you are talking about the 70-200 f/2.8 OS by Sigma, not the older Macro version, right?

 

[stened91]

thats right, the new one with OS

 

[MLeeK]

Well, if you are shooting sports and wild life I wouldn't buy anything less than an f/2.8 lens. F/4 is HALF as much light as 2.8. That's painful. Really painful in a gym or lit sports field. Considering that the sony's sensor doesn't perform overly well for high ISO noise it's doubly painful.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Well, if you are shooting sports and wild life I wouldn't buy anything less than an f/2.8 lens. F/4 is HALF as much light as 2.8. That's painful. Really painful in a gym or lit sports field. Considering that the sony's sensor doesn't perform overly well for high ISO noise it's doubly painful.

Agreed. I don't think I'll ever have any lenses that aren't 2.8 except maybe specialty lenses like fish eye or tilt shift etc etc...

 

[stened91]

this is some of my work: Wix.com 123 created by tomasjosdal91 based on Portrait Photographer | Wix.com, take a look at the picture of the dog jumping out of the water on the Animal page. I am going to take alot of pictures like that... becouse thats my dog and she loves the water. Whould 7D with 70-200L IS I do it better than A77 or D7000 here?

 

[Overread19 7]

Given the right situation even a Canon Rebel can do that kind of shot - heck even an old 350D with the right lens in front of it and the right photographer behind can take some outstanding shots. The key is that higher end cameras have better specifications to get you those shots in more unreliable conditions.

The 7D can certainly do action photography without any problems, it even lets you customise your AF controls so that its more suited to the scene your shooting (A great one is to have the sensitivity of the AF getting a new lock on a new subject slower - this is great for following the motion of a subject, where if you waver off the subject or it rushes behind something for a second you don't want the camera to instantly lose focus and lock onto something else).

I can't speak for the Sony or the Nikon (I don't use them); however the points regarding high ISO are ones I would pay attention to - because with wildlife and action photography you'll be at ISO 400 - 800 very often and higher still if you need it. Noise you can correct for but blur can't be fixed in photoshop*




*sometimes you can fix it, but it requires a lot of work to get a good job done and most of the time you'd be looking at hours of work to correct a problem. Plus at that rate you might as well stop with the camera and just do straight digital art.

 

[MLeeK]

Given the right situation even a Canon Rebel can do that kind of shot - heck even an old 350D with the right lens in front of it and the right photographer behind can take some outstanding shots. The key is that higher end cameras have better specifications to get you those shots in more unreliable conditions.

The 7D can certainly do action photography without any problems, it even lets you customise your AF controls so that its more suited to the scene your shooting (A great one is to have the sensitivity of the AF getting a new lock on a new subject slower - this is great for following the motion of a subject, where if you waver off the subject or it rushes behind something for a second you don't want the camera to instantly lose focus and lock onto something else).

I can't speak for the Sony or the Nikon (I don't use them); however the points regarding high ISO are ones I would pay attention to - because with wildlife and action photography you'll be at ISO 400 - 800 very often and higher still if you need it. Noise you can correct for but blur can't be fixed in photoshop*




*sometimes you can fix it, but it requires a lot of work to get a good job done and most of the time you'd be looking at hours of work to correct a problem. Plus at that rate you might as well stop with the camera and just do straight digital art.

More like ISO 12800. 400-800 doesn't often cut it even at f/2.8 to have a fast enough shutter speed.
If I shot last night's football game at ISO 800 and f/2.8 my shutter speed would have had to have been 1/50. That's too slow to hand hold, let alone record anything that is moving-slowly. I can push as low as 1/320 for football if I HAVE to, but the standard is 1/500. And even with that I occasionally (very rarely, but some shots happen just too fast!) get some blur. For Soccer I prefer to be up around 1/800. Thankfully those games are during the full light of day most of the time.
At 1/320 I am not going to have a good, clean shot on a moving play.

 

[Overread19 7]

Ahh I was thinking daytime - yeah nighttime sports your ISO demands will be much higher!