lenses for sports shooting

[cowboyfranko]

I have recently wanted to get into sports photography and I have been looking at the sigma 70-200mm 2.8, but I dont have that kind of cash to drop on glass right now. Are there any decent lenses for sports that wont break my bank account as much as the sigma? I know I need one that is fast, but is 200mm necessary?

 

[usayit]

budget?
type of sport? shooting billiards is going to be different than polo/football.

 

[cowboyfranko]

Highschool sports(football,basketball,soccer,etc). My budget is around 400 maybe 500.

 

[droyz2000]

I just started shooting some sports. To get real good action shots you are going to want to go with at least a 200mm lens. You may even want to save up more to get VR or IS because the last few times I have gone out and shot, the last bit of the game when it was reallly dark, the 2.8 was not fast enough, even when I had set my ISO to 1600.

 

[keith204]

I just started shooting some sports. To get real good action shots you are going to want to go with at least a 200mm lens. You may even want to save up more to get VR or IS because the last few times I have gone out and shot, the last bit of the game when it was reallly dark, the 2.8 was not fast enough, even when I had set my ISO to 1600.

VR or IS won't help with action shots (subject moving fast) but will help with camera shake.

I'd say save up a couple hundred more and get that Sigma you've been looking at. I was in the same boat as you, and ended up saving up a bit more to get that lens... and it was worth it. You'll enjoy the 2.8.

 

[usayit]

Keith is right... VR or IS (or whatever else it is called) will not help stop fast moving objects/subjects. Way too many people are sold on the idea that IS is a miracle solution for sharpness.. in all situations. Marketing at its best.

Another vote for for the 70-200mm f2.8. In my opinion, that 200mm focal length is going to feel short on a football or soccer field.... basketball court will probably be ok. Perhaps a 1.4x (or similar) extender/converter might be useful to have in the bag as well.

Save up.. Sports photography=expensive and demanding on equipment.

Oh defintely plan on a monopod as well. Don't have to go overboard with the monopod, just get something that can handle the weight of camera+lens.

 

[keith204]

Keith is right... VR or IS (or whatever else it is called) will not help stop fast moving objects/subjects. Way too many people are sold on the idea that IS is a miracle solution for sharpness.. in all situations. Marketing at its best.

Another vote for for the 70-200mm f2.8. In my opinion, that 200mm focal length is going to feel short on a football or soccer field.... basketball court will probably be ok. Perhaps a 1.4x (or similar) extender/converter might be useful to have in the bag as well.

Save up.. Sports photography=expensive and demanding on equipment.

Oh defintely plan on a monopod as well. Don't have to go overboard with the monopod, just get something that can handle the weight of camera+lens.

:thumbup: to all said.

Teleconverter - I bought a 2x, and returned it because the focal length seemed a bit too long for practicality (140-400) and the image was a bit soft. 1.4x will do much better, and let in more light. If you get a Sigma, it will be compatible with the HSM so you can still have fast focusing.

Monopod - I bought the walmart special. I think it was 10-20 bucks for one, and it has treated me well. If it gets in your way, you can just shorten it and let it hang as a weight... I find that to help reduce camera shake, probably as much as my IS lens helps reduce camera shake .

 

[WDodd]

I'm going to throw in a vote for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as well. I am saving up for one myself. :thumbup: