pasblues Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
oguruma wrote:
I've sold off all of my big glass when I switched to Canon. Now that I'm going back to Nikon, I'm trying to decide which big F2.8 lens to get, primarily for the local football games. At the local games, I have full access to the sidelines and the endzones, and I typically move with the teams down the field. Both of the fields here have pretty decent stadium lighting.
I used to keep the 400 F2.8 on one body, and then the 70-200 F2.8 on another body. I found that often times the 400 F2.8 was too much focal length since I could get close to the action, and ended up using the 70-200 most of the time, even though it meant having to crop quite a bit.
I can't help but think I would be better off with a 300 F2.8 for my needs.
The Sigma 120-300 F2.8 also seems like it would be a pretty useful lens, especially for indoor sports, which I shoot much less than football.
For a lens that will primarily be used something like 60% Football (with the above stipulations), 20% indoor sports, 5% Soccer, and 15% theater/live music, which lens focus length would you get?
300mm? 400mm? 120-300mm?
...Show more →
The Siggy 120-300 f2.8 OS is a great lens for football. It's a big heavy and needs a monopod, though. If you go for key shots towards the end zone, it will do everything you actually need. I don't need a bunch of shots of the quarterback dropping back or a pile of players. Touchdowns, etc. at the end zone are what I'm after. That said, the most useful lens is a 70-200 f2.8. I know it seems not very exciting but, used well, it will get the key plays at the endzone, which is what most people want to see anyway - touchdowns or attempts at touchdowns.
I often saw banks of photographers on the sidelines missing plays with their long lenses on monopods. I know it's a little crazy to shoot at lower SS but I'm able to play a bit since I only actually need a couple of shots for publication - and getting creative allows me to get some motion blur. I probably am a loner in this thinking - but a sprinkling of well-placed motion blur in sports can be a fun result. The general consensus is that, no, everything has to be perfectly frozen and tack.
My preferred lenses are the Sony 70-200 and 100-400. They are lightweight enough I can carry both of them, two bodies, two lenses and switch between those pretty quickly.
My partner shoots with the Siggy 120-300 on a Nikon body - preferably the D750, which is the best of the Nikon DSLR's we own. When it's on point, it's a great carry. However, that said, we also have the Siggy 50-500 OS. Yeah, I know, nobody loves it - thus it's highly underrated. But, it's lighter weight and has that OS. Still need a monopod IMHO. It's got great reach. It cost $500 on the used market - because it's a red-headed step child "not the latest and greatest" gear.
ILCE-9 FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS lens 200mm f/2.8 1/640s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-9 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens 400mm f/5.6 1/250s 6400 ISO 0.0 EV
NIKON D750 50.0-500.0 mm f/4.5-6.3 lens 500mm f/6.3 1/800s 7200 ISO 0.0 EV
|