I rented the lens to test how it performs at an indoor soccer arena Friday evening and then again with the Indy Eleven men last night under to lights. Big difference on IQ shooting ƒ2 indoors where the ISO range appeared to improve by 2/3 stop vs ƒ2.8. The isolation and creamy background were impressive. While this was somewhat expected, I only shoot a minimal number of these games as the the USL W-League home matches are 4-6 per season. the realy test was how I could incorporate the lens for the men's matches outdoors that start at 7pm.
Last night I shot the 50-150 along side the 400, both attached to Sony A1s. Concern was the limited reach, use of the A1's apsc mode, cropping and the effect on IQ. Here are three shots, note the cropping amounts etc. Last one is kinda of different. It was still in apsc mode but zoomed only to 129mm vs 150 that's 193mm vs 225. Photo was then cropped.
Pleasantly pleased.
Final decision posted below in the thread...
FF, cropped 55%
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens136mmf/2.01/2000s250 ISO0.0 EV
Apsc then cropped to 33% of max
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens150mmf/2.01/1600s1250 ISO0.0 EV
Apsc then cropped to 66% of max
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens129mmf/2.01/1600s2000 ISO0.0 EV
I’m almost there with pressing the button on a 50-150 for field sports like ultimate frisbee and soccer not to mention basket and volleyball paired with my 300mm on A1 bodies like yours. Thank you. I think you’ve just got me over the line 😁
Sony and Canon were at the last FIFA Club World Cup game I covered on Saturday. They had lenses/bodies to try out plus repair services. My buddy got this lens to take for a spin and loved it. I couldn't get over how light it was. Good stuff
That looks great—love the pop and background melt at ƒ2. Super clean for crop mode too. This might be the sleeper lens for evening matches. Appreciate the share! 👌
Domako27 wrote:
That looks great—love the pop and background melt at ƒ2. Super clean for crop mode too. This might be the sleeper lens for evening matches. Appreciate the share! 👌
Appreciate the comment. The lens is really something. Files from my A1 cleaned up nicely in PP.
Quick question. Do you have the Sony 300 GM? I'd bet the DOF would be pretty similar and have less cropping, be lighter and just as good as image quality. I'm just finding it really hard to find a use case for the 50-150. Also would imagine the 70-200 2.8GM would give similar results at 200 and 2.8 vs 150 and 2.0 and more cropping. Only use case I can imagine is it paired with my 400 for football and I get a bit wider for plays closer to me and the light advantage for dark HS stadiums, but then I lose 150-200 range, where I often live with HS football when switching from the 400 to the second body. Thoughts?
Don't have the 300 Tim. The 300's range is fine until the action gets within the 18 yard box then it becomes to much. I do carry a 3 body rig on occasion but prefer carrying 2 most of the time. After using the 50-150 lens for a while I do agree the reach is not ideal for soccer but I do love the isolation. While I've been staying on the 400 a bit longer, the point where switching is necessary has become more tricky since it arrives about the same time as the action significantly increases. Ideally something along the line of the Canon 100-300 ƒ2.8 would be best but Sony doesn't make one. Even if possible I wouldn't want to use an adapted lens. Next match I'm planning to revisit using the 70-200 strictly at ƒ2.8.
Looking forward to your comparison with the 70-200. I guess how much do I need 50-70 and f2.0 vs 150-200 and 2.8. I do love my Tamron 35-150 but I just hate that Sony crippled the FPS. Otherwise, it would be, for me, the obvious answer.
I did not read all the posts but I must say this lens renders a subject extremely well! Love the crispness in the images and the slight motion of the soccer ball in #1. Some images look almost 3D!!
Dan
No question this lens can capture some excellent crisp frames, that's the part I truly love about it. It does however present a reach dilemma when on the soccer field.
For me, between the 70-200 ƒ2.8 and the 50-150 ƒ2.0 it comes down to wanting to maximize the isolation of on-field peak action. I definitely prefer ƒ2.0 for that. Both lenses have their place and I'll continue to rotate using them. They both are in packed gear I bring to the field so the decision can always be made at the last minute.
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens106mmf/2.01/2500s320 ISO0.0 EV
timgangloff wrote:
Looking forward to your comparison with the 70-200. I guess how much do I need 50-70 and f2.0 vs 150-200 and 2.8. I do love my Tamron 35-150 but I just hate that Sony crippled the FPS. Otherwise, it would be, for me, the obvious answer.
Tim, how does the 35-150 track for you? What body do you use it with? I could live with 15 fps for the flexibility if it can autofocus close to as well as a sony lens.
I can really see this replacing 70-200 f2.8. Nice work, guys.
Hey, this is a real question that's been bugging me: What is the different quality-wise, final image-wise between shooting in crop mode and shooting in full frame, then cropping in post?
And, while subject to background separation is an awesome feature of f2 - my most use would be lowlight sports. So, if anyone would like to share experience with that, would love to see.
I'd like use it for basketball - so it would have to perform better than the 85mm f1.8 I'm using with my A1 that gets 30fps.
Not a dealbreaker because this lens could be useful in many other situations. It's certain rendering beautifully in a lot of light. love to see how it holds up at 6400+
Mark Kuhlmann wrote:
Tim, how does the 35-150 track for you? What body do you use it with? I could live with 15 fps for the flexibility if it can autofocus close to as well as a sony lens.
Unfortunately while I couldn't live without the 35-150 for my portrait stuff, it lets me down too often for me to use it as a sports lens. It's OK, not great, not terrrible. And everyone has their own standards as to what is acceptable. For my paid work, it's not quite there. It's the reason I'm considering the Sony 50-150. Oh how I wished it was wider though. Typical situation for me is football inside the 20 yard line. Player comes into the end zone and the 70-200 is just too tight for those celebration shots. I think the 50-150 will help me out some there. If I put it on the a1, I will have plenty of cropping ability to meet my wire service standards (and mine as well) and get the faster all around performance. Unfortunately for me, the 50-150 is just not wide enough for my team and individual gigs (team/group shots) so I'd probably need both. And the Tamron is unbelievably good with portrait stuff.
timgangloff wrote:
Unfortunately while I couldn't live without the 35-150 for my portrait stuff, it lets me down too often for me to use it as a sports lens. It's OK, not great, not terrrible. And everyone has their own standards as to what is acceptable. For my paid work, it's not quite there. It's the reason I'm considering the Sony 50-150. Oh how I wished it was wider though. Typical situation for me is football inside the 20 yard line. Player comes into the end zone and the 70-200 is just too tight for those celebration shots. I think the 50-150 will help me out some there. If I put it on the a1, I will have plenty of cropping ability to meet my wire service standards (and mine as well) and get the faster all around performance. Unfortunately for me, the 50-150 is just not wide enough for my team and individual gigs (team/group shots) so I'd probably need both. And the Tamron is unbelievably good with portrait stuff. ...Show more →
That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the quick reply.
pasblues wrote:
I can really see this replacing 70-200 f2.8. Nice work, guys.
Hey, this is a real question that's been bugging me: What is the different quality-wise, final image-wise between shooting in crop mode and shooting in full frame, then cropping in post?
And, while subject to background separation is an awesome feature of f2 - my most use would be lowlight sports. So, if anyone would like to share experience with that, would love to see.
I'd like use it for basketball - so it would have to perform better than the 85mm f1.8 I'm using with my A1 that gets 30fps.
Not a dealbreaker because this lens could be useful in many other situations. It's certain rendering beautifully in a lot of light. love to see how it holds up at 6400+
I'm seeing a lot of 50-150s at the NFL games I cover. It kind of surprised me but I think it makes a very good 70-200 alternative for near field red zone action and end zone celebration that isn't right in your face. Some of the images I've seen from these photographers really pop with subject/background separation. Some guys are still sticking with 400/2.8s as their long options, but some are going fully hand held with the 300/2.8. I can only assume there is a lot of cropping happening, but with 50MP, there's also a lot of flexibility, depending on end use requirements.
As a Canon shooter I've long used the 200-400 but have recently started experimenting with the 100-300 and like it a lot for closer action, particularly on 45MP with more cropping flexibility. It's not as light as the Sony 300, but lighter and definitely hand holdable compared to the 200-400. IMO it shifts the lens combo dynamic away from the ubiquitous 70-200s and towards the 24-105/2.8.
I'm a bit jealous of the Sony 50-150. I use the Canon 28-70/2 a lot for my non-sports work and have been advocating (and waiting) for them to release an f/2 tele zoom to complement it, but Sony beat them to it.
rscheffler wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of 50-150s at the NFL games I cover. It kind of surprised me but I think it makes a very good 70-200 alternative for near field red zone action and end zone celebration that isn't right in your face. Some of the images I've seen from these photographers really pop with subject/background separation. Some guys are still sticking with 400/2.8s as their long options, but some are going fully hand held with the 300/2.8. I can only assume there is a lot of cropping happening, but with 50MP, there's also a lot of flexibility, depending on end use requirements.
As a Canon shooter I've long used the 200-400 but have recently started experimenting with the 100-300 and like it a lot for closer action, particularly on 45MP with more cropping flexibility. It's not as light as the Sony 300, but lighter and definitely hand holdable compared to the 200-400. IMO it shifts the lens combo dynamic away from the ubiquitous 70-200s and towards the 24-105/2.8.
I'm a bit jealous of the Sony 50-150. I use the Canon 28-70/2 a lot for my non-sports work and have been advocating (and waiting) for them to release an f/2 tele zoom to complement it, but Sony beat them to it. ...Show more →
The 50-150 has a lot going for it. I will say there is a point though where used in aps-c mode and heavily cropped that the IQ can start to suffer. That issue comes on quicker if the lighting isn't particularly good. However even in less than ideal situations the isolation that its ƒ2 capability provides is special if you get it right in the camera.
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens129mmf/2.01/1600s2000 ISO0.0 EV
I want it for volleyball and basketball. I find a lot of my shots are at or under 150 anyway, and going wider (from 70 down to 50) would help when the action gets closer. If anyone has experience, I’d love to hear it. But I’m probably going to buy it either way.
