I've been using the 70-200mm for most events but am between the Sony 300mm and the sigma 300-600 f/4.
Has anyone tried either of these and have a recommendation?
I have a Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED II Lens that I've been using for a few years but have noticed soft focus at times and is increasingly unreliable at being tac-sharp. Included an example of an image with soft focus.
I am getting into sports photography with a 200-600. As is usually the case, I have GAS for more...
While the price is the same, I view the 300GM and the 300-600 completely differently. I would get the 300GM if shooting at 2.8 with less reach is more valuable than shooting at 600 f4 with bonus zooming thrown in. Lately, since I shoot youth sports, I feel like the shorter end is more important than the longer end, so I lean towards the 300GM (which you can throw on TCs). The former is light and easily hand holdable, the latter, not so much. Both seem to produce great images.
At one point I thought one of these lenses might be my next sports lens, too, but the rumored 100-400GM f4 thrown into the mix has me thinking I will wait for that while I ultimately want a 400 2.8 w/ built in TC. Not helpful, I know...
Appreciate the response, I've been hearing that quite a bit. I use a Sony A7RV and A7IV. Some people have recommended 300mm and just using the in-camera APS-C mode. Using the full frame cameras with crop modes, even though it reduces quality.
Sony lenses seem to be great with weight, quality, and product durability. The 300mm seems most appropriate because of the price, though as you said one day the goal would be to get a longer super-telephoto like a 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/2.8
The Sigma comes with two caveats: On a Sony it will be limited to 15 fps. The lens is not parafocal, ie will not maintain focus while physically zooming. Last one may not be that big of a problem depending on technique and what sport you are shooting. The Sony 200-600 is fine in good light but no so much for sports action when the light leaves.
Just to add my two cents... the sports you're shooting should determine your tele for you.
I shoot a whole lot of field sports (rugby and cricket) so I ended up with the 400GM + TCs. In a perfect world, I'd add a 300GM to the bag - it's sharper, lighter, easier in the field, etc etc - but I need the 400 so I've got the 400. One day I'll have both, but that's a while away. If I shot more basketball and less rugby, I'd swap the 400 for the 300 tomorrow.
On your D500 you're getting effectively 450mm out of your 300 - so swapping to a Sony body on the 300GM will leave you lacking a fair amount, or you'll have to look at adding a tc. The 300 takes a 1.4tc very well, but if you're shooting through haze you'll notice it more, and (in my opinion at least) there's no point buying a lens just to put a permanent TC on it.
In a choice between the 300GM and the 300-600 though, I'd recommend the 300 - 2 sports photogs I work with have individually tested and rejected the 300-600 in the past few weeks, and I wouldn't be able to step back to 15fps for my work.
I’m in the exact same spot. 200-600 has been an economical choice for things like youth softball/baseball and some soccer. Sure, I’d love the 300, 400, or 600, but I can’t justify the latter two and I’m held up on the 300 waiting to see if the 100-400 f4 is real.
In the meantime, the 200-600 is doing well enough. Only shooting with it in daylight though. Haven’t had any night games.
isyoox703 wrote:
I am getting into sports photography with a 200-600. As is usually the case, I have GAS for more...
While the price is the same, I view the 300GM and the 300-600 completely differently. I would get the 300GM if shooting at 2.8 with less reach is more valuable than shooting at 600 f4 with bonus zooming thrown in. Lately, since I shoot youth sports, I feel like the shorter end is more important than the longer end, so I lean towards the 300GM (which you can throw on TCs). The former is light and easily hand holdable, the latter, not so much. Both seem to produce great images.
At one point I thought one of these lenses might be my next sports lens, too, but the rumored 100-400GM f4 thrown into the mix has me thinking I will wait for that while I ultimately want a 400 2.8 w/ built in TC. Not helpful, I know......Show more →
