I was bit worried about shooting the Oklahoma vs Tennessee game with the 300-600 lens. It was advertised as a "Dark Mode" game with TN wearing all black uniforms. Shooting a night game with black uniforms, even in a nice D1 stadium, was going to be a good test of the lens. I find dark uniforms a bit more challenging to get great focus. The orange accents certainly helped.
First, an image (obviously) not shot with the 300-600 to set the tone for the game. And it was spectacular. Image looks super on a large screen monitor. A1 with the 24-70 2.8 GM II
Oklahoma came in with a well-prepared script and apparently the goal was to stick to it. At least this guy did with a nice interception later in the game.
More 300-600 action.
Sticking to the script. If your going to wear bedazzled cleats, you'd better perform, and he did at a very high level.
Yes, I still miss some shots with this lens as its a tiny bit slower to focus on fast action. A tiny bit. And I'm losing a big chunk with the FPS. But even with those disadvantages, I'm finding the reach of 600 and the versatility down to the 300 compared to my 400 2.8GM to be totally worth it. Don't be surprised to see the 400 in the B&S forum soon.
timgangloff wrote:
I was bit worried about shooting the Oklahoma vs Tennessee game with the 300-600 lens. It was advertised as a "Dark Mode" game with TN wearing all black uniforms. Shooting a night game with black uniforms, even in a nice D1 stadium, was going to be a good test of the lens. I find dark uniforms a bit more challenging to get great focus. The orange accents certainly helped.
First, an image (obviously) not shot with the 300-600 to set the tone for the game. And it was spectacular. Image looks super on a large screen monitor. A1 with the 24-70 2.8 GM II
Oklahoma came in with a well-prepared script and apparently the goal was to stick to it. At least this guy did with a nice interception later in the game.
Yes, I still miss some shots with this lens as its a tiny bit slower to focus on fast action. A tiny bit. And I'm losing a big chunk with the FPS. But even with those disadvantages, I'm finding the reach of 600 and the versatility down to the 300 compared to my 400 2.8GM to be totally worth it. Don't be surprised to see the 400 in the B&S forum soon.
As far as AF goes, how often does it miss focus? 1 out of 10? 2-3 out of 10?
It's hard to quantify. If the 400 2.8 misses 1 out of 30 with the a1 or a9 3, the sigma would probably be double that, or 1 out of 15. The question for me is always, does that matter. It's always frustrating to miss a shot, especially when I don't see how the heck it missed, whether with the 300-600 or the 400. For slower moving objects, it's probably a tie with nearly zero misses. It's only with faster action that I think it falls behind, but only marginally so. And frankly, not all of my misses are due to the equipment. Some are clearly user error and getting used to zooming with this big lens is not something I'm finding intuitive after years of shooting a big prime.
And something I kind of take for granted with a $6600 lens is that an in focus shot is really great. Clarity, color, sharpness...it's all there and the 400 2.8 GM has nothing on it in these areas. I also think that the 300-600 gets better results than I ever got with a teleconverter on my 400.
p.1 #10 · Sigma 300-600 does Oklahoma vs Tennessee
timgangloff wrote:
It's hard to quantify. If the 400 2.8 misses 1 out of 30 with the a1 or a9 3, the sigma would probably be double that, or 1 out of 15. The question for me is always, does that matter. It's always frustrating to miss a shot, especially when I don't see how the heck it missed, whether with the 300-600 or the 400. For slower moving objects, it's probably a tie with nearly zero misses. It's only with faster action that I think it falls behind, but only marginally so. And frankly, not all of my misses are due to the equipment. Some are clearly user error and getting used to zooming with this big lens is not something I'm finding intuitive after years of shooting a big prime.
And something I kind of take for granted with a $6600 lens is that an in focus shot is really great. Clarity, color, sharpness...it's all there and the 400 2.8 GM has nothing on it in these areas. I also think that the 300-600 gets better results than I ever got with a teleconverter on my 400.
Hope this helps and thanks for the kind words. ...Show more →
Very helpful! Thanks Tim!
Looking forward to some more pics as the season progresses!
