p.1 #1 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
Hello. Currently shooting with Sony A9, 50 mm Zeiss 1.4, Sigma 135 mm F1.8. Mostly do cars and portraits which my prime lenses have been fantastic for. More recently my kids are in club soccer/futbol outdoor and I tried taking photos with the Sigma 135 mm 1.8 and it had a tough time keeping up both in terms of AF and occasionally focal length at the longest distance. At the same time I adore the Sigma portrait photos of my kids after the game which had buttery smooth bokeh and separation.
I am having a tough time deciding between the two lenses for my purposes. What do you all think?
p.1 #2 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
when you are already limited to 135 mm, 150 mm would not give you more reach.
70-200 would definitely be nicer, w/ an option IMO.
if mainly outdoor activities, you could consider 100-400 GM as well.
(although I have a limited budget, and decided to go w/ 50-400 tamron....)
p.1 #5 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
I am still at a loss why Sony didn't make the GM 50-150mm lens to take any of Sony TCs. While I don't care much for the 2X TC but making it compatible with the 1.4X TC would make the lens more versatile. In the OP's case, it looks like the GM 70-200mm is a better choice. The GM 50-100 is geared more for portraits, it seems.
p.1 #6 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
If it were me I’d use the 70-200 and also have the 1.4 teleconverter which performs extremely well with it, or I’d consider the 100-400GM for more reach.
p.1 #7 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
Ross Martin wrote:
If it were me I’d use the 70-200 and also have the 1.4 teleconverter which performs extremely well with it, or I’d consider the 100-400GM for more reach.
The 100-400 GM has really dropped off in popularity. My main lens right now is the Sony 20-70, and my only telephoto is the Tamron 35-150. I had been considering swapping the Tamron for the 100-400 to get more reach and reduce overlap with the 20-70, but it just doesn’t feel like the go‑to choice anymore.
For the OP: you’ll either need a higher‑MP body or a lens with more reach. Between the two options you listed, the 70-200 is the stronger pick.
p.1 #9 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
My kids are many years out of soccer. One was a keeper so there was at least some likelihood of being involved with predictable action. The cameras and lenses then weren't nearly as fast and reactive as what we might have now.
What kind of "field" access do you have? We weren't able to be too close to the end lines on the sides nor cross behind the end lines. The problem, seems to me, if you can get close, suitable lenses for close action won't be long enough to get much of the rest of the field. Or "long" lens won't do "close."
I think either the 70-200 or 100-400 could work, for a portion of the field. Depends on where you can shoot from. Even two bodies, two lenses, it's a huge field and hard to cover.
The choice could involve how it fits with other uses or adding to you kit as a whole.
p.1 #10 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
AGeoJO wrote:
I am still at a loss why Sony didn't make the GM 50-150mm lens to take any of Sony TCs. While I don't care much for the 2X TC but making it compatible with the 1.4X TC would make the lens more versatile. In the OP's case, it looks like the GM 70-200mm is a better choice. The GM 50-100 is geared more for portraits, it seems.
Other than it would force a completely different optical design, possibly impacting other design goals, I'm not sure there'd be another logical reason why.
p.1 #11 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
The quick answer is 70-200. Yes the 50-150 ƒ2 is a great lens and it has its use but it severely limits you on the soccer field. As long as you have another body with a longer prime to switch to then it can be ok.
There are some specific variables to address when it comes to shooting soccer on full sized fields. First is reach. Yes you can use the 70-200 ƒ2.8 but you will be limited to filling the frame with less than half the field and that includes the addition of the 1.4tc. If access to field side is not available then capturing action is further limited and having to significantly crop in order to compensate degrades IQ. Second is light availability. Late afternoon, evenings or very cloudy conditions force higher ISO settings in order to maintain a shutter speed above 1/1000. Using a ƒ4.5-5.6 lens (100-400) will definitely help on the reach side of the equation but it obviously requires even more ISO. It will still work until one gets under high school lighting where even ƒ4 lenses begin to struggle with AF speed and IQ definitely takes a hit.
Bottom line, capturing on field peak sports action comes with big demands on reach, high shutter speed and fast AF. Unfortunately those requirements also take a large hit on the wallet. To effectively get it done, it requires a two body rig minimum. One with the 70-200 ƒ2.8 and another with the 400 ƒ2.8. Anything less becomes a restrictive compromise that increases depending on equipment used. JMTC
p.1 #12 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
AGeoJO wrote:
I am still at a loss why Sony didn't make the GM 50-150mm lens to take any of Sony TCs. While I don't care much for the 2X TC but making it compatible with the 1.4X TC would make the lens more versatile. In the OP's case, it looks like the GM 70-200mm is a better choice. The GM 50-100 is geared more for portraits, it seems.
100x yes.
It would make it so versatile and would give me a reason to buy it. It's already quite chunky, so not sure if that extra space for TC would make that much of a difference...
@OP, I also think you're covered when it comes to portraits, so I'd lean towards 70-200.
p.1 #13 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
j4nu wrote:
100x yes.
It would make it so versatile and would give me a reason to buy it. It's already quite chunky, so not sure if that extra space for TC would make that much of a difference...
@OP, I also think you're covered when it comes to portraits, so I'd lean towards 70-200.
It would require a completely different optical design, so all bets are off in terms of impact to size.
p.1 #15 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
j4nu wrote:
It would need to accommodate the extra space for the TC, yes...
Right, it's more of an optical change than a physical change to the housing. The shifting of the rear element away from the sensor would have a huge impact on the optical design. That's what would drive the performance and physical characteristics of the lens. It just seems to me that it becomes a much larger change than saying making room for the TC. It becomes a completely different lens. Sony has seemingly prioritized TC capability, look at the 100mm GM Macro for example. I just find it a little hard to believe that there wasn't a good reason for their choice. But we'll never know.
p.1 #16 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
schlotz wrote:
The quick answer is 70-200. Yes the 50-150 ƒ2 is a great lens and it has its use but it severely limits you on the soccer field. As long as you have another body with a longer prime to switch to then it can be ok.
There are some specific variables to address when it comes to shooting soccer on full sized fields. First is reach. Yes you can use the 70-200 ƒ2.8 but you will be limited to filling the frame with less than half the field and that includes the addition of the 1.4tc. If access to field side is not available then capturing action is further limited and having to significantly crop in order to compensate degrades IQ. Second is light availability. Late afternoon, evenings or very cloudy conditions force higher ISO settings in order to maintain a shutter speed above 1/1000. Using a ƒ4.5-5.6 lens (100-400) will definitely help on the reach side of the equation but it obviously requires even more ISO. It will still work until one gets under high school lighting where even ƒ4 lenses begin to struggle with AF speed and IQ definitely takes a hit.
Bottom line, capturing on field peak sports action comes with big demands on reach, high shutter speed and fast AF. Unfortunately those requirements also take a large hit on the wallet. To effectively get it done, it requires a two body rig minimum. One with the 70-200 ƒ2.8 and another with the 400 ƒ2.8. Anything less becomes a restrictive compromise that increases depending on equipment used. JMTC ...Show more →
Thanks everyone for all the replies. Field access luckily is pretty close on the sidelines. Thanks schlotz for the very insightful response.
p.1 #17 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
Ross Martin wrote:
If it were me I’d use the 70-200 and also have the 1.4 teleconverter which performs extremely well with it, or I’d consider the 100-400GM for more reach.
Piling on to this recommendation. I shot a lot of high level collegiate ultimate frisbee during my daughter's college years (she graduated last spring) with the 70-200GMii and 1.4TX with the OG A9 and then the A9iii. I also tried the 200-600 but the results were not as good and the focal length was awkward.
I also rented the 300GM for a weekend a quickly realized that at my skill level, the 70-200GMii + 1.4TC allowed me to get a lot more shots.
Also, when it comes to field reach - WALK and RUN! Too many people plant their feet. Nimbleness beats reach every time.
p.1 #18 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
200mm isn't enough for soccer fields. You'll want 300-400mm unless players are literally running the sideline past you. The 100-400 might not be "popular", but it's still the best choice.
p.1 #19 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
I shoot a lot of youth soccer and have used a number of lenses over the years. Currently I prefer the 70-200 GM II with the 2x extender. I shoot with an A1 II (previously the A1 and before that I only used Canon for sports). When I shoot for a team I do a couple of games and try to get decent images of all of the kids. So sometimes I have used a 200-600 to pick out the defenders or the goalie. 90% of my shots are with the 70-200+2x. I love the weight of the 70-200+2x which makes hand holding fairly easy. If Sony comes out with a decent 100-400 then I will likely go with that as the range would be better. And when I want to capture players on the far end of the field I would be able to (hopefully) add on my 1.4x extender. I would never consider a 50-150 for field sports. But, again, I am needing to shoot the "whole" field. .
p.1 #20 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
I guess it's personal, but I think the workhorse lens for soccer is 200-600. With 100-400, for me personally, it feels like you don't have enough reach, unless you slap a TC on it.
70-200 is also useful, but only for near action.
If you're talking about kid's soccer on smaller fields, then 100-400 is doable.
