p.2 #1 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
The Sony 200-600 G is ƒ5.6-6.3. Ok for day sports, the Af is a tad slower and it does struggle in low light conditions. Shooting under high school lighting is the realm of fast glass i.e. ƒ2.8 or better.
p.2 #3 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
scottiet wrote:
The 50-150 is optically superior. The images are noticeably sharper. If you can give up the 50mm on the long end
That is the reality of this lens. On the soccer pitch I've found it works BUT try to limit capturing action that occurs within your quadrant of the field. Put on the Sony A1 you do have a bit more leeway if it's in aps-c mode but you still have to be aware of what your shooting and the amount of PP cropping that will be required to render the final image. Here is an example that's about the limit using the A1 in aps-c and cropped by 60%. IMO better to be under 50% if taken in aps-c. Shot was from directly across the top of the 18 yard box, action was directly out from the goal (my quarter of the field) and in very good light. A thread reviewing its use can be found here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1907412/
Sulte clearing an inbound...
ILCE-1FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens150mmf/2.01/2000s160 ISO+0.3 EV
p.2 #4 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
In shooting my kids' soccer, I tried the Tamron 50-400, Sigma 100-400, Sony 100-400GM, Tamron 35-150mm, and even the Tamron 28-200mm...then I got the Sony 70-200mm GM II, and wondered why it had taken me so long to get it! The shooting experience and image quality improvement from every one of the prior lenses was significant. It's hard to overstate the benefit of the internal zoom that moves with a light finger. I have the 1.4x teleconverter, but end up leaving it off mostly and cropping (a7rV's resolution helps that).
p.2 #5 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
tsdevine wrote:
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....Show more →
In support of tsdevine, is there any lens compatible with Sony TCs that is faster than f2.8 or shorter than 70mm? I am happy to be corrected but I think the answer to both is no. The TCs were almost certainly optimized to work with primary lenses with certain parameters which could include no shorter than 70mm and no faster than f2.8. Designing a lens shorter than 70mm whth the rear element far enough away to accommodate a TC would be difficult I would think.
p.2 #6 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
pfoiles wrote:
In support of tsdevine, is there any lens compatible with Sony TCs that is faster than f2.8 or shorter than 70mm? I am happy to be corrected but I think the answer to both is no. The TCs were almost certainly optimized to work with primary lenses with certain parameters which could include no shorter than 70mm and no faster than f2.8. Designing a lens shorter than 70mm whth the rear element far enough away to accommodate a TC would be difficult I would think.
You may very well be right, but the thing is we are not optical engineers here. So, it's all speculating .
If I were to guess, I think that @tsdevine is right that TC support might end up making the lens a lot longer than just the space needed to accommodate the TC. I think even if it was possible to just move lens elements a bit forward, that would make the lens feel significantly heavier and that's what Sony wanted to avoid...
p.2 #7 · 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.
I think a few reasons:
1) It would make an already large lens larger and potentially unbalanced
2) Same as #1 above, it would make an already expensive lens more expensive
3) It would cut into sales of their other lenses that cover those focal lengths
The 50-150 is great for indoor sports, portraits, and events that don't need 200mm. It's one of my most versatile lenses I own and produces really clean images where ambient light is scarce.
If I had all the money in the world, I would also own the 70-200 GM II. I had it before, but I have other primes covering longer focal lengths.
p.2 #8 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
pfoiles wrote:
In support of tsdevine, is there any lens compatible with Sony TCs that is faster than f2.8 or shorter than 70mm? I am happy to be corrected but I think the answer to both is no. The TCs were almost certainly optimized to work with primary lenses with certain parameters which could include no shorter than 70mm and no faster than f2.8. Designing a lens shorter than 70mm whth the rear element far enough away to accommodate a TC would be difficult I would think.
If you look at the Viltrox 2.0TC it works on the Viltrox 135/1.8, Sigma 135/1.4, and Laowa 200/2. I'm not sure if there are any serious degradations in the optical quality beyond what would be expected by a 2x zoom, but they at least work. None of these are Sony lenses, so of course the Sony TC does not work.
p.2 #9 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
i do not photograph ball sports, but i had two copies of the 100-400 gm (a mediocre copy and an exceptional copy that was fred miranda's copy from his tests in the 100-400gm thread) for outdoor action. then i recently purchased the 70-200 gm ii before selling it to get the 50-150. obviously reach, oss, and aperture all matter for whatever your specific use case is, but i can comment on the optical quality of the three lenses given their intended focal range uses.
a mediocre copy of the 100-400gm is totally adequate but lacked any real wow or pop in the images. an exceptional copy has just enough extra sharpness and contrast to make you say, "nice!" when editing images. a good copy is not a COMPLETELY different class of lens than a mediocre copy, but it made enough of a difference where i was very happy to shoot the 100-400 anytime i was outdoors and the light was adequate. focus is fast and accurate. the oss is effective. the external zoom is worth it to me to have such a compact packable lens (for what it is). the zoom range is pretty good for action, but i frequently slammed up against 100mm and wished to be a little wider. and atmospheric distortion usually degraded images at the 400mm end long before the optics were an issue.
i sold the 100-400 to get the 70-200 gm ii and knew i would miss 400mm for action sports but liked the 70-200 range better for mixed landscape and event photography. if a good copy of the 100-400 was "nice!" then the 70-200 gm ii was "wow." i tested on the same day and time a 24-70 gm ii vs a sigma 28-105 on a tripod with shutter delay and just for giggles handheld fired off some lazy shots with the 70-200 gm ii to compare, and it is just laughably sharper than the midrange zooms in shared focal ranges. it is sharp, contrasty, surprisingly lightweight, fast to focus, good oss, and the 70mm range was just that bit more useful than 100mm for events and landscapes. obviously 200 is no 400 for sports, but i preferred the 70-200 gm ii to the 100-400 for my use cases.
then i rented the 50-150 for no damn reason. so if a good copy of the 100-400 is "nice!" and the 70-200 gm ii is "wow" then the 50-150 is "well s#*^..." when reviewing images at 200%. it just does have the extra sauce. it's not just the sharpness or contrast, but the ability to isolate subjects and create defocus on people or objects that are pretty far away. seeing someone 30+ yards away and being able to throw out the background still like this lens does is wild to me. it is definitely sharper than the 70-200 gm ii but probably not in a REALLY meaningful way. i just find 50 so useful for on the wide end that lens swaps become far less frequent. i have gone out for the day with JUST the 50-150 or JUST the 70-200 (i only did that with the 100-400 when shooting action sports), and thoroughly enjoyed both, but the 50 is noticeably more useful than the 200 for me so far. i miss the 200 and oss on paper but not in reality when reviewing my photos yet. i would love to have both (realistically i would love to have all three), but can't afford that. the main downside to the 50-150 for me is its chode-iness (yes i said it). it's an acceptable length and weight for what it is but damn does that lens hood add up when trying to pack it away ANYWHERE. oh, and the price...
none of this has to do with soccer, but my journey through these three lenses has been quite enjoyable. my journey through wide angle and mid range zooms has been much, much more unpleasant and i could easily be happy with any or all of sony's most up to date white lenses (the 200-600 is where it gets too big for my non wildlife uses).
p.2 #11 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
I shoot a lot of high school soccer and have found the 200-600 to be the best choice. I normally have the 70-200 on my second body. If I had the money I would replace the 70-200 with the 50-150.
p.2 #12 · Can't decide Sony 70-200 F2.8 OSS vs. 50-150 F2 for soccer/futbol and portraits
The 70-200 GM2 with 2X is a 400 f5.6 and at least for my lens and 2x, really really sharp! Crop mode is 600. I find that combo with the A93 the best butterfly/dragonfly in flight combination I have ever used...granted I focus on critters and never shoot sports so you might not like it for your purposes.
.