After I tested Sigma 300-600mm F/4 for multiple times with Sony a9ii, I have to admit that AF-C isn't really great as if my experiences degraded a lot compared to Sony 200-600mm I've been using for a few years. Some say it works fine with a9iii and a1ii but you still can NOT zoom in/out while AF-C and 15 FPS limitation is quite a lot as I keep missing moments. In the end, I would probably need to sell Sigma 70-200 and 300-600 for Sony native lenses as I cant risk anything with performance while shooting sports.
So far, I can not consider expensive prime lenses and prefer using zoom lenses so things that I can consider are 70-200 GM II, 200-600, 400-800, and 100-400 GM. There are rumors about 100-400 F/4 but it's gonna be expensive anyway. Since I'm gonna get used lenses, it should be easy to buy 2 lenses but cant really decide which one to choose as some lenses are too old such as 200-600 and 100-400. At least 200-600 seems enough for me.
I mainly shot day light outdoor sports such as baseball and football so it feels like it's either 70-200 + 200-600 or 100-400 + 400-800. I dont have a 2nd body.
I'm not a professional sports photographer but I am trying to get into it.
You can't go wrong with Sony’s 70-200/2.8GMll. It consistently produces images that keep my family and friends smiling. Regardless of what else I bring to my kids various sports, that 70-200 is what I have mounted on my A9.
You can find them used in pristine condition too. I did. Good luck with your decision.
The 70-200 and 2-6 combo is pretty difficult to beat for daytime sports. The 200-600 gives you plenty of reach for baseball and football and can be bought for less than $1400. My daily scan of the Buy & Sell forum shows the price of the 100-400 has recently increased several hundred dollars. I was never a fan of the external zoom.
No such thing as too old. They're lenses with capabilities that can be, in some cases measured and in others assessed by many people that have used them. Both 200-600 and 100-400 may be the logical choice now and even in 5 years time.
Things to consider: first shooting sports is not an inexpensive endeavor. Depending on the sport and location it comes down to reach and available light while maintaining shutter speeds above 1/1000. Most pro shooters have the 70-200 ƒ2.8 in their gear line up. It's a workhorse when filling the frame with action in short to semi-short distances. On a full size soccer field I would say it's for action well within the mid-field line when shooting from the back line, best nearer the 18 yard box in your quadrant. It gets iffy for action all the way across the field, i.e. side line to side line. With a 1.4 TC you can get a bit more reach but that's not going to cut it for down field action. If the body being used is limited to 24MP the amount of cropping is also a consideration as you should limit the amount in order to maintain useable IQ results. The 200-600 ƒ5.6-6.3 is ok with good lighting but not for low light or under the lights at most venues. Just ok in that the AF acquisition speed isn't the fastest but if you are anticipating peak action and are already AF locked on the subject it becomes less of an issue. The current 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6 can work under GOOD field lights but IMO it does require effort. Our Indy Eleven soccer field now has LED lighting which has improved things but the results still require high ISO and NR post processing to get an acceptable IQ for submittal to the league. Again, best not to crop extensively. BTW: under most high school lighting it's a no go. So, it comes down to the obvious choice, 400mm ƒ2.8. This is the standard which many live by in the industry.
The dollars involved add up very fast! For starters, my preference would be to swap out the Sigma for the Sony 70-200 ƒ2.8 GM II (absolutely excellent) and concentrate on shooting action that you can fill the frame with limited or no cropping. Next step when funds present themself, is a personal choice between a longer lens or a higher resolution body. For a body, consider upgrading to a used A1, which are now becoming more affordable. Believe there are some in the Buy & Sell forum here on FM. It provides double the resolution which allows for more cropping ability and it's AF tracking capability is great. For a lens, look for a used 400mm OR depending on the price difference maybe the rumored 100-400 ƒ4 GM that might be announced sometime this coming May.
May I ask what specific issues you’re experiencing with the 300-600? I’ve only had the lens for a very short time, but the focus speed is notably faster than the 200-600
Before you go about the hassle of getting new lenses, perhaps a few tweaks to your technique could help. There are a few accomplished sports photographers on the forum. Maybe they can give you some suggestions to hone your technique and see if that makes a difference
You mentioned the inability to focus while zooming. I don’t know what focus mode you’re using. But, if for instance, you were using wide or zone. When let off the shutter to zoom, then press again to reacquire, the camera may grab the wrong person
Not saying that’s what you’re doing. Just suggesting you exhaust all possibilities before taking a hit by swapping out your lenses
Anyways, I hope you find a satisfactory solution to your issues
The Sigma 300-600 ƒ4 is a very interesting lens which I plan to rent and test shooting soccer. The lens is NOT parafocal i.e. it will not maintain AF while zooming. The other widely known deficit is the imposed 15 fps limit Sony places on third party lenses. Personally I believe the parafocal issue can be reasonably overcome by technique i.e. reacquiring AF via a quick pump on the half shutter or what ever button one has designated to activate AF. The 15 fps limit is (for me) unknown. Knowing your sport provides the necessary anticipation to get the camera focused on the peak action about to take place so it might not be that big of a let down when it comes to capturing the moment. Doing this also helps to minimize/eliminate the parafocal issue. Add to this the ability to crop in PP from a high res body. This is why I plan on renting one to see just how well the lens might fit into my gear lineup for soccer coverage.
robert614 wrote:
May I ask what specific issues you’re experiencing with the 300-600? I’ve only had the lens for a very short time, but the focus speed is notably faster than the 200-600
Before you go about the hassle of getting new lenses, perhaps a few tweaks to your technique could help. There are a few accomplished sports photographers on the forum. Maybe they can give you some suggestions to hone your technique and see if that makes a difference
You mentioned the inability to focus while zooming. I don’t know what focus mode you’re using. But, if for instance, you were using wide or zone. When let off the shutter to zoom, then press again to reacquire, the camera may grab the wrong person
Not saying that’s what you’re doing. Just suggesting you exhaust all possibilities before taking a hit by swapping out your lenses
Anyways, I hope you find a satisfactory solution to your issues ...Show more →
Fast AF does not mean it's good. AF reliability and performance weren't even close to 200-600 based on my expeirence despite my efforts.
All 3rd party lenses can not do AF-C while zooming in/out. No excpetions so far. Whenever I do that, it just stops working. If you think your suggestion will work, I highly doubt it cause I've been testing it for a month already. Same for Sigma 70-200.
In the end, struggling with AF performance will be a huge problem in a short and long term. I was hoping that Sigma 300-600mm F/4 is finally close to Sony GM as a new lens in 2025 but still far from it.
schlotz wrote:
The Sigma 300-600 ƒ4 is a very interesting lens which I plan to rent and test shooting soccer. The lens is NOT parafocal i.e. it will not maintain AF while zooming. The other widely known deficit is the imposed 15 fps limit Sony places on third party lenses. Personally I believe the parafocal issue can be reasonably overcome by technique i.e. reacquiring AF via a quick pump on the half shutter or what ever button one has designated to activate AF. The 15 fps limit is (for me) unknown. Knowing your sport provides the necessary anticipation to get the camera focused on the peak action about to take place so it might not be that big of a let down when it comes to capturing the moment. Doing this also helps to minimize/eliminate the parafocal issue. Add to this the ability to crop in PP from a high res body. This is why I plan on renting one to see just how well the lens might fit into my gear lineup for soccer coverage. ...Show more →
It is and that's why it is very unfortunate to sell it and I wonder why a lot of users are selling it while only wild life or landscape photographers are using it.
Parfocal issue can NOT be overcome cause the AF performance itself is not even close to Sony 200-600mm. It only adds another step to focus which is not pratical in real life.
15 FPS limit is a huge deal that I miss a lot of moments compared to 20 FPS.
I almost made a decision to sell it after testing it for a month. Just a matter of time.
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
Btw, a lot of people recommended 300GM. Since I never used a prime lens for sports, it's difficult to understand. Any idea?
Expect advice, not just advice within the parameters you set.
I saw this thread a few days ago. GM300 was my first thought.
I chose not to comment. Obviously some made a different choice.
Reasons I would recommend:
It's a fantastic lens. One of Sony's sharpest. For me, this means I consider it an effective 300-400.
It's not a precise thing, I'm talking about how good a cropped result will be. Call it 300 - whatever.
It's 2.8. No need to elaborate on the advantages of 2.8 at 300mm.
At 420mm it's faster than 200-600 and 100-400.
It takes TCs really well.
It's very lightweight, significantly less then the 200-600.
Many people are using GM300 instead of 200-600. Of course, they lose ability to zoom.
Others use it, much of the time, instead of their GM600, which stays at home much of the time.
That's probably it's biggest sales pitch. So much money in a GM600 but the lightweight of the GM300 often makes it the choice as the image quality is close enough to the GM600. Obviously, this is with 2XTC on the GM300.
For my work covering soccer a two body rig is essential. Long lenses don't cover close up action. Usually I'm operating with a 70-200 ƒ2.8 and a 400 ƒ2.8 both on Sony's A1 MkII. While the 300 is very intriguing due to the weight reduction vs the 400 & possibly eliminating the monopod, the bottom line is its limited reach would require going into aps-c mode or PP cropping and regardless the 70-200 + body is still needed. I could sell the 400 and replace it with the 300 but given the 400's outstanding performance I don't see that happening.
"I cant risk anything with performance while shooting sports."
I going to burst that bubble. Every choice you make comes with risks.
If you can't make good images with the 300-600, it may be time to work on technique. I have both the 400 2.8 GM and the Sigma 300-600. Both have pros and cons. Sure, the 400 2.8 works better in low light, has a fast FPS and a slightly faster focus. But if the subject suddenly gets close to you, the 400 may be too tight and you end up chopping body parts that you didn't intend. Sometimes 400 is not long enough and you don't want to crop as much.
Some from the Sony A1 and Sigma 300-600 from the other night.
Did you miss the fact OP is using A9II, or are you assuming the fact that the 300-600 works with the A1 means it is just as good or even OK with the A9II?
timgangloff wrote:
"I cant risk anything with performance while shooting sports."
I going to burst that bubble. Every choice you make comes with risks.
If you can't make good images with the 300-600, it may be time to work on technique. I have both the 400 2.8 GM and the Sigma 300-600. Both have pros and cons. Sure, the 400 2.8 works better in low light, has a fast FPS and a slightly faster focus. But if the subject suddenly gets close to you, the 400 may be too tight and you end up chopping body parts that you didn't intend. Sometimes 400 is not long enough and you don't want to crop as much.
Some from the Sony A1 and Sigma 300-600 from the other night.
Didn’t miss it. He said the lens was the issue with the af and fps limits. I disagree. Also if he’s using a 7 year old body he’s already breaking his own rule of not risking anything.
Choderboy wrote:
Did you miss the fact OP is using A9II, or are you assuming the fact that the 300-600 works with the A1 means it is just as good or even OK with the A9II?
timgangloff wrote:
"I cant risk anything with performance while shooting sports."
I going to burst that bubble. Every choice you make comes with risks.
If you can't make good images with the 300-600, it may be time to work on technique. I have both the 400 2.8 GM and the Sigma 300-600. Both have pros and cons. Sure, the 400 2.8 works better in low light, has a fast FPS and a slightly faster focus. But if the subject suddenly gets close to you, the 400 may be too tight and you end up chopping body parts that you didn't intend. Sometimes 400 is not long enough and you don't want to crop as much.
... The 300-600 is more than capable of making images
Have to agree with Tim. His work shown here and in other postings are proof the Sigma 300-600 ƒ4 is definitely a capable lens to handle sports action and that includes NCAA Division 1 football. In fact his threads are the reason I plan to test out the lens in the next month where I have multiple matches I can shoot for a thorough trial.
The OP mentions getting better results from his Sony 200-600 using the A9ii. I'd venture to say it might be due to that lens being nearly parafocal, allowing higher fps being native glass BUT, given it's ƒ5.6-6.3 I suspect his experience might have been based upon shooting in decent light. The 200-600 IMO does not do well at all in poor light when attempting to shoot fast action sports. At least that is what I experienced when attempting to use it with soccer under the lights.
timgangloff wrote:
"I cant risk anything with performance while shooting sports."
I going to burst that bubble. Every choice you make comes with risks.
If you can't make good images with the 300-600, it may be time to work on technique. I have both the 400 2.8 GM and the Sigma 300-600. Both have pros and cons. Sure, the 400 2.8 works better in low light, has a fast FPS and a slightly faster focus. But if the subject suddenly gets close to you, the 400 may be too tight and you end up chopping body parts that you didn't intend. Sometimes 400 is not long enough and you don't want to crop as much.
Some from the Sony A1 and Sigma 300-600 from the other night.
Do you ever zoom in/out while AF-C? I guess not which is an important issue with 3rd party lenses and I assume you are using it like a prime lens. If you are telling me to use it like a prime lens, then it's already pointless.
Dont get me wrong, I like your images but with my experiences, it never felt as good as native lenses as I struggle a lot. I dont think a9ii is bad and old body when it comes to performance and reliability.
schlotz wrote:
Have to agree with Tim. His work shown here and in other postings are proof the Sigma 300-600 ƒ4 is definitely a capable lens to handle sports action and that includes NCAA Division 1 football. In fact his threads are the reason I plan to test out the lens in the next month where I have multiple matches I can shoot for a thorough trial.
The OP mentions getting better results from his Sony 200-600 using the A9ii. I'd venture to say it might be due to that lens being nearly parafocal, allowing higher fps being native glass BUT, given it's ƒ5.6-6.3 I suspect his experience might have been based upon shooting in decent light. The 200-600 IMO does not do well at all in poor light when attempting to shoot fast action sports. At least that is what I experienced when attempting to use it with soccer under the lights. ...Show more →
Capable does NOT mean reliable. You could say I'm fine with it but not all people would agree as I've been seeing many 300-600 users selling it for Sony native lenses on Facebook groups. Yes, AF speed is decent but if using it like "a prime lens technique" is a way, then I dont see the point.
15 FPS limit is quite a lot for me as I see a huge gap between the moment of before and after catching the ball while 20 FPS was a minimum of doing that. This is something that you can not overcome.
a9ii is old but still being used for professional games with reliable performance. Comparing it to 3rd party lens doesn't make sense.
I dont shoot at night or low light so it's pointless to talk about it.
