Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 27, 2009, 11:25 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 750
Default

My goal is to try and find an all inclusive lens for indoor volleyball, outdoor soccer, swim meets, some birding and wildlife, general photography.

I am strongly considering the Sony SAL-70200G as it has mostly very good ratings and I believe fast enough for the indoor shots.
Also looking at the SAL-70400, more range but slower.

I have been using the SAL-18250 with pretty good results outdoors, but not so good on the indoor stuff, just not fast enough.

I may add a TC14 converter for wildlife at a later date.

I will be using my A-700 camera.

Thanks for any comments.

Flying Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 27, 2009, 12:47 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The short answer is there is no lens that will do well for all those things.

A 70-200 2.8 lens is a good focal length for volleyball and short course (25m) swimming. 2.8 is a wide enough aperture for these sports without flash as long as you are comfortable with the ISO 3200 performance of your A700.

200mm is too short for full field soccer and much much too short for birding and many other types of wildlife (where 400mm tends to be a good starting point).

For the indoor sports the Sony 70-200 2.8 you are considering is a fantastic lens - but pricey at $1700.

I would suggest your money is better spent buying 2 separate lenses - one for indoor sports and one for outdoor / wildlife.

You can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 for $720 to cover your indoor needs.

For outdoor you can get the Sigma 100-300 f4 for $1050 if soccer is more important than wildlife. You can get a 1.4 extender to get more reach. But if wildlife, especially birding, is going to be important you'll find that woefully short. Instead you might want to conser the Bigma (Sigma 50-500). Won't be any good in poor light and not as optically good as the 100-300 but you have to make some sacrifices. But as good as the Sony 70-200 2.8 is, 200mm is way too limiting for soccer and wildlife shooting.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 11:37 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 750
Default

John, thanks for the input.

I have a couple of questions.
How does the IQ on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 compare to the Sony 70-200 2.8?
How suitable would these lens' be for soccer with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC added?

I only shoot indoor volleyball 3 or 4 times a year where as soccer could be 10-20 times depending on teams results during the season.

I am not a professional and do not intend to sell pictures but I do want very good IQ and am will to spend a little money to achieve that, but don't really want to spend 3k on lenses.

Another option that may work for me is to forget volleyball photo's and go with soccer and some wildlife.

For this, what are your thoughts on the new Sony 70-400 and a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?

Again, thanks for your thoughts.


Flying Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2009, 10:49 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Flying Fossil wrote:
Quote:
John, thanks for the input.

I have a couple of questions.
How does the IQ on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 compare to the Sony 70-200 2.8?
How suitable would these lens' be for soccer with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC added?
The Sony will have better IQ - it's an outstanding lens. IMO though, if you're shooting full field soccer you'll get poor results with a 2x TC on either and so-so with a 1.4. If soccer is your primary need, you're much bette getting a longer lens from the get go. Certainly for wildlife you're better off with a longer lens. I have no familiarity with the 70-400. On paper it sounds like a great lens. I would suggest doing some searches in other forums (fred miranda, dpreview) to see what wildlife or sports photos people have with the lens. Since it was just announced last year and I can't find a store with it there may not be many people yet that actually have it. If it turns out to be a good lens I think you're much better off with it than you are with the 70-200 plus TCs and you'll spend less money to boot.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:55 PM.