minimum shutter speeds with telephoto

[garman]

So... I guess the best solution is to have both lenses, the bigma and the 120-300. If you had to choose one. 120-300 is the right choice correct?
JohnG I think you miss read my message or I worded it incorrectly. I find when shooting games the faces are a little dark, I guess the ambient light from the ice is fooling my readings, so I shoot at lower shutter speeds to get the faces a little brighter.

[JohnG]

garman wrote:

So... I guess the best solution is to have both lenses, the bigma and the 120-300. If you had to choose one. 120-300 is the right choice correct?
JohnG I think you miss read my message or I worded it incorrectly. I find when shooting games the faces are a little dark, I guess the ambient light from the ice is fooling my readings, so I shoot at lower shutter speeds to get the faces a little brighter.

I'm with you on the second part. But I thought you asked if it was better to continue that or to fix it in post processing. My comment was meant to say it's better to get the faces exposed properly in camera.

As for which lens - no doubt the 120-300 is the better lens but it will be short unless you can get on the field. I dont recall you saying one way or the other regarding whether you can shoot from on the field. If so, then it's great. If you're shooting from off the field you'll find it short for work on a full size diamond. The bigma gives you more reach but the resulting images from 100-300 will not be as good as what the 120-300 produces. So it's a convenience vs. quality issue. Plus the 2.8 lens gives you the ability to shoot in low light - something the bigma cant do.

[garman]

JohnG:
Regarding PP of pictures. I find that if the EV readings are just below the 0 marker I find the faces a little dark. I started PP just faces to make them a little brighter. For me trying to meter moving faces is a little difficult. So if I tone down the shutter speeds the faces of my subjects seems well lit. Does that make sense or will I blow-out too much of the background.

Regarding where I shoot from. This is just for baseball. I do shoot off to side of the diamond, along first base line and the third base line. I would like to shoot from the behind the outfield to catch action at second base and third from a different perspective. That's why the Bigma is so tempting, I was thinking of adding my 1.4x TC if conditions are right. But I am not too sure if I would like the idea of putting a 2X TC on the 120-300 if the IQ is going to drive me nuts.
You know they say.... money can't buy happiness, but in this case it would put a big smile on my face.:G
Thanks

[garman]

Hey what 's the word on the 150-500 OS. I know it has the same f values as the Bigma. But I like the OS and the price on Amazon is less than a grand. 120-300 is still a consideration, but it may get put in the wait list. Hopefully Christmas. Unless my tax return is good then It's a no brainer for the 120-300.

[JohnG]

garman wrote:

Hey what 's the word on the 150-500 OS. I know it has the same f values as the Bigma.

It's an unknown at this point. I would never recommend buying a lens solely on spec without it being field tested by competent shooters. So there's definitely risk involved. Sigma has made some good lenses and some poor ones so I'm always a bit leary of their new lens offerings (for instance the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG and DG Macro lenses seem to perform less well than the earlier non-DG model - so much so that there is now a version II of the lens).