Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2009, 5:32 PM   #41
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Also, in regards to the 70-300, it's a matter of reference. Quality is a relative thing. How many of the people who rave about the sigma have used a high quality lens - like sigmas own 100-300 f4? There's a huge difference in quality - and a price tag to go along with it. Or now that Pentax has a sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM see if anyone in Pentax mount uses that lens and still thinks the 70-300 is a quality lens. It's all relative.

The 70-300 also lacks HSM. In the end, I think it's a non-starter here. The OP is interested in improving her sports shooting and the sigma 70-300 isn't going to do that. The Tamron is slightly sharper but still budget quality and without a fast focusing motor it's not a good choice for sports. What lens WOULD do that again depends upon the sport in question. That's the type of lens I would recommend to someone on a shoe-string budget looking to get their feet wet but understanding they would have to replace the lens in a year. Doesn't sound like the situation the OP is in.

I will say though I'm interested to hear from Sony users how much of a difference there is from HSM to non-HSM sigma lenses on the A700. Since Sony has upgraded their motors the difference may be less noticable than in other camera mounts.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 7:05 AM   #42
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86
Default

i think my head just spun around 3 times:?

i believe that the sigma 70-200 2.8 weighs just over 2.5 lbs? and because of the hsm motor we decided this was the best one?
darlenerenee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 7:26 AM   #43
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

darlenerenee wrote:
Quote:
i think my head just spun around 3 times:?

i believe that the sigma 70-200 2.8 weighs just over 2.5 lbs? and because of the hsm motor we decided this was the best one?
No, that is not what I said at least. What I said was the Sigma 70-200 2.8 was a much higher quality lens than the sigma 70-300. There are 3 reasons why it's a much better lens -

1. It is a 2.8 aperture lens vs 5.6 for the 70-300

2. It is optically superior - much sharper with less distortion than the 70-300

3. The HSM focus motor provides a significant advantage in every other mount but Sony. What I said was I was unclear how much of an advantage it provides in Sony specifically on the A700 because the A700 does very well with the in-camera motor. I have no data whatsoever to base an opinion on in Sony. Penolta had brought up Pentax mount and pentax users who were happy with the Sigma or Tamron 70-300 lenses

As to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 being "the best one" - THE SPECIFICS OF THE SPORTS YOU WILL BE SHOOTING AND WHERE YOU WILL BE SHOOTING FROM and WHAT BODY YOU ARE USING WILL DETERMINE WHAT LENS IS REQUIRED.

For example - let's take basketball. 1/400, f2.8 and ISO 3200 are in the neighborhood of the exposure values I use to shoot basketball. On your current camera, if it even offers ISO 3200 it's probably not a good enough quality that you'd want to shoot at 3200. So, on your current body, a 70-200 2.8 lens would NOT be a good choice for basketball. The A700 is the only body in Sony's line-up I would say is up to the task. So if you were using THAT body you COULD use a 70-200 2.8 lens for basketball. That's an example of how the body helps determine what lens is appropriate.

Where you are shooting from also plays a roll. If you are shooting from the baseline you could "get by" with a 50mm lens - not a great solution as the range of a 50mm lens is only 15 feet or so but if you're near the basket you can get some good shots. If you were not allowed to shoot from the baseline or preferred not to then a 50mm lens would NOT be an option. Similarly, let's take HS softball. If this were a sport you were interested in. If you were shooting from the dugout, a 70-200 would allow you to shoot infield play but not outfield. If, however, you were shooting from outside the fence you would find 200mm too short - you would need at least 300mm if not 400mm. These are examples of how your position for shooting a given sport influence the lens focal length you need.

Then there's the matter of aperture vs. focal length. Let's say you were shooting full field soccer and that was the only sport you were going to shoot. If you wanted the ability to shoot night games under lights you would need a 2.8 lens so a 70-200 2.8 is the most economical solution. You could then add a TC to get some additional reach for day games. If, however, you were only shooting day games it might make more sense to buy something lke the Sigma 100-300 f4. The added reach would be of more benefit than the 2.8 aperture given the distances involved in soccer. The 100-300 also takes a TC well so it's a good choice for soccer. Now, if you were shooting from OUTSIDE the fence I would suggest 70-200 is way too short. I might even suggest something like the sigma 50-500 makes the most sense because you'll need all the reach you can get. But that's making a decision "in a vaccum". If you are shooting multiple sports you have to weigh the needs / requirements of each sport to determine how best to spend your money. There is no single sports lens - it doesn't exist. When I shoot my field sports I shoot from the field so I can get by with a 300mm lens. It's a little short for some things but I get by. If I wasn't on the field then 300mm would not be long enough - I'd need more reach.

SO, if you're back to considering a lens purchase you have to be specific about what sports you want to shoot. And as mentioned above the answer will depend in part on whether you are using the A700 or your current camera.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 12:14 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

I own a sigma 55-200mm3.5-5.6fs for my Sony A200 as well as a Tamron 28-300mm 3.5-6.3fsand a sony kit 18-70mm.

The sigma is a nice lens and has served me well for over 2 months. I just got the Tamron for Christmas (didn't pay a penny for it)and it is a nice lense but in low light it is slower to focus than the Sigma. If I had my way I'd get a slightly faster lens at the roughly 259-300mm far end range. I do need an all in one like 55-200 or better yet 28-250mm as I shoot in harsh conditions fire and motor vehicle accidents around lots of smoke and blood etc. The sigma so far as been plenty fast for what I need

As for sports shooting on the Sony cameras. The A200 gives me 3fps with a 133x transcend CF card for 3 seconds and then goes down to 1.8fps till the card is full. You need a 166x or better yet 233x card or Sandisc Exterme III to take full advatage for sport shooting. But for shooting larghe scale coomunity events and fire-rescue stuff the A200 is plenty fast for me. I only shoot a few sporting events a year and haven't had the change to try it out yet.

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 12:27 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
NewsyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Posts: 231
Default

I've also recently gone through this exercise; check out the videos on YouTube for the Tamron and Sigma 70-200 f2.8's. There are several and one or two show an alpha series body being used.

Here's a few:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM on A700 vs Beercan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI1PaEffrew


Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II on Nikon D300 (seems much faster)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZksMY...eature=related


Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on A200
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3pZt5GHvsw


Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on A700
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEvxH5qvyA


These last two were with the lens cap on which may produce slower results than if the lens cap is off and focus is switched between close/distant objects.


Due the suggestions of the people here I've been looking at the A700 with the Bigma (Sigma 50-500 f4-6.5)which is probably the best solution for what I do. I know I'll need lots of light but I don't shoot when it rains. I played with the setup yesterday - it was indeed heavy but manageable and I'll likely get a monopod for field side.


NewsyL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 1:49 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

darlenerenee wrote:
Quote:
. i borrowed my son-in-law's 100-300 for a little league football game and got some good shots but noticed they were mostly shot at or close to 300.* i would use it mostly for general use but wanted it to at least be available for my friends kids games (soccer, little league football, t-ball).
d
Darlene, I think you have answered your own question. Let's keep a proper perspective here.

You want the camera and lens for general use

You only want it available occasionally for sports pictures of your friends kids on the ballfield, in daylight, and not at night or indoors.

And you might post an occasional jpeg on the internet or email jpegs to friends, or make prints smaller than 8X10".

You are not shooting sports primarily, not selling images to magazines, not printing wall hangings, not entering contests, and not competing with other sports photographers to see who can take the sharpest pictures. In short, you are not a professional photographer or "advanced amateur", and do not need dedicated professional quality equipment, although you night eventually want to grow into more sophisticated usage - but then again, you might not. Less than top tier equipment is available and continues to outsell the "best" not only because it is less costly, but because it meets most peoples needs.

So you need to evaluate your needs and ambitions and keep a realistic outlook. If the above assessment fits, then you might well consider the Tamron 70-300 macro as suggested by several people (stay away from the Sigma because of the mechanical problem). New and better equipment is always coming along, and prices drop on those being discontinued. Why not get the Tamron, which is not a bank breaker, try it on your 5D with which you are comfortable, and see how it meets your needs - if you need a "better" or different lens better suited for specialized tasks, you are not out much, and still will have a fairly light, versatile all-around lens for casual use. If you find you need a faster focusing body and/or one with a higher resolution sensor, you can get it then. You will be under $200 to start, instead of around $2000 right off the bat for equipment you might not need or even use on a regular basis.

BTW, Not that you can tell much from an enlarged crop, but the avatar to the left was taken with the Tamron on a Pentax K10D.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2009, 2:00 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

NewsyL wrote:
Quote:
Due the suggestions of the people here I've been looking at the A700 with the Bigma (Sigma 50-500 f4-6.5)which is probably the best solution for what I do.* I know I'll need lots of light but I don't shoot when it rains.** I played with the setup yesterday - it was indeed heavy but manageable and I'll likely get a monopod for field side.
I don't know how it will perform with the Sony, but a number of wildlife photographers on the Pentax forum have adopted the "Bigma" as they call it, and swear by it (not at it) for image quality and "reach" but at it (not by it) for the weight. None has regretted the move. And yes, it requires support.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2009, 9:30 AM   #48
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86
Default

John and all,

Sorry it has taken me an extra day to respond. That baby girl of mine who isa senior playing her last couple of months of basketball just played her last game on Monday night. She was fouled and fell down and broke her foot. We spent yesterday getting x-rays and fitted with a boot (and being slightly depressed).

Anyhow.....i totally get what you are saying, John. I guess what threw me was that I was only considering the tamron and sigma 70-200 2.8, not the 70-300. I do have my heart set on that 2.8 for now. I'll have to see about the longer lens later. I do shoot basketball with my 50mm and my 85mm from the baseline and do ok. the 50mm actually does better in lower lit gyms than the 85mm shooting at the same app. I use 800 iso as I am not at all happy with 1600 iso pics with the 5d. never mind 3200, have never even tried that!

As far as what sports, well basketball, soccer, football, t-ball, yeah you get the picture. My friends and family love sports. it's younger children tho so the soccer field is smaller and the football games are during the day! I figurealso that the 70-200 2.8 willwork at the occasional school program indoors (awards programs, etc).

And while i am not a professional or shooting for selling, etc, i am a bit of a perfectionist which is one reason i took the class this semester at our university (and for total enjoyment - which it was!!) so i will prob still look into the a700.

as always, thank you guys for your very imformative and valuable input!!
darlenerenee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2009, 10:38 AM   #49
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

darlenerenee wrote:
Quote:
As far as what sports, well basketball, soccer, football, t-ball, yeah you get the picture. My friends and family love sports. it's younger children tho so the soccer field is smaller and the football games are during the day! I figurealso that the 70-200 2.8 willwork at the occasional school program indoors (awards programs, etc).
As long as your on the sidelines the soccer will be OK. Football is actually a bit more challenging since they often play on regular width fields and the little guys are so small. But you'll be fine as long as it's center of field toward your sideline. And once you get a new body the 70-200 will do great for indoor programs. At ISO 800 you probably won't have good enough light.

You should also look into a monopod though. As mentioned a 70-20 2.8 is heavy compared to your current lenses. And holding that for an hour and a half can be tiring if your not used to it.

Good luck and enjoy!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2009, 12:28 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
NewsyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Posts: 231
Default

Just a quick note to confirm I purchased an A700 + Sigma 50-500. Have had it since Jan 16th but it has been horribly foggy or overcast so I've really only had it out for 4 hours of shooting soccer games and 2 hours of walk around testing features and function.

The second soccer game was as close to perfect for light that I'll get at this time of year. In this shot I was on the sideline at about the 18 yard line and the center girl is on the far side of the center circle. 420mm, f7.1, 1/500s




At 100% crop - you can see her eyes are gray.



In this next shot I'm standing at the far end of the field by the corner flag and the ball is about half way between center and the far 18 yard line. I've cropped it out the left and right but the vertical is almost as shot; it stands up well for viewing on the team web site. 360mm, f6.3, 1/500s. I think the f6.3 makes it look a bit soft.



Some other miscellaneous shots:

Hand-held @500mm (750mm 35mm equiv.), 1/100sec, f8, iso800 (overcast day), I had the wrong DRO settings which exasperated the noise so minor NR used in PP, cropped, levels, usm




pixel peep here (not 100%), 1680x1050
> http://www.smugmug.com/photos/465369358_BFGd3-O.jpg



Today in better light @500mm, again iso800, f11, 1/500s, cropped, DRO std



pixel peep here (not 100%) 1120x1440 >
> http://www.smugmug.com/photos/467329391_ek7Xw-O.jpg


I'm a happy camper so far and expect that things will get a whole lot better after a couple of months of active use getting to know the kit.

Thanks to all for the information provided in this thread.

.

NewsyL 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 10:35 AM.