Don't know if I should or shouldn't, a little input would be nice.
Sep 27, 2014 12:55:59 #
I have a SIGMA 70-200mm f2.8 that I use to shoot football, baseball and hockey games. I also have the SIGMA 150-500mm which is great for daylight shots or fields that have good lighting. I am now thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras. This is a prime lens and may be better for shooting some of these sports. I am an armature and a football league pays me to shoot games for them. I am retired age 68 and enjoy shooting sports.
All input would be great and if anyone has used this lens let me know what you think of it. Thanks... Brooklyn-Camera.
All input would be great and if anyone has used this lens let me know what you think of it. Thanks... Brooklyn-Camera.
Sep 27, 2014 13:19:53 #
These are very nice action pictures, I like the clarity of them all.
As for buying that lens......go for it! :D
As for buying that lens......go for it! :D
Sep 27, 2014 13:39:32 #
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I have a SIGMA 70-200mm f2.8 that I use to shoot football, baseball and hockey games.
I am now thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras.
I am an armature
Thanks... Brooklyn-Camera.
I am now thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras.
I am an armature
Thanks... Brooklyn-Camera.
Brook, if you already have a 70-200 2.8, unless you shoot a LOT at 200, what will you be gaining? If you are looking for compactness and lightness, then yes, otherwise I see no advantages.
If you're looking for sharpness, then get rid of the sigma zoom and combine with the money for the prime and get the Canon 70-200 mkll.
It's possible that the Canon zoom is a little faster than the sigma zoom and it will NOT focus breathe on you.
Some lenses are rated as much as a 1/2 stop off in aperture.
Brook, Now that I see that you refer to yourself as an "ARMATURE", I don't feel so bad! :lol: :lol:
SS
Sep 27, 2014 13:51:48 #
Very nice pics. I agree with previous comments. Your zoom lens may be better suited for sports than a prime. When you're on the sidelines and the action comes close to you, you might regret having inly 200mm available.
Sep 28, 2014 03:27:35 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I have a SIGMA 70-200mm f2.8 that I use to shoot f... (show quote)
I'm not sure what you would gain for the shots you are taking.
What you really is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. :twisted: :)
Sep 28, 2014 03:44:46 #
amehta wrote:
I'm not sure what you would gain for the shots you are taking.
What you really is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. :twisted: :)
What you really is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. :twisted: :)
Amehta, for football, do you feel that the 120-300 would be better suited for football.
For daytime, he already has a 150-500.
Maybe what he really needs is to get rid of everything and get an older(or new) 400 2.8 . It's what many of the pros use?! ;-)
SS
Sep 28, 2014 11:42:47 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
SharpShooter wrote:
Amehta, for football, do you feel that the 120-300 would be better suited for football.
For daytime, he already has a 150-500.
Maybe what he really needs is to get rid of everything and get an older(or new) 400 2.8 . It's what many of the pros use?! ;-)
SS
For daytime, he already has a 150-500.
Maybe what he really needs is to get rid of everything and get an older(or new) 400 2.8 . It's what many of the pros use?! ;-)
SS
Yes, you're right, he really needs the 400mm f/2.8. But anyone can suggest an exotic telephoto. :lol:
Sep 28, 2014 13:28:25 #
If you are hand holding, the 70-200 f4 makes more sense to me over the 200 2.8 prime ! If you are on a monopod, the 2.8 zoom makes sense to me ....... If you have a decent ISO body, the ONLY advantage of the 2.8 prime is size and weight.
Sep 28, 2014 13:29:48 #
amehta wrote:
I'm not sure what you would gain for the shots you are taking.
What you really is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. :twisted: :)
What you really is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. :twisted: :)
And, someone to carry it !
Sep 28, 2014 14:08:21 #
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I have a SIGMA 70-200mm f2.8 that I use to shoot f... (show quote)
You're getting beautiful shots now, and the 200mm would always be 200mm, which could be a drawback.
On the other hand, if you shoot something other than sports, the 200mm might come in handy. Since you're getting paid to shoot, that's a big plus.
Sep 28, 2014 15:21:07 #
amehta wrote:
And at only $481.79 per pound for an f:2.8.
Sep 28, 2014 15:31:50 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
OddJobber wrote:
And at only $481.79 per pound for an f:2.8.
That's cheaper than a lot of other fast lenses. :-)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.