Low Light Lens Envy: My son purchased a Tamron low light 50-200 lens recently and it produced excellent sharp photos of his son playing football in a night game. I wonder what others...

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

My son purchased a Tamron low light 50-200 lens recently and it produced excellent sharp photos of his son playing football in a night game. I wonder what others have experienced with such lens capability and might share the information.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Could it be a 70-200 2.8?
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16

I don't use the Tamron, I have the 70-200 Nikon and wouldn't be without it.

A very useful lens.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Could it be a 70-200 2.8?
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16

I don't use the Tamron, I have the 70-200 Nikon and wouldn't be without it.

A very useful lens.

Tamron, Sigma, Canon and Nikon all have their own answer to a low light 70-200mm sports capable lens. I am not educated in the 50-200mm Tamron (I understand they also made a 55-200mm). All brands in this braket are capable of ultra sharp images. Being a fast F/2.8 lens will allow for use in low light but no matter what the lens they will always perform better stopped down by at least 2 stops from their extremes. F/8 is a good sharp starting aperture.

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

thanks for the information. In fact it was a 70-200 2.8. The local camera store rep advised that it was the last step before moving into professional stuff for many $$$$$

mafadecay wrote:

quote=GoofyNewfie Could it be a 70-200 2.8? br ht... (show quote)

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

hamtrack wrote:

thanks for the information. In fact it was a 70-2... (show quote)

The Tamron and Sigma equivalents really are superb lenses. I have seen many a pro opt for these purely to save mega £'s or $'s in your case.

Each brand have their own key to what optics are included. Check each manufacturers website for info and do your homework before any purchase. I must say I love the mat body finish on the sigma lenses.

Imagetaker

Sony 70-200G 2.8
Or
Tamron 70-200 2.8

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

hamtrack wrote:

My son purchased a Tamron low light 50-200 lens recently and it produced excellent sharp photos of his son playing football in a night game. I wonder what others have experienced with such lens capability and might share the information.

Even with an aperture of 2.8, you still need to tweak your camera settings quite a bit. I once did some sport shots of my son playing soccer under stadium lights at night with a 70-200 f/2.8. Even with this I had to crank the ISO to 3200 and set my shutter speed to 1/500 (the lowest I could go and still stop action). White balance was also a bit challenging to keep the colors correct. With the high ISO, I had quite a bit of noise... however, once through "Noiseware" and I got some useable photos, but nothing like the pros get.

If you are not a pro, nighttime sports photography is a rich man's hobby in my opinion. 200mm is simply not enough reach even on a crop camera.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

mdorn wrote:

quote=hamtrack My son purchased a Tamron low ligh... (show quote)

Full frame will give you less noise and RAW will help with colour balance problems. You need something like a 5DMKII or III that handle high ISO at least. A full frame gives the same 1.6x image as a crop camera if you crop in PP and usaually gives extra pixels which will allow you to throw a few away during crop process. Agreed 200mm is falling a bit short but if you get a fast lens you can always opt for the extenders but will loose a few stops meaning your lens is no longer fast.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Have been pondering recently about the Oly OM-D. It has high max ISO, ability to take legacy lenses plus 2x crop factor, whether you could get a manual focus 300mm f/2.8 and use that to have an effective 600mm f/2.8 and thanks to the built in image stabiliser, every lens is stabilised

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

I learned on an OM-1 35mm and this was neat. The D has some great reviews and features normally available only on top pro DSLR's @ 4 times the cost. If I was starting fresh it would certainly be up there with the rest.

Remember though the crop sensor is not 2x or 1.6x the reach but it is cropping the image to fit the sensor. I would like to pitch the 21.1MP 5dMKii against the 16MP OM-D and crop the canon image to compare. Although it is double the cost.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Lens and iso's are intertwined. Tonight I was using a 300mm f/4 at 12800 to shoot a football game that had terrible lighting. My second camera has as acceptable iso up to 6400 so because of the lighting I usually use a 50mm f/1.2 or a 24mm 1.4.
Also, I agree about the use of full frame cameras both mine are full frame.
If you use a 1.5 extender you will lose one stop. A 2x extender will drop 2 stops.
My two cameras are Canon 5dm2 and 5dm3. I hated paying the price because I don't use most of new features but for me high iso with low noise is worth it's weight in gold. I'm really interested in the 1dx and maybe getting two extra stops but the 5dm3 is wonderful.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Could it be a 70-200 2.8?
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16

I don't use the Tamron, I have the 70-200 Nikon and wouldn't be without it.

A very useful lens.

That looks big and heavy. How is it in regular use?

perpoto

that is the reason Nikon came out with f/8 solution for their latest FX camera,likeD4/D800/D600...

capsar050 Loc: Piedmont in North Carolina

My experience has shownn me that I am willing to accept a little less than the mega buck lenses as I am not out in the wild for days waiting for that one chance shot. I started learning how to compose telephoto shots with an old OM 500mm and E-300 and had a lot of fun, I now use the OLY E-5, E-30, and backup E-3 and have great tele shots using my 70-300 and 1.4X or the 500mm OM. I guess it all boils down to how deep are your pockets and how great your commitment to obtain the best possable shot. I recomend a solid (I like vintage Hollywood) tripod for your best result.

rhyde Loc: Little Rock, AR

FilmFanatic wrote:

Have been pondering recently about the Oly OM-D. It has high max ISO, ability to take legacy lenses plus 2x crop factor, whether you could get a manual focus 300mm f/2.8 and use that to have an effective 600mm f/2.8 and thanks to the built in image stabiliser, every lens is stabilised

I have the Oly OMD to go with my Nikon D7000, and just purchased the Oly 75-300, the lens that provides the equivalent of 600mm focal length. Have yet to use it for sports since my soccer-playing grandson lives 3 states away. At the full telephoto length, a monopod will be required at minimum. The lens is not real fast (4.8-6.7), but delivers sharp images. Of course, the IBIS helps, but it doesn't make up entirely for a steady hand. That said, I've never had more fun with a camera. Got it to take with me wherever I go, due to it's small size, and now can't keep it out of my hands.