Is there a lens?
Jan 18, 2014 11:33:04 #
I own the SIGMA 70 -200mm f 2.8 that I use to shoot ice hockey games. I wanted to treat myself to another lens for the same purpose. I need to stay with an f2.8 lens for the light I need to shoot indoors. I am trying to stay in the $900-$1200 bracket. Is there something out there that will do the job? Any and all help is welcomed. I am thanking you all in advance for your input. Hope that I can get something that shoots well at these indoor arenas. I was asked to shoot a 8-9 year old kids game. I told them that I can make disc's for them with about 40 pictures for $7.00. So don't know if I need another lens or not? I also have a prime 40 and 50mm , the 40mm is f2.8 and the 50 is a f1.8.
FDNY Vs. NYPD @ Nassau Coliseum
(Download)
Suffolk County PD Vs. D.C. Stars @ Nassau Coliseum
(Download)
Jan 18, 2014 11:38:01 #
You mite get lucky and find a used 300 2.8....maybe a little over your price range I think. Can you get closer to the ice?
Jan 18, 2014 14:58:04 #
Jan 18, 2014 15:07:13 #
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I own the SIGMA 70 -200mm f 2.8 that I use to shoo... (show quote)
I don't know what vantage point you will be shooting from, but your first picture looks like you are at rink level and the second shot looks like you are 5-8 rows back? If that's correct, and those are typical of the photos you have been taking, why would you need another lens? The 70-200 certainly seems to be long enough for you. What do you want another lens to achieve that you aren't able to do with the Sigma?
Jan 18, 2014 15:16:09 #
lowkick wrote:
The 70-200 certainly seems to be long enough for you. What do you want another lens to achieve that you aren't able to do with the Sigma?
I agree.
Jan 18, 2014 15:53:35 #
First was using the window in the glass at the Nassau Coliseum the second was same location but up in the mezz. area. Would like to get more of the faces in the shots without having to use to much post editing.
lowkick wrote:
I don't know what vantage point you will be shooting from, but your first picture looks like you are at rink level and the second shot looks like you are 5-8 rows back? If that's correct, and those are typical of the photos you have been taking, why would you need another lens? The 70-200 certainly seems to be long enough for you. What do you want another lens to achieve that you aren't able to do with the Sigma?
Jan 18, 2014 16:26:01 #
If you want to replace your Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with the same size, does it infer that you have an issue with the Sigma? Is it the current EX (premium line) lens with OS? If so, I don't understand. I have this lens & it is tack sharp, fast, well made, & has a really quick AF. Maybe I have misinterpreted your question. :-)
Jan 18, 2014 17:16:01 #
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
First was using the window in the glass at the Nassau Coliseum the second was same location but up in the mezz. area. Would like to get more of the faces in the shots without having to use to much post editing.
Any longer lens and you will sacrifice not only the f/2.8, but the ability to keep your widest aperture throughout the entire range of the lens. Same goes with using a tele-extender. So, to get what you want you will need a 70-300mm and have to either shoot at a lower shutter speed, or underexpose the shots and fix them in PP. But it's still easier to crop the shot from the 70-200mm rather than correcting focus, blur and/or color with a longer lens using incorrect exposure. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is probably the best lens for shooting indoor sports that take place on relatively small playing fields like hockey and basketball. The 70-200mm is even good for portraits of individual players taken after the game.
Jan 18, 2014 18:08:01 #
OK guys thanks... guess I stay with what I have and just keep on shooting... Thanks Guys.
lowkick wrote:
Any longer lens and you will sacrifice not only th... (show quote)
Jan 19, 2014 15:45:04 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
I think the biggest problem you face is the face masks used by the players. They really cut down on the amt of light.
Jan 19, 2014 15:47:49 #
Anything longer than what you already have or faster will cost you a good used car I'm afraid.
Jan 19, 2014 16:09:53 #
Guess I'll stay with what I have. I just shoot for the fun of it, no money involved except my own.
Haydon wrote:
Anything longer than what you already have or faster will cost you a good used car I'm afraid.
Jan 20, 2014 01:10:59 #
A very similar great Nikon lens is the 80-200 f2.8. Available used for about $600. The 70-200 VR I f2.8 runs about $1400 used. The 70-200 VR II f2.8 runs from $1,800 to $2,100.
All three are great lenses. If you need a second lens, take your pick. I own an 80-200 f2.8 and use it to shoot action in dark theaters.
All three are great lenses. If you need a second lens, take your pick. I own an 80-200 f2.8 and use it to shoot action in dark theaters.
Jan 20, 2014 09:09:06 #
pauleveritt wrote:
A very similar great Nikon lens is the 80-200 f2.8. Available used for about $600. The 70-200 VR I f2.8 runs about $1400 used. The 70-200 VR II f2.8 runs from $1,800 to $2,100.
All three are great lenses. If you need a second lens, take your pick. I own an 80-200 f2.8 and use it to shoot action in dark theaters.
All three are great lenses. If you need a second lens, take your pick. I own an 80-200 f2.8 and use it to shoot action in dark theaters.
What kind of action are you shooting in dark theaters?
:hunf: :lol:
Jan 20, 2014 19:30:20 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.