Bill_de Loc: US

Thank You!

--

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Zooming a zoom lens is faster than zooming a prime lens with your feet (even if you physically could) - but cropping (zooming in) in post is faster than either - except you cannot zoom out in post.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I've been following this discussion all day, and the comments by people who, like me, are clueless about sports photography have served to remind me what a wonderful thing UHH is. It is democracy in its purest form. Many of us drop everything to rush in with a totally asinine suggestion. It's a thing to behold.

Even I put my two cents in earlier, forgetting the lesson I learned from my one foray into the art and science of sports photography. I was working on a piece about Eric Gregg, a National League umpire, and the Phillies had given me clearance to shoot from the first base dugout. I was there to shoot photos of an umpire, a guy who mostly stood in one place and waved his arms.

Well, I stayed on task for about three innings, but then I figured I might as well get some shots of the players in action. BIG MISTAKE!. I was shooting with a Nikon N90, and I went through 4 or 5 rolls of Ektaptess point film before the game was over. Of the 144-180 exposures, do you want to guess how many "keepers" I got? Does the number 0 tell you anything? Oh, I got great shots of Eric--Eric making a close call, Eric joking with a fan, Eric in the set position as he waited for the pitcher to throw--but zero of "baseball action." That stuff's for real sports photographers.

In this conversation, maybe we wanna-bes should just watch and learn.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

In almost 50 years (49, to be exact), I have never felt the need to "zoom out" in a sports action photo. At your next pro or college football game, watch how the photogs work. Many people ask me "how do I improve?" My answer, practice, practice, practice and a subscription to Sports Illustrated, wherein lies some of the best photographers and photos ever taken. I've had the honor over my lifetime, to be exposed to several of them in various settings and come to know a couple fairly well. I never cease to be amazed by the quality of their work and their ingenuity! In addition to that group, I have met many local photographers, many who have taken the time to give me pointers and have become good friends. Unfortunately, much of my current ability has come from making every possible mistake! Ever forget to load the film properly and get 70 picture of nothing on a 36 exposure roll? Some days you're the bird, and some days you're the windshield!

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

well, if I had to make my living shooting sports, I would starve. I do it for the fun of it and the kids and the kids parents get a kick out of it. Just like any other hobby though, you want to be the best you can be. This was shot Friday night at a scrimmage, under the lights. Had to crop the photo to get it to look like something. Didn't have time to zoom all the way in as I was focused on the QB before the throw, then had to focus on the receiver as he caught the ball.

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

Pic did not attach the first time.

(Download)

klouis

Hi Dexter,

I am crazy about sports (being a sportsman) and wildlife.

I spent a lot of money on unnecessary lens over the years but now have a small selection of 8 lens .....depending on what I am photographing.

I shoot pro sport (based in Dubai) and have covered sports like cricket (shooting for the ICC / Asian Cricket Council), karate (shooting for the World Karate Federation), Spartan race (for Reebok USA) & pro Soccer for Mumbai City FC.
I used the D750 for 2 years & although I was happy using it with the 70-200 f2.8, It lacked that little more distance I hoped to cover. For day sports the 70-300 or the Tamron 150-600 were great.

I recently purchased the D500 (I have kept the D750 too) & realised that the 50% more reach it gave me made a very big difference to the images I captured. The ISO capability is fantastic & for once I feel like I have almost (we are NEVER really satisfied with whatvwe have got) everything I need.

I have used the Tamron 150-600mm (f/6.3) with the D750 for night cricket & have consistently shot at ISO 12800 to ISO 25600 with great to decent images. You can check out some of my work on www.keyurlouis.com

I have not updated my website for ages, but there is a fair amount of work which is decent. (Incl motor sport & ice skating)

For night soccer, the D500 with the 70-200 2.8 is my default lens.
If you have the 80-200 f2.8, get the D500 (it will give you 300mm which is the equivalent on a DX camera) or get a 150-600 for your D750 as it has high ISO capabilities too.

I used the Tamron so I cant really comment about the sigma.

Do have fun shooting & dont forget to enjoy the sport.

For everyone else, this is my humble opinion through my first hand experience & I am not out to contest or debate with anyone.

Have an awesome weekend.

Regards,
Keyur

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

What you are saying is interesting. I too have the Tamron 150-600. Just never thought about using it under the lights. Maybe I am not taking enough advantage of the ISO capabilities of the 750. May as well give it a try. Nothing to lose. I was considering the D500 as well. Since you have used both the 750 and the 500 for sports, do you feel there is a big difference between the two for shooting sports?

SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

Rather than spend $2,000 on a new lens. If I were you I would spend less than half of that on a used or reconditioned d5200 or d7100 crop sensor and use your 80 to 200 on this crop sensor camera. This would provide you with more reach than your d750 full frame and you would have a back up camera. I have the same lens and even though it is an older lens it is very sharp.

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

Just got done looking at your website. Beautiful pictures. that is what separates pros (you) and armatures (me). Those night photos were with the Tamron and 750?

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

You are right, the 80-200 is a great lens. and with the AFS, focus is almost instant. will never get rid of that lens. Still have my old D200. Maybe use it. the only problem was all the noise after ISO 800

klouis

The D500 has VERY FAST focussing compared to the D750, besides having the faster frames per second.
I am very happy with the D500 & will use it to shoot sport & wildlife exclusively, while I will continue to use the D750 for events, wide angle coverage / landscape photography.

I just got back from a 7 day Kenya safari adventure & managed to get some stunning wildlife action shots.

The D500 is surely worth it.

oneillj

Check out the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Great lens for football. You can get right in there on the linemen and all the action. I shoot HS sports as well and frequently the fields are not very well lit. That lens will handle it very well. It is also Full Frame format. The only thing I've noticed is that the auto focus doesn't seem to be as fast as the Nikon but the difference is negligible. Also the zoom ring is opposite from Nikon so, it takes a little getting used to. Good lens all around, though.

klouis

Thanks Dexter.
I am very passionate about photography & that drives me to better myself. I made a promise to myself that I would learn something new everytime I picked up my camera ...... That was 2 years ago with the D750 & I still continue to learn. Most of us want something new without understanding what or why & are not even fully aware of our camera capabilities.

Brett Florens (nikon premier brand ambassador) was instrumental in getting me to push my camera to its limits when I first met him @ 20 months ago.

My website has a mix of the Tam 150-600 (some night soccer & all night cricket images - due to the size of the field & distance from the subject) and the nikon 70-200 f2.8. (Night soccer)

A lot of wildlife images (low light) from my recent Kenya trip will be uploaded in a week or two.

Regs,
Keyur

Billy Britt

Dexter; I would recommend the Sigma 150-600 mm. You can get the Sport model, (they should really call it the "Professional" model") for around $2000 or get the Contemporary model for $1000. The difference between the two is the Sport model has a more robust build, but they both use the same lens. I have been using the Sigma for wildlife and sports for quite awhile and find it tack sharp at a very reasonable price. I use it on a crop body so the zoom is even greater than 600mm. Actually it's 960 mm when fully extended. The lens does great on a tripod but also does great handheld. I you would like to see a good review of the lens go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tCUFXiDws

I hope you find what you are looking for.