jacklewis014

I am posting this question here instead of the General Topics area because I would appreciate feedback from sports photographers. For some background - I shoot a Nikon D4. My main lenses for sports are 24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8, depending on the sport. When I shoot soccer, baseball, Lacrosse (field sports) I find I lack sufficient range with my 70-200. I don't shoot a large number of field events and will shoot close action or mid-field and crop. As many of you have experienced, most locations have poor lighting for photography.

I depend on the f2.8 to make sure I don't have to shoot an ISO greater the 6400 - 8000 range, preferably around 3200. I am usually shooting a shuitter speed of 2000-2500. To get more length I have been looking at Zoom & Prime in the 400mm & 500mm distance. I can't afford f2.8 in those ranges. If I look at a Teleconverter, I can solve the price issue but now my f2.8 lens becomes a f5.6. And I have read the sharpness is diminished with a Teleconverter.

I mainly shot D3 universities and several times each year D1 schools.
Quality of the image is important.

Here's my question - what has been your experience with Teleconverters? Aside from the price advantage, what are the pros and especially the cons from using them compared to a longer lens?

Long lens pricing provides limited options, but buying used/refurbished or simply saving up for the right gear are options I can exercise. But if the advantage isn't significant, then a Teleconverter may be the answer.
I just need more information to make this decision.

Thank you for your feedback.

Quixdraw Loc: x

IMO you would be well served by the new Nikon 200-500 5.6 E ED VR. Also a bargain at the price. Teleconverters are handy and portable - better than nothing, and can be useful, if there is adequate light.

Note: Though not as awkward as my old 600 5.6 ED, it is a big lens.

jacklewis014

Thanks - the 200-500 is one that I am considering.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Your question will result in answers from both sides of the aisle. They do effect the quality of the image, the extent is the debate. Zoom telephotos lenses can offer you a certain amount of help. The Canon 100-400mm v.ii can be mated with T/Cs to go all the way to 800mm. The, 800mm prime offers a much better image at a much higher price. The only thing these two lenses share is their nomenclature. Prices of the telephoto primes above 100mm are very expensive. Zooms and extenders are much less expensive ways of getting your image, at a certain sacrifice. Most professionals do not place themselves in positions requiring the use of teleconverters. Most photographers, whether or not they charge for their work, will do and use whatever is needed to get the shot they want/need. The call is literally "your shot" to make. "Bib-Boy toys" of sportshooters can be dicey, $12,999.00 for Canon's new 600mm requires a whole lot of decisions be made.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Depends on how much speed you’re willing to sacrifice - that extra stop or two will cost big $. I have found that a 1.4x matched (from the lens manufacturer) extender has a barely visible effect on sharpness provided it is used with a prime or a very high quality zoom, but a 2x is unacceptable to me in terms of both speed and IQ.

For example, the Canon 100-400L MK2 yields very good results with a 1.4x Canon (MK 2 or 3) extender, providing 560mm @ f8. For more speed (and 2x the size/weight), a used early 300 f2.8L (which can be had for ~$1500) paired with a 1.4x will provide 420mm @ f4 for well less than 2K$. On the other hand, I’m sure Nikon has equivalent offerings such as the 200-500 f5.6 which will give you the “reach” you need without the extender. Nikon gurus will have other suggestions.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I like the 200-500, but it may be too long for near side-line area shots. I do soccer and basketball for youngsters. The 70-200 with a 1.4TC has been a decent option. You'll have to decide whether the loss of flexibility with a prime will suit your needs.

jacklewis014

David, you have summarized what I am wrestling with. Deep down I think I need to invest in the longer lens. But I wanted to get some insight regarding the performance of the TC. Thank you for your thoughts. Jack

jacklewis014

TriX - Thank you for sharing your experience. My fear is the quality of the image will suffer with a TC in use. I appreciate you sharing what you have seen. - Jack

jacklewis014

DaveO - You are spot on - I already have issues shooting with the 70-200 when the action gets close to me on the sidelines. Maybe the best next step is rent a 1.4 TC and see what results I get. Thank you for your thoughts. - Jack

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The image quality on your Nikon 70-200 with a Nikon 1.4 is excellent...I'm sure others will verify this.
Sorry for not answering your question the first time!

jacklewis014

Thank you - this is very helpful - Jack

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Btw, I will just add that I shoot indoor sports a lot, typically with a FF and a 70-200 f2.8, which can get very heavy after holding it up for hours. Last year, I used my 135 f2L and put a 1.4X extender in my pocket for when I needed a 200 mm. It was less versatile but half the weight, and surprisingly, the 135 + the 1.4x was actually sharper than the 70-200 @ 200mm.

jacklewis014

Cool - I know what you are talking about - two weeks ago I shot 2 Volleyball matches and a Soccer game on a Saturday. I shot the 20-700 about 80%. I was done at the ned of the day.

jacklewis014

I thought sharing a couple pictures would give you an idea of how cropping the shots taken of action in the middle of the field look. It's not bad, but no way can I shoot across the field.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

btbg

I think that the Sigma Sport 150-600 is a fair compromise if you have enough light. It is 5.6 - 6.3 depending on how far zoomed, so if you have enough light it gives you the most range possible with a reasonable Fstop.

I use the lens for baseball and soccer, I have tried it at nighttime football with mixed results as the local football field is pretty dark in places so it leads to using a high ISO.

What I would rather use is a 600 f4, but I couldn't afford one. In any case, I believe that 600 mm is needed for football, baseball, and soccer. You would give up a little bit of light over the Nikon 200-500, but tests show the lens to be just as sharp and it gives you a little more range.

The down side is that it does weigh 6 pounds, but it balances pretty well and can be hand held.