Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Lens choice, looking for some advice
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
Aug 21, 2016 11:11:23   #
98corvette Loc: Macon, Georgia
 
Look into a Sigma 120-300 2.8 there is 3 versions. you want the second version with OS (image stabilization) It will also can handle a 1.4 T/C. bought mine for $1400. Use mine for horse racing (Trotters & Barrel Racing) and BIF

Dexter56 wrote:
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 11:32:45   #
Dexter56 Loc: Ohio
 
98corvette wrote:
Look into a Sigma 120-300 2.8 there is 3 versions. you want the second version with OS (image stabilization) It will also can handle a 1.4 T/C. bought mine for $1400. Use mine for horse racing (Trotters & Barrel Racing) and BIF



How is the speed of focus on the Sigma?

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 11:54:26   #
98corvette Loc: Macon, Georgia
 
Have no trouble with the fast focus. I use Canon 5D3 or 7D2 with no focus problems for fast moving birds or horses. It is currently overkill for my grand kids soccer games as the are all under 7 years old. There is also a less expensive Version 1 that sells used for about $500 less but has no stabilization.
Dexter56 wrote:
How is the speed of focus on the Sigma?

Reply
 
 
Aug 21, 2016 12:09:44   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
Dexter56 wrote:
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)


Have you considered a teleconverter. With that f/2.8 lens you'd still have a f/4 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter and 280mm

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 12:18:42   #
rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
jeep_daddy wrote:
Have you considered a teleconverter. With that f/2.8 lens you'd still have a f/4 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter and 280mm
If you go the teleconverter route, buy a Nikon teleconverter. Third party teleconverters are notoriously soft.

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 12:48:32   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
Dexter56 wrote:
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

No, if you just looking for more reach, I don't think its worth it, because a hundred mm more is not much different to what you already have, even 400 is still on the short side (but ok for most sports)!

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 13:16:27   #
Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)
 
When you ask a large body of folks the question you asked, you're going to get a large number of different responses. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that you have a disease - it afflicts many of us, it showed up when you wrote "Just feel like I need a little more reach". We have a club, secret handshakes and jackets.

Reply
 
 
Aug 21, 2016 13:25:46   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
rdgreenwood wrote:
If you go the teleconverter route, buy a Nikon teleconverter. Third party teleconverters are notoriously soft.



Reply
Aug 21, 2016 13:35:00   #
Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA
 
I would simply use a 70-300mm and have a wider range of shots to be taken. I don't see the benefit of a straight 300mm, seems to be quite limited in scope.

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 14:06:03   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Dexter56 wrote:
"Normally, I shoot football with a Nikon 400/2.8" That is my dream lens, but the budget will not allow. I have heard a lot of votes for the Nikon 300 F4. Something I did not consider, but do now. You are right, shooting under the lights is not for the meek (or the poor). I think I need to push the ISO limit a little further with my 750. 25600. wow.


As I have not used the d750, I would not recommend going that high until you field test it. LR, at least the CC version, has some nice noise features and there is other good software out there as well. Use what you have and don't be afraid to push it.

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 14:19:02   #
orrie smith Loc: Kansas
 
Dexter56 wrote:
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.
My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)


I recently purchased the Nikon 200-500 and think it is a great fit for my D750. it is fairly fast and sharp. I also own a 300mm and it is a great lens also.

Reply
 
 
Aug 21, 2016 14:23:42   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Dziadzi wrote:
I would simply use a 70-300mm and have a wider range of shots to be taken. I don't see the benefit of a straight 300mm, seems to be quite limited in scope.


That's because you don't do as much sports work as I do. I would not consider any super zoom for sports action work in any light.

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 14:31:53   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
I do like the idea of a zoom - f2.8 or 4.......

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 14:37:05   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
cjc2 wrote:
That's because you don't do as much sports work as I do. I would not consider any super zoom for sports action work in any light.


I don't shoot any sports, so I am not disagreeing with you. I do wonder why?

--

Reply
Aug 21, 2016 14:52:07   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Bill_de wrote:
I don't shoot any sports, so I am not disagreeing with you. I do wonder why?

--

Ill
Couple of reasons. When shooting sports action one does not need the distraction of zooming as it takes your focus from getting "the" shot as it consumes valuable time when things are happening quickly. Those super zooms generally are not that fast and hence they slow focus down, some quite a bit. Finally, they are generally not great glass and one needs that to get great shots in lower light. They will work, but they will seriously impact results. Sports action photography is an expensive endeavor! Even with unlimited funds it takes practice.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.