Torn Between 2 different lens.

b08rsa

I have been wrestling around on purchasing a 170 - 500mm Sigma to shoot outdoor soccer, or a Sigma 105mm f-2.8 DG Macro.

Let me fill you all in on what I shoot. For the most part, I have been shooting outdoor soccer with my Sony A-77 MII with a Sony 55-300mm f-4.5 - 5.6 lens. I currently have the Sony f-1.8 50mm lens for indoor activity. While everyone would probably agree that the 50mm lens is not good enough reach for a basketball court or evening time outdoor soccer games. I am not sure which way to go. My 12yr old daughter is playing basketball, and I would like to get shots of her playing. I really hate to use the 300mm lens on the fact I would need to shoot at a pretty high ISO to get a fast shutter speed. During the fall, my other daughters high school soccer games start at 7pm, making it impossible to shoot with the 300mm lens. However, my older daughters club soccer team, plays during daylight hours.

I like the 170 - 500mm reach on a full sized outdoor soccer field, but question how much would I really use it? On the other hand, the 105mm may be enough for shots when the action is near me.

Which way would you go? Thanks in advanced for any additional suggestions.

cmason

I have never found myself wanting more reach than my 70-200 on soccer fields. Granted, with youth soccer, you are on the sidelines, whereas with other leagues, you might be restricted to the stands, so more length might be needed. For bascketball, unless you are in a college basketball arena, you will be nearly as close as the soccer field, even in the bleachers. IMHO, you won't need 500 or anything close to that length.

That being said, with my Canon 40D, my f/4 70-200 is essentially useless in evening basketball. The limiting factor, however, is the camera, not the lens. I have to be above ISO 1600 to get anywhere near what I need to stop action. I am not entirely sure a brighter lens will fully solve this issue. Having a camera that can perform well at low ISOs is really the key.

Best experiment is to take your 50 mm and shoot at f2.8 on location, and see what ISO you need to get decent shutterspeed. This will guide you as to what lens will be best.

Eldon Shea

I have the Sigma 150-500 f 4.5-6.3, which I think is the predecessor of the lens you mention. I don't know if there is direct comparison with the lens you mention, but I think the 150-500 would be useless for sports. Even shooting wide open in bright light, auto focus hunts terribly at any zoom past about 250mm and frequently never finds focus. (I don't shoot sports much, but assume you want fast auto-focus.) Hopefully the new version would be better, but I can't imagine it is enough better to be a good lens for sports. I agree with cmason that a fast 70-200 might be a better investment. I use the big Sigma on a tripod with manual focus only on my Canon 7d or 5dII and it works fine for what it is: a budget super-tele. It is fairly sharp even racked all the way out. The shot below was on the 7d (crop sensor) at 500mm from about 12 miles away. If I recall right, the image is cropped about 20%. Good luck! Bryan

b08rsa

Eldon Shea wrote: »

I have the Sigma 150-500 f 4.5-6.3, which I think is the predecessor of the lens you mention. I don't know if there is direct comparison with the lens you mention, but I think the 150-500 would be useless for sports. Even shooting wide open in bright light, auto focus hunts terribly at any zoom past about 250mm and frequently never finds focus. (I don't shoot sports much, but assume you want fast auto-focus.) Hopefully the new version would be better, but I can't imagine it is enough better to be a good lens for sports. I agree with cmason that a fast 70-200 might be a better investment. I use the big Sigma on a tripod with manual focus only on my Canon 7d or 5dII and it works fine for what it is: a budget super-tele. It is fairly sharp even racked all the way out. The shot below was on the 7d (crop sensor) at 500mm from about 12 miles away. If I recall right, the image is cropped about 20%. Good luck! Bryan

Thanks for the info on the lens. Great city shot as well.

Mitchell

For soccer, it's all about where you stand and what size field you are shooting. If you want mediocre "parent with camera" shots, you can stand on the sideline with virtually any focal length and just wait for the action to come close enough for your lens. This will give you shots with a less than ideal angle on the players and usually a busy background including other players and the benches.

If you want to up your game and shoot quality photos, you need to be positioned behind the goals or in the corners and let the action come towards you. This generally requires a longer lens. I shoot either 300mm or 400mm depending on the size of the field from this location. A fast lens (f2.8) will give you even better isolation and allow you to shoot in less than ideal light.

Sam

You want to find a lens solution to two different types of photographic situations.

You need two different lenses. Period.

You need / must, decide which shooting situation is the highest priority for you. Then define your parameters including budget.

After you have dealt with shooting scenario number one and have saved a few bucks, deal with shooting scenario number two.

Anything else is a exercise in total frustration tantamount to trying to find a hammer that will be used for finishing nails and railroad ties, and maybe occasional fly swatting.

Sam

b08rsa

Sam wrote: »

You want to find a lens solution to two different types of photographic situations.

You need two different lenses. Period.

You need / must, decide which shooting situation is the highest priority for you. Then define your parameters including budget.

After you have dealt with shooting scenario number one and have saved a few bucks, deal with shooting scenario number two.

Anything else is a exercise in total frustration tantamount to trying to find a hammer that will be used for finishing nails and railroad ties, and maybe occasional fly swatting.

Sam

Sam,
That is the best advice I have heard. Now I guess it's time to prioritize.