Sigma 150-500/600mm

JeevezJeevez Registered Users Posts: 3 Beginner grinner
edited April 9, 2016 in Sports
Hi all, thinking of doin some sport photography, and at the moment im torn between 3 lenses. 1 is the Sigma 150-500 mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, another is the
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro II Lens or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens.

These are mostly due too budget at the moment. But as the jobs become more frequent, any advise on upgrades is welcome too.

Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited April 5, 2016
    Jeevez wrote: »
    Hi all, thinking of doin some sport photography, and at the moment im torn between 3 lenses. 1 is the Sigma 150-500 mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, another is the
    Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro II Lens or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens.

    These are mostly due too budget at the moment. But as the jobs become more frequent, any advise on upgrades is welcome too.

    Thanks in advance.

    it might depends on the "jobs" but for field sports I would use a 300mm prime or 100-400
    for kiddie sports a 70-200 might work
  • WirenWiren Registered Users Posts: 741 Major grins
    edited April 5, 2016
    Jeevez wrote: »
    Hi all, thinking of doin some sport photography, and at the moment im torn between 3 lenses. 1 is the Sigma 150-500 mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, another is the
    Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro II Lens or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens.

    These are mostly due too budget at the moment. But as the jobs become more frequent, any advise on upgrades is welcome too.

    Thanks in advance.

    That's kind of a no brainer..... go for the Siggy 70-200/2.8. Sigma is good enough glass... while some may steer you towards the Canon 70-200/4 which is good, I doubt it is so much better than the Sigma that you'll want to lose a stop of light over it....

    Of course, take, this with a grain of salt... I am an Olympus user. I use a 70-200/2.8-3.5 lens on my old E-3 with a 2x crop sensor... but when the light starts falling off, I wish for larger senor, better ISO range and constant 2.8 coverage across the zoom-sphere. But certainly take the advice of a Canon shooter over mine. You can see in my post down from yours some samples with my lens get up..... Oh, and I might add that with the 2x crop I have, that effectively makes my lens a 100-400... most of my shots end up being at about 70-100mm (effective 140-200mm) at about 2.9 to 3.2......

    I think also that you'll save money going with the Sigma... yes? the difference b/w the 2.8 to the 4 may be negligible. But I would still go for the brighter lens.

    If you are shooting sports, stay away from the Sigma 150-500 mm f5-6.3, unless you only want to shoot during the height of the mid-day sun on a cloudless day!
    Lee Wiren
  • JeevezJeevez Registered Users Posts: 3 Beginner grinner
    edited April 5, 2016
    Thanks for some quick replies. Wiren i used to feel your pain with the crop sensor, finally upgraded to a 6D, so full frame now. Yes the cost for the sigma and the canon are maybe a few £, so will look at that. Was recommended away from the sigma, but wanted to double check, get a wider response to the question.

    Anyone elses input is still very welcome.
  • wave01wave01 Registered Users Posts: 204 Major grins
    edited April 6, 2016
    The first question is what sports

    Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
  • WirenWiren Registered Users Posts: 741 Major grins
    edited April 6, 2016
    Crop Sensor
    I will most likely never have to worry about needing a large sensor for doing college or above sports. If and when I do, I will move up in sensor size....

    I feel I do well with the cropped sensor until the light starts falling off. But my camera is also 8 years old.....

    The new sensors (even in crop bodies) are literally 10 times better than my old one, I should do better once I get a newer camera rolleyes1.gif

    Good luck on your lens decision....

    Lee
    Lee Wiren
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,696 moderator
    edited April 6, 2016
    Out of doors in the day time, the f4 zooms may be all right. but I think for indoor events you will be happier with an f2.8 maximum aperture. F4 lenses are cheaper, lighter, and just as sharp ( I own several f4 zooms ) but when the light drops after sunset, or you go indoors in some gymnasiums, the f2.8 lens will focus faster and more accurately. As long as the light is bright, I prefer the F4 zoom, lighter, easier to handle, smaller in size and weight and price. But when the light is falling, bigger apertures make a real difference.

    The 150-600mm f5-6.3 zooms will have difficulty in low light with focusing quickly, I suspect. Mine does.

    One lens I like for sports out of doors is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 DG OS HSM | S. I mention this lens because Brett suggested a 300 f2.8 prime. I have one of each, but for sports, I prefer the zoom version over the single fixed focal length lens. They seem pretty similar in terms of sharpness. The prime may focus a bit quicker. They weigh about the same.

    F2.8 lenses are not as inexpensive as f4 lenses, and this may be the deciding factor depending on one's budget and need.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,680 moderator
    edited April 7, 2016
    f/2.8 also gives you a shallower DOF for subject isolation, an essential ingredient for killer sports photos.
  • JeevezJeevez Registered Users Posts: 3 Beginner grinner
    edited April 9, 2016
    Is image stabilization needed
    Is IS or VC VR needed. Or is that another area I can save money?
  • wmstummewmstumme Registered Users Posts: 466 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2016
    Jeevez wrote: »
    Is IS or VC VR needed. Or is that another area I can save money?

    I'm not the expert, but I don't think you need the IS/VC/VR. My understanding is that is primarily to reduce the effects of hand shake at lower shutter speeds. With sports, you should be shooting at a pretty fast shutter speed which really makes that not come into play. Also, with the weight of the lens, you'll most likely be shooting off a monopod.

    I have a Sigma 50-500 that I used as my go to lens for many years--and it was a great, flexible lens. But, the smaller apeture (I think it ran from about f 5 to 6 -- it wasn't constant at all lengths) both increased the DOF and reduced the lower light capabilities. It was okay on a gray day, but you weren't going to be able to do anything at night under the lights.

    I think the big question is what sport(s) are you shooting. Honestly, 500mm (especially on a crop body) is a really long reach, and generally not necessary. I've mostly shot my daughters playing lacrosse and field hockey--which are on about as big of fields as most team sports are played on. I using a 300mm mostly now, and that is generally more than enough. I also like to have a 70-200 with me for flexibility. I really like the idea of the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and wish I had known about that when I went for the 300. I know it is a bit expensive, but probably a really great investment. Otherwise, depending on the sport, I'd really strongly consider a 70-200 f2.8; such a great lens and really useful for a great variety of photography even outside of sports.
    Regards

    Will
    ________________________
    www.willspix.smugmug.com
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,696 moderator
    edited April 9, 2016
    Jeevez wrote: »
    Is IS or VC VR needed. Or is that another area I can save money?


    Depends on your planned use of the lens - IS/VR does not help one photograph moving subjects like runners, basketball players in motion, gymnasts twirling on high bars, etc, since stabilization of of the lens offers a longer hand held shutter speed but that longer shutter speed is of no use for moving subjects, unless you're going for a blur shot like with moving water or racing cars or blurred runners in motion.

    So many sports shooters don't feel the need for IS/VR.

    On the other hand, if you shoot moments in sports when the subjects are stationary, like just before a football is hiked, for just before gun goes off, then IS/VR might be of some use.

    Omitting IS/VR may save you from 400-700 dollars or so. I really thought the difference would only be about $300 but that was not true when I wandering through B&H's website, at least for Canon L glass.

    I agree with Will, 70-200 or even 120-300 is long enough for almost all field sports shooting. 500mm lenses are really a wildlife and bird tool, much more than a sporting event tool. If you are at a motor speedway or an Olympic event in the mountains where you are not allowed access to the field, or at an air show, then yes, 500 mm may be useful, but you will also need a tripod and a gimbal head. I doubt you will enjoy handholding a 500mm lens all afternoon. I do not use > 400mm without a firm support of some kind - fence post, tripod, chair back, large rock, something, as I know that without them, my images will be blurred shooting handheld. IS/VR or not
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sign In or Register to comment.