- Messages
- 209
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi all,
I've just started shooting sports for the college paper, and having a pretty good time (i LOVE seeing my photos in print!) however, i haven't got a telephoto lens, and i've been using my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
clearly, if that lens wasn't so amazingly expensive, i'd just buy that, but well as one might think life's decisions are never so simple. especially when it comes to camera gear!!
So, I believe before the next term rolls around (october-ish), I will have saved about £400. The question is, should I go for a 70-200mm f/4L, or a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8?
I am more inclined towards the L route, for a few reasons: its weight means I can use it when I travel as well; it's an L lens; it holds value well; its an L lens; i'm more likely to get a good copy; and hey, have I mentioned its an L lens?
the only thing is, while I don't see myself shooting in super low light conditions, I've only been shooting sports in summer. So, I don't know if the extra stop of light is going to come in a lot more useful when I start shooting when winter comes around and light gets... lesser. I've shot in the three weeks hockey, rounders, rowing, frisbee and varsity polo. So its really any and all college type sports! also, I'm not sure if there's an appreciable difference in DOF, as i would like to better be able to isolate subjects, especially since players play very close to each other in some of these sports!
well, what do you think? and if your vote goes with the sigma, is it true that the macro version is not as good as the previous one? also, is the AF speed as fast as the L lens?
(i'm also worried that after shooting with the 2.8 IS, everything is just going to suck in comparison :shake: well fine. i think thats a given. lol.)
thanks for all the responses in advance. cheers!
I've just started shooting sports for the college paper, and having a pretty good time (i LOVE seeing my photos in print!) however, i haven't got a telephoto lens, and i've been using my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
clearly, if that lens wasn't so amazingly expensive, i'd just buy that, but well as one might think life's decisions are never so simple. especially when it comes to camera gear!!
So, I believe before the next term rolls around (october-ish), I will have saved about £400. The question is, should I go for a 70-200mm f/4L, or a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8?
I am more inclined towards the L route, for a few reasons: its weight means I can use it when I travel as well; it's an L lens; it holds value well; its an L lens; i'm more likely to get a good copy; and hey, have I mentioned its an L lens?
the only thing is, while I don't see myself shooting in super low light conditions, I've only been shooting sports in summer. So, I don't know if the extra stop of light is going to come in a lot more useful when I start shooting when winter comes around and light gets... lesser. I've shot in the three weeks hockey, rounders, rowing, frisbee and varsity polo. So its really any and all college type sports! also, I'm not sure if there's an appreciable difference in DOF, as i would like to better be able to isolate subjects, especially since players play very close to each other in some of these sports!
well, what do you think? and if your vote goes with the sigma, is it true that the macro version is not as good as the previous one? also, is the AF speed as fast as the L lens?
(i'm also worried that after shooting with the 2.8 IS, everything is just going to suck in comparison :shake: well fine. i think thats a given. lol.)
thanks for all the responses in advance. cheers!