Do I really need f2.8

lee

lee

Messages
2,010
Edit My Images
Yes
I mainly shoot Hockey and Rugby at my local grassroots club, and I'm wondering if I should invest in a 2nd hand 300mm f2.8 lens or look at an alternative 200-400mm f4?

I do love the look of the shots with the higher f-stop with blurred backgrounds, but I am wondering if those that have this lens always shoot at f2.8 for sports or only go to that when the conditions need it?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback,

Lee
 
ShropshireLad said:
The sweet spot (for shaprness) on these will be around :-

f2.8 lens sweet spot around f5.6
f4 lens sweet spot around f8.
so the f2.8 would be my choice.
Click to expand...


I ahve a 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 both canon L lens and both tack sharp at 2.8
 
KIPAX said:
I ahve a 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 both canon L lens and both tack sharp at 2.8
Click to expand...
Agree that the L series of canon lenses are superb, but the op hasen't stated what camera or lens models they are looking at , so my reply was for a rile of thumb on average lens qualities.
 
Last edited:
Canon 300/2.8.. certainly very useable @ f/2.8 and I do unless there's specific reason not to.
Wide aperture is also helpful for low light / evening games, to benefit both AF functionality and viewfinder detail.

I can't imagine it being much different for any other mainstream brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
Short answer, almost always yes. I have several of the canon super tele primes and they are all excellent wide open. I don’t have the 200-400 f4 which does look like a great option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
Thanks for the feedback all, it's as I thought. I shoot with a Nikon, and I have found a Sigma 300mm lens f/2.8 which I can afford on MPB. Its an older lens but fingers crossed it will work for me. The Nikon 200-400 f4 is a newer lens and I would love the range, but it wouldn't give me the higher f-stop, hence the question as to how much you guys use f/2.8.
 
lee said:
Thanks for the feedback all, it's as I thought. I shoot with a Nikon, and I have found a Sigma 300mm lens f/2.8 which I can afford on MPB. Its an older lens but fingers crossed it will work for me. The Nikon 200-400 f4 is a newer lens and I would love the range, but it wouldn't give me the higher f-stop, hence the question as to how much you guys use f/2.8.
Click to expand...
the 200-400 gives you a lot more flexibility especially if you have one camera body. I've not gone for it as I have a couple of camera bodies so can have different focal lengths on each one. If I was starting out specifically for sports with one camera body, I'd probably go for the 200-400. I'd be interested in others' views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
TimHughes said:
the 200-400 gives you a lot more flexibility especially if you have one camera body. I've not gone for it as I have a couple of camera bodies so can have different focal lengths on each one. If I was starting out specifically for sports with one camera body, I'd probably go for the 200-400. I'd be interested in others' views.
Click to expand...
PS for a subject 30m away, the depth of field of 400 f4 is 1.33m and less than 300 f2.8 of 1.68, focal length has a big impact, not just the aperture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
Below is the resolution sharpness graph for the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 ... this show the sweet spot at f5.6 as I mentioned above.
The red dots are the results for 300mm
The blue dots are showing with a 1.4x teleconverter.
.
 

Attachments

  • 2986_roz_centr_a.jpg
    2986_roz_centr_a.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 6
TimHughes said:
PS for a subject 30m away, the depth of field of 400 f4 is 1.33m and less than 300 f2.8 of 1.68, focal length has a big impact, not just the aperture.
Click to expand...
So based on this, and the information ShropshireLad shared, I am likely to get better results from Nikon 200-400 f/4 than the Sigma 300mmm f/2.8, but if money wasn't an object then a Nikon 300mm prime would be better.
 
A good prime should deliver very sharp results wide open, and possibly slightly better still when stopped down a bit. Don't get hung up on charts.

On a gloomy late afternoon, early evening, f/2.8 will come into its own at helping get the shutter speed you want at a sensible ISO.
 
In some ways, it's an easy decision - either will produce great results. In some ways, a hard decision as one option might be slightly better for your needs.

I like to plan, so for sports events I'll look at the layout of location, pick a shooting spot, look at the distance to where the peak action is likely to take place and work out which primes to take that will get frame-filling action. Which focal length is best will vary based on the field size and how close you are to the playing area. This field of view calculator helps. Put in the distance, focal length, and camera sensor size to check what will be in the frame at those distances. Of course you can crop when the action is further away, but when it get's closer you'll end up with close-up shots. Hopefully, this will help you check if 300mm is best, or you really need the range of 200-400 especially with only one camera body.

@andrewc raises a good point about dull conditions and low light. This is more of an issue for your camera body. How well does it perform at higher ISOs? If not well, this points to the 300 noting the limitations on where you will get good shots. If good, it makes the 200-400 very feasible opening the possibilities for good shots in a much greater area of the field.

Hope this helps!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
Thanks again for the advice, I really appreciate it.
 
The Sigma 300/2.8 is an utter dog.

If you go down the Sigma route, you'll be far better off with a 120-300/2.8, preferably the latest Sport version.

If you can afford the Nikon 200-400 (presumably version I), then you can afford a Nikon 300/2.8 - just an older version.

I'd also consider the newest 300/4, an absolutely brilliant lens which should also be in budget.
 
DemiLion said:
If you go down the Sigma route, you'll be far better off with a 120-300/2.8, preferably the latest Sport version.
Click to expand...


If you only have the one camera body in use then the sigma 120-300 f2.8 is your best bet out of everyhting mentioned IMHO because of its versatality and still giving 2.8 throughout the focul range.. .. I have used the older one many years ago and it was great ..just cold to handle in winter :)
 
I shoot a 400mm F2.8 and a 300mm F2.8 before that. I also had a 120-300 as my first big tele. I pretty much shoot and shot them all wide open. They may be a smidge sharper stopped down but separation is more imo and if you have to use higher iso due to stopping down you may lose detail anyway. My mate has the Canon 200-400 and it is a cracking lens, he also has a 400mm f2.8. The zoom doesn't get much use since he bought the prime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lee
I've used the Sigma 120-300 for hockey for about 8 years and absolutely recommend it. When I bought it, I found I'd get about 75% more usable shots than with my old fixed 300 thanks to the zoom range. It's particularly a thought if you're shooting hockey, where top-half-of-player shots aren't usually much use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
DemiLion said:
The Sigma 300/2.8 is an utter dog.

If you go down the Sigma route, you'll be far better off with a 120-300/2.8, preferably the latest Sport version.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the great advice and to those that concurred with you. The second hand Sigma 300/2.8 I had seen was sold by the time I had plucked up the courage to buy it, so I it looks like it has done me a favour. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 sounds perfect for my current needs, especially after yesterday's light at the game, I would have loved to have had the option to go to f2.8, which I guess answers my original question.

I now just have the task of finding the lens.

Thank you.
 
duncolm said:
I've used the Sigma 120-300 for hockey for about 8 years and absolutely recommend it. When I bought it, I found I'd get about 75% more usable shots than with my old fixed 300 thanks to the zoom range. It's particularly a thought if you're shooting hockey, where top-half-of-player shots aren't usually much use.
Click to expand...
Thanks Duncan, I have actually been reading your past posts and advice on shooting hockey, which has been a great help. I took up some different pitch positions last week and I have been focusing more on the keeper trying to anticipate the save, especially at the short corners rather than the out field players shooting.

So thank you for the above and previous advice.
 
f2.8 300mm or 400mm prime lenses can't be beaten, I sometimes stop down my f2.8 400mm prime when shooting sports to f3.5 just for some more depth of field and still being able to blow out the background. Pic shot with Canon 1dx mark II, Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II @ 1/1000 sec. f/3.5
 

Attachments

  • 1dx113.jpg
    1dx113.jpg
    140.4 KB · Views: 17
lee said:
Thank you for the great advice and to those that concurred with you. The second hand Sigma 300/2.8 I had seen was sold by the time I had plucked up the courage to buy it, so I it looks like it has done me a favour. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 sounds perfect for my current needs, especially after yesterday's light at the game, I would have loved to have had the option to go to f2.8, which I guess answers my original question.

I now just have the task of finding the lens.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I use the Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens on my D5. It's a great lens for low-light as I shoot a lot of non-league footy.

I bought it from MPB a couple of years ago but the AF motor has just failed (which I'm not too happy about). I've had to revert to my 70-200 2.8 whilst it's being repaired and it's very noticeable that the AF on the 120-300 is a lot quicker than the 70-200.

Definitely worth picking one up if you can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lee
TimHughes said:
Reason being distance to the action? or something else?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with Mark. Would only take a 400 if the lights were god awful.

I find with rugby as they run towards you, you can shoot full body and the move upwards to the upper half of the body as they get closer as the ball should still be in the frame. You have time once they get too close to still swap down to the 70-200 for a try in front of you.

Compare that to soccer, where the ball is on the deck (most of the time) therefore you can't really shoot upper body (unless it a throw in say, or you're ballsy on a corner!)

Those would be my reasons behind a 500 over a 400 for rugby.

I would also use a 500 for the GAA sports here in Ireland, for similar reasons above, and the fact the pitches are almost twice the size of a soccer pitch. I have in the past sat in close to the goals and shot on a 600 for the midfield action and 70-200 for in and around the goal.
 
Seba said:
I'd agree with Mark. Would only take a 400 if the lights were god awful.

I find with rugby as they run towards you, you can shoot full body and the move upwards to the upper half of the body as they get closer as the ball should still be in the frame. You have time once they get too close to still swap down to the 70-200 for a try in front of you.

Compare that to soccer, where the ball is on the deck (most of the time) therefore you can't really shoot upper body (unless it a throw in say, or you're ballsy on a corner!)

Those would be my reasons behind a 500 over a 400 for rugby.

I would also use a 500 for the GAA sports here in Ireland, for similar reasons above, and the fact the pitches are almost twice the size of a soccer pitch. I have in the past sat in close to the goals and shot on a 600 for the midfield action and 70-200 for in and around the goal.
Click to expand...
Thanks @Seba makes a lot of sense.
 
wezza13 said:
I use the Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens on my D5. It's a great lens for low-light as I shoot a lot of non-league footy.

I bought it from MPB a couple of years ago but the AF motor has just failed (which I'm not too happy about). I've had to revert to my 70-200 2.8 whilst it's being repaired and it's very noticeable that the AF on the 120-300 is a lot quicker than the 70-200.

Definitely worth picking one up if you can.
Click to expand...
I'm looking for one without much joy at the moment. I've seen one on MPB with the same fault as yours, do you mind sharing how much the repair is? Though not sure if buying a faulty lens is a good idea.
 
Well today I took delivery of a sigma 120-300 f/2.8 sport and boy is it big, I am strangely nervous about shooting with it.
 
Yes, a monopod seems like a good shout. I really hadn't anticipated it being this big
 
wezza13 said:
Not at all. It comes to just over £280 for the AF motor and a service (y)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I received a phone call from the repair company today and they said that Sigma can’t supply the part for the lens as it has been discontinued. That’s a pain.

Anyone recommend a repair company that may be able to help?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: lee
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top