and the site receives a small commission
Sports photographer first lens
- Thread starter Earndeng
- Start date
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,980
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
A 70-200mm f2.8 of some description is certainly the focal length you want to get if you are just starting out in sports photography. It's versatile enough that you can take a variety of different shots at most sports. Almost everyone shooting pro sports is going to have one and use it regularly. The plus side is that even if you find you don't want to do sports the 70-200mm focal length range will offer plenty of opportunities in other types of photography as well.
- Messages
- 8,003
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
nothing wrong with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens I had one for a long time before I got the nikon version. if it is for sport then OS (sigma) or VR (nikon) image stablisation I found isn't that necessary and lenses without it will be a lot cheaper. You don't say what your budget is, so presume you are after something not that expensive to start with.
Sigma new= £769 with OS
Nikon new = (£1,600 with VR
Nikon do an f4 version new for £989
To really keep the cost down
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SIGMA-70-...984507?hash=item4669196c3b:g:QJkAAOSwq9lZhGH-
Last edited:
- Messages
- 50
- Name
- Carrick
- Edit My Images
- No
Depending on your budget, I grabbed the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 instead of an f/2.8 due to the weight.
Don't know about the Sigma, but I found the Nikon f/2.8 versions a nightmare to handhold for long periods. I went for the f/4 version to make handholding easier and less weight in my pack when I'm hiking or biking with my gear.
Don't know about the Sigma, but I found the Nikon f/2.8 versions a nightmare to handhold for long periods. I went for the f/4 version to make handholding easier and less weight in my pack when I'm hiking or biking with my gear.
- Messages
- 8,003
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
agree the Nikon f2.8 version is best with say a monopod for support, as your camera has a C sensor don't forget it won't actually be 70-200 as you have to add in the crop factor of someting like x1.5 tmes.
Just weighed my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 version11 and it comes in at just under 4lb
Just weighed my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 version11 and it comes in at just under 4lb
Last edited:
- Messages
- 694
- Name
- Seba
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was soccer in England for years, before then becoming 'football'. It's just a shortening of Association Football.
Rugby is Rugby Football. Then there's Gaelic Football, American Football, Australian Rules Football. They are just different codes or types of football.
- Messages
- 5,813
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm getting rid of my 70-200 F4 after using the 2.8 yesterday. Online reviews have the 4 as good as the 2.8 if not wanting 2.8 but I found that not to be the case. The 2.8 was just better in every way. But that's why it's so much more money!
70mm on crop did feela bit long at times though but the extra reach of crop was nice.
70mm on crop did feela bit long at times though but the extra reach of crop was nice.
GTG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,660
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I must still be young, never heard the words soccer or rugby football or association football leave somebody`s lips in the UK in my life.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,980
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry but definitely don't go for the f4 for sports.... you will struggle in winter months shooting football and really struggle under floodlights.. indoors same problem...
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,980
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
GTG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,660
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can imagine someone really really really posh saying association football.. otherwise nagh.. its football and rugby no matter what they used in the olden days.... how old are you seba ?: )
Early 80`s, still very very old when you walk into a bar full of underage kids looking at you like your 90
- Messages
- 561
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Sigma is currently the least favourite 70-200mm ƒ2.8 out of Tamron, Nikon and Sigma. There's no science to it but it doesn't seem to fare well against the other two. Saying that, a fair few people that do have the Sigma and have no complaints. I think once they switch to Tamron or Nikon, they realise the difference then.
I've had the Tamron 70-200 G2 and the Nikon 70-200 VRii (I also tried the G1 Tamron and it only took 20 minutes for me to realise I had to sell the Nikon). The Tamron beats the Nikon in my experience and I actually sold my VRii to buy the Tamron G1 as it was way sharper than my Nikon. By the time I sold the VRii, Tamron had discontinued the G1 and replaced it with the G2. I would have been very happy with the G1 (bar its looks, but that's very shallow of me!!) The G1 is an excellent lens and great value for money used.
I've had the Tamron 70-200 G2 and the Nikon 70-200 VRii (I also tried the G1 Tamron and it only took 20 minutes for me to realise I had to sell the Nikon). The Tamron beats the Nikon in my experience and I actually sold my VRii to buy the Tamron G1 as it was way sharper than my Nikon. By the time I sold the VRii, Tamron had discontinued the G1 and replaced it with the G2. I would have been very happy with the G1 (bar its looks, but that's very shallow of me!!) The G1 is an excellent lens and great value for money used.
- Messages
- 3,356
- Name
- Wez
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's very handy to know with regard to the Tamron G1 compared to the Nikon VRii.
I currently have the Tammy G1 and, until recently, had it paired with my D500. Shooting under floodlights at 6400-12800 iso, I thought that maybe the Nikon would look better.
However, since selling my D500 and putting the lens on my D3S, it seems like a new lens! It really is lovely and sharp and made me realise how good it really is! Not fussed at all about the Nikon VRii now