When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i will say ive used the older 70-300mm f4-5.6mm IS USM with a crop sensor 40D to shoot college soccer for my schools paper.
Even with shooting behind the goal post, the reach was just barely acceptable. You'll probably end up having to crop a lot if you're shooting from the stands.
As long as they are day games. You will find times that you're shooting ISO 3200 or more, just to keep shutter speed up. Handheld and fast moving kids. You're going to want at least 1/1000th shutter.
If you can afford it, the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary would be a better choice. IMO.
this is just for everyday use... if I wanted something exotic, I can borrow it from the in-laws. They have a full kit and this is already more than I'd usually spend on something for myself.
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
As long as they are day games. You will find times that you're shooting ISO 3200 or more, just to keep shutter speed up. Handheld and fast moving kids. You're going to want at least 1/1000th shutter.
They don't move too fast yet.
Here's the soccer player:
Then you'll be fine with the 70-300mm, the version 2 is improved over the version 1 I had
main thing is the front element doesn't rotate anymore which is good for a circular polarizer.
and they switched to nano USM (used both ring USM and STM AF) versus micro USM, so the AF should be faster.
I shoot sports photography with a 7D mkII with 70-200mm F2.8 AF w/ stabilization. I find with the crop factor of 1.6x its acceptable for football and soccer. Just have to be on the edges of the field.
Has anyone tried, or own for that matter, the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8(with or without AF)? Heading to Utah and Arizona for our summer trip in a few weeks and the wife has approved the new lens PO. Wondering if I should either drop the $650 on the 14mm f/2.8 AF or pony up ~$900 for the Zeiss 16-35 f/4. Going to be heading to Zion NP, Antelope Canyon, Grand Canyon, etc... The faster speed of the 14mm is appealing to me for astro stuff but the better range and usefulness of the 16-35 is hard to argue with.
although the 14mm would be beneficial if you want foreground and don't want to deal with layers in PS.
mainly a single exposure.
No, it won't be exclusively for astro. I don't like to buy lenses with just one purpose out of principle since I don't do this for a living. I primarily shoot landscape stuff and have been itching to go wider and the current widest one I have is 28mm f/2.
That tracker looks awesome, I'd definitely drop $300 on one of those. So based on that, I should go for the 16-35 which is not only more expensive, but also will require a tracker. Gotta love photo equipment...
i picked up the canon 17-40mm last year, and it's actually my most used lens now.
Yup, I think I'm going to just get the 16-35. It's been on my list for a while. Unfortunately Sony doesn't have a 17-40 equivalent and I don't really know if I want to go the adapter route at this point.
That tracker looks awesome, I'd definitely drop $300 on one of those. So based on that, I should go for the 16-35 which is not only more expensive, but also will require a tracker. Gotta love photo equipment...
Dude, just sell a few of those gorgeous high-end wood cutting boards of yours and you'll be all set!
Yup, I think I'm going to just get the 16-35. It's been on my list for a while. Unfortunately Sony doesn't have a 17-40 equivalent and I don't really know if I want to go the adapter route at this point.
ohh I wasn't saying to get a 17-40mm. Just that it's my most used lens since it's wider angle than my 24-70mm.
also the canon 17-40mm is old as hell. Their newer 16-35 f4 IS is much better but also like double the cost.
im cheap so I went with the 17-40.
get the Sony 16-35 f4 if you want to stay native e-mount.
ohh I wasn't saying to get a 17-40mm. Just that it's my most used lens since it's wider angle than my 24-70mm.
also the canon 17-40mm is old as hell. Their newer 16-35 f4 IS is much better but also like double the cost.
im cheap so I went with the 17-40.
get the Sony 16-35 f4 if you want to stay native e-mount.
Don't get me wrong, I did think about going the adapted route but it wouldn't really save me anything in terms of money and the Zeiss lens is sharp AF. I think I'm going to do that...just have to sell the extra cost to the wife.
While I’m in the midst of collecting my NIKKOR set for as of yet pre-determined purpose...I picked up a cheap adapter to play with the lenses on my Fuji.
Fuck me. There is SO much more character coming through the images. It almost makes me want to pick up an extra prime or two just to keep for the fuji.
While I’m in the midst of collecting my NIKKOR set for as of yet pre-determined purpose...I picked up a cheap adapter to play with the lenses on my Fuji.
Fuck me. There is SO much more character coming through the images. It almost makes me want to pick up an extra prime or two just to keep for the fuji.
In reality...any lens vs lens...99% of the time a prime is always better. Physics and optics. I stand by that even though I switched to zooms for my fuji because I don't want to deal with changing lenses all the time. But I've always said I'll eventually pick up a prime or two.
I'm more talking about the vintage glass on newer sensors.
Started out with a great morning met up and bought a nikkor 50/1.2 in gorgeous shape at a steal of a price. Got home, someone messaged me they had the last two lenses I was looking for...he wouldn't haggle much and wouldn't compromise on a meeting place making me drive all way to him (an hour each way) I get there...with the cash. One lens has a small scratch on the front element that he pretended he couldn't see...the other lens had oil on the aperture blades. Still wouldn't budge on any prices...he is asking top dollar price for these lenses in mint condition, mind you. Took all I had to just get up and ONLY say "what waste of time" and leave...I was ready to rip him a new one.
I wasn’t going to get this one but i stumbled upon it. It broke the budget but it’s basiclaly brand new and hardly used.
The seller was this lovely older gentleman and his wife who both have a passion for photography. They met me half way from San Diego where they live and we just chatted and nerded out about photography for an hour.
Best CL transaction I’ve ever had.
And tell me this lens lens doesn’t give you a boner.
I'm thinking of getting back into photography for the first time in geez, over three decades (my last SLR was an old early 1980s Minolta 35mm body with a smattering of lenses). After shopping about a bit, I'm thinking to buy a new Nikon D7500, initially with two lenses, 35mm and a 18-140mm. Given I don't know squat about the new DSLRs, and given how many years it's been since I flipped a shutter, I'm considering myself a beginner. The uses of the camera will be two-fold, 1) as a general carry around camera and 2) to put on a stand and photograph my wife's artwork and illustrations.
I've had my Tamron 10-24 for a few years but I've grown to dislike it for some soft images I've gotten and I really hate the autofocus motor that's loud, slow, and a lot of times doesn't even lock on. Almost ordered the Nikkor 10-20 AF-P before Christmas (would work on my D5300), but that spending went elsewhere. Started to look on B&H again and found the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8, but now I'm just about set on the Tokina 14-20 f/2. Saw it mentioned on here a few years ago, but not really any discussion of it. Not even that many reviews on the listing, but what I've read/watched on it was pretty positive.
05-04-2017, 12:50 PM
