I think I’m going to lean into the FF E-mount world, which means giving up my D5300 + Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (115 - 450 FF equivalent). Before kids, I used this lens for motorsports/landscape/travel. Post kids we don’t do a ton of that, so I’ve been getting along well with a pair of 35mm and 50mm primes.
My kids are pretty young and are starting to play outdoor sports like T-ball and soccer. This has brought my D5300 + 70-300 out of retirement. I’m missing the conviences of my A9, so I’m trying to figure out what lens I should get for sports duty. At this point, everything is outdoors during the middle of the day so there’s no need for a fast lens. It was pretty drizzly last weekend and my current (slow lens) setup still kept ISO below 1k most of the day with a 1/640 shutter. I figure I can comfortably double ISO and halve my shutter speed on the A9 while still getting a lower noise image than I have today, so I don’t think I need fast glass.
Looking through EXIF data from the previous few games on the D5300 + 70-300 it looks like I use the full range of focal lengths, but the vast majority of shots are under 400mm FF EQ and above 150mm FF EQ. I’m a little wary of wanting more reach in a few years when the kids are on bigger fields, but they’ll also be bigger so maybe it will wash out. Who knows if they’ll still be interested in playing either.
So what do you think?
- Third part lens that stops at 400? This means no teleconvertor in the future, but this seems like it would work well for today
- First party 100-400? Adding a 1.4 teleconvertor makes this a 140-560, but it also makes the f-stop at the long end f/8 which might not be great for sports
- 500mm? Tamron’s 150-500 seems decent and doesn’t call too much attention to itself, but it is heavier
- 600mm? These lenses are all fairly bit/shouty visually, but are potentially more future proof…
I assume you know this, but I believe the d5300 has a crop sensor of 1.5. So if you shoot at say 300 regularly with that you would need to shoot 450 with an a9 to get the same FOV/zoom.
I have the Sigma 100-400 DX for my a6400 so I’m getting an equivalent FOV of 600mm. The lens is still rock solid with image stabilization, even fully hand-held. The auto focus motors are lickety-fast. It’s ~$900, and I’m thrilled with it.
It sound like you really liked the a9, which is cool, get a body you like and are comfortable with, but you may still get more use from an APS-C than a full frame for less money. You said everything is outdoor day, and now the upscaling in PS, or Capture One, etc are so good prints from the smaller sensor don’t have to suffer.
Well, that’s two of my particular cents, but I also would be curious what others would have to say.
Thanks for the reply. Yup, I’m aware of the crop factor - that’s why I tried to pivot to FF EQ in my post. I started E-mount with an A7III and generally like the camera. But man, was it’s mechanical shutter loud in the museums and what not we usually go to with the kids. Its electronic shutter is also super slow. Used A9s are pretty cheap for what they are, so it was a no brainer to switch. A9 AF tracking and the blackout free shutter are also nice perks. If only Sony’s FF mechanical shutters were as quiet as Nikon’s on the z-mount…
Based on EXIF data I’m pretty confident I’ll be fine with a FF EQ focal length of 400mm, I just wonder how future proof it will be. Do you use your a6400 w/ 200-600 FF equivalent for sports?
Yeah, I hope I didn’t come off as like I was talking down, I was trying to keep the numbers and concerns in my head, and I see your first paragraph makes it clear you already understand all that.
I have used it for sports, not as a pro, and not often, I thought it did an admirable job. I mostly use it for birds, but it really handles fast panning well in my opinion, which think translates reasonably from birds to sports.
Now one thing I’m not necessarily trying for is the blurred background panning to give a sense of speed and motion. At least I’m not making that priority, so can’t speak to that kind of performance. But I think it should be as easily doable as most of the lenses you mentioned.
You’re totally good. It never hurts to over communicate. If anything I was somewhat worried that I might have under communicated, lol.
When you used it for sports, what did you think? Did you find yourself wanting to use the entire zoom range, or did you not need to go all the way? I’m certainly not a pro, just a parent who enjoys taking photos.
Sigma 60-600. The one lens to rule them all.
That thing is big and heavy, lol. I’m currently rocking Tamron’s 50-400. I could see maybe switching to Sony’s 200-600. The Sigma is more than twice the weight of the 50-400. Sony’s 200-600 is 500 grams lighter and I don’t think the extra weight is worth the wide end that I’ll only occasionally use with this kind of mass/reach.
I did try out Tamron’s 150-500 and didn’t think the extra 500 grams (roughly 50% heavier) was worth it for only 25% more reach.
I was only slightly kidding about that sigma haha. I have the Sony 200-600 and it is a great lens. Not one you’d regret, though it is bulky and attention grabbing, so maybe not exactly what you’re looking for either. There is also the sigma 500mm prime for e mount which is pretty small and light.
I could see the sigma being a great lens for the right person. 600mm does sound nice, but I suspect 60mm brought some weight penalties with it.
The one time I needed a wide lens at a soccer game I was competing with a wall of parents with cellphones for end of season team photos. I had a 70-300 on an APS-C body and there was no way I could get a wide enough shot without backing up behind the wall of fellow parents. 60mm on a FF body would be better than that, but most phones seem to be 24mm-35mm FFEQ so it probably still wouldn’t have worked out. For this kind of reach I’m OK trading a loss at the wide end for size/weight since 99% of the photos I’ll be taking will be of things far away.
How do you like your 200-600? Do you hand hold it often or do you use a mono (or tri) pod? The 50-400 I’m using now is about 300 grams heavier than the 70-300 I was shooting with previously and I’m somewhat feeling the weight. The 200-600 is full kilo heavier than the 50-400. I think I would probably adjust, but it seems like a lot of lens to being to a youth sports event. For now, 400mm is serving me pretty well but it’s likely I’ll want more ready when the kids are on bigger fields.
I can’t say much about kids on a field, but I bought the Tamron 150 - 500mm to go with my a6000 for wildlife, getting approximately 225 - 750 FF equivalent.
It’s a decent lens, and the reach is great. As you say though, it’s quite heavy. I don’t find it too bad while I’m out and about, as I don’t tend to be standing in one place for long periods holding it, but it’s quite awkward when I’m moving from place to place. It’s heavy to carry, especially at the end of the day, and I wouldn’t like to hand hold it for the length of a match / game. It’s quite difficult to swap lenses compared to the kit lens and the 55 - 210mm too, due to the size and weight.
If you’re likely to be in a seat, or somewhere where you can use a tripod, and have something to lean on if you change the lens, then the two biggest problems are gone immediately.
I don’t want to put you off it though, it is a good lens. Apart from anything else, I feel like a ‘proper’ photographer when I’ve got it on a tripod :D
I’m still getting used to the weight, but I’ve got some great photos out of it recently, as well as some wobbly ones :)
Thanks for the reply! I weighed my 70-300 and it’s around 830 grams, making the Tamron 150-500 about a kilo heavier. I hope to be handholding and am reasonably young/fit, but I also know the weight could get annoying. A tripod at a T-ball game seems a little weird, which is pushing me toward more compact options. Maybe I should rent the Tamron for a weekend.
I’ve hand held and walked around with the 70-300 at a number of 8+ hour race weekends.
It seems like anything beyond 400mm is going to be in this weight class, so the question comes down to whether the extra 100mm (or 200mm for say the 200-600) is really necessary.
I’ve got the Pentax version of the 70 - 300, and, yeah, it’s a world of difference.
Like you say, renting might be a good idea, maybe with a monopod. They’re a bit more subtle, and won’t stand out as much as a tripod.
I crawled through through the EXIF data of the 230 photos I’ve taken so far across one soccer game and two t-ball games. Here’s the spread of FF EQ focal length:
- I’ve taken 11 (~5%) photos that have a FF EQ focal length of > 400mm. In looking at them, they’re not photos that I’m likely to try to take again. A number of them were taken from behind the chain link backstop at home plate of my kiddo in the outfield and the shots weren’t compelling, had the fence in frame (but significantly out of focus obviously), etc
- I’ve taken 16 (~7%) photos that had a FF EQ focal length of < 150mm. These sub-divide into 50% soccer game pics with the action somewhat close to where I was and 50% of photos of the kid that wasn’t playing being goofy on the sidelines. For the soccer action, it looks like I could have been a little tighter than I was for most of the shots and for the kiddo on the sidelines I could have probably backed up more
In terms of already-taken EXIF data, it seems like a toss up between a 50-400/100-400 and the 150-500.
I stopped by my local camera store today to feel Tamron’s 50-400 and 150-500 on camera / in hand. I walked out with the 50-400. It was hard to argue about 1,155g / 40.7 oz (2.54 pounds) vs 1,725g / 60.8 oz (3.8 pounds). They have a 14 day return policy, so if push comes to shove over the next two weeks I can always swap.