Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
questiona bout telephoto
- Thread starter b0tt094
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
b0tt094 said:
All lenses can focus to the same maximum distance. So there is no need to state it in the specs. That distance is of cource "infinity". There is little need to focus past infinity.
If you want to know if the lens will be good for sports in low light look at the "maximum f-stop". Note that f-stops are scored like golf, low number wins. so f/2.8 is larger than f/4 which is larger than f/5.6 (f-stop is simply the ratio of lenght over diameter so a larger lets in more light. but cost more to make)
The term f/2.8 means the diameter is "f", the focal lenght divided by 2.8, if you buy an f/5.6 lens than the diameter is "f" over 5.6. for a 200mm telephoto lens the diametrs would be 71mm or 36mm. What determins how much light gets in is not the diameter but the square area. so a 2.8 lens lets in four times the light that an 5.6 lens lets in. this alows use of a 4x faster shutter speed or shooting in 4x dimmer light
Given a choise in the matter you want a lens that is f/2.8 and at least 200mm long. The 80-200 f/2.8 would be ideal as woud the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens if you have more budget. If these are to expensive concider buying a used 80-200 f/2.8 or even a lens like that made by a third party or a used 3rd party lens. Prices range from about $600 to $1,700 There is no subsitute for aperture or lenght. About the only genre of photography more expensive than low light sports is wildlife photography.
I would strongly suggest reading some basic photography texts befor spending large four digit figures on gear.
lol i was just about to ask that exact question how do i tell if a lense is a good sports lense... and thanks (i just had to pick the most expensive type of shooting for my first dslr camera 
)
How about if i get a f/4 camera and pump up the iso becauses these shots right now are really just for the team and trust me non of thme really care too much if it's grainy they care more about the action and subject of the pic. Its a soccor team by the way if u didnt see my old thread
)How about if i get a f/4 camera and pump up the iso becauses these shots right now are really just for the team and trust me non of thme really care too much if it's grainy they care more about the action and subject of the pic. Its a soccor team by the way if u didnt see my old thread
I kno and i'd love to get one of those really nice one but what the hell I might as well get a good universal one too sooo i'll start with that and mybe if im dedicated enough ill move up, I quit photography once, that was before i figured out how to use the fun featers on cameras. Like apeature filters iso shutter speed... etc
b0tt094 said:I kno and i'd love to get one of those really nice one but what the hell I might as well get a good universal one too sooo i'll start with that and mybe if im dedicated enough ill move up, I quit photography once, that was before i figured out how to use the fun featers on cameras. Like apeature filters iso shutter speed... etc
What camera do you have? And what lens do you have with it?
I would say that if you don't have the money to buy a lens right at the moment, you should stick with the lens you already have and practice composition. A good picture doesn't start with the equipment you use. Try taking better pictures by concentrating on what you're taking, from what position, at what time.
b0tt094 said:
You may wish to consider focusing a bit more on English
(It's soccer.) If the games are well-lit, you may want to consider a used 300mm f/4 EDIF if you're going Nikon, it's a very sharp lens and available pretty inexpensively on the used market (ok, it's not cheap, but it's one of the best value high-end Nikkors ever.)
b0tt094 said:i dont like to rent stuff, ocd thingy
futbol (foot-ball) you get it
So you buy that lens that you could have rent. You break it. You're out thousands of dollars. How is it any different?
b0tt094 said:hey im not buying a thousand dollar lens .... im buying a like 200 dollar lense and dont jinx me
But the problem is that the lens you are looking at is not good for your intneded purpose. The lenses that are good for shooting sports cost thousands to buy while I can rent one for around $30.
b0tt094 said:no but really i wnt a lense that is versitile for off season too... i dont want to lug around a 5 pound lense everywhere.
Then you're going to be in for a huge dose of reality. See, it's all about physics- the less light there is, the faster the lens you'll need. The more speed there is, the higher the shutter speed you'll need. The faster the shutter speed, the less light that hits the sensor, the faster the lens you'll need to make the shot. Fast lenses have larger elements, larger elements are heavier.
That leaves you with 2 choices:
1. Carry around a heavy, expensive lens.
2. Don't get great shots.
Personally, I tend to lug a 10lb lens around everywhere, along with about 10lbs of support- but then I get the images I want.
beavo451 said:
If you look at used glass, it's not quite as bad as it may otherwise be, if you can get away with f/4, then ~$500 for a used 300mm EDIF:
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx
I've seen used 300/2.8's for ~$1700, though not recently.
3rd party 300/2.8's start in the $800 range used but in good condition, probably good enough for most kid's sports.
Then you're looking for something that simply doesn't exist. For sports photography, you want something that has reach, and speed. Those two together mean you're looking at big and heavy lenses; there's no way around it. If you're going to be close to the action, you might be able to get away without the reach, but speed is almost a must have, especially if the sport is inside, or the sun isn't out. Rain? Heavily overcast? You want f/2.8 or faster, no two ways about it. You can crank up the iso to an extent if image quality isn't a concern, but that has its limits too; you'd only gain one, two at most, stop(s) before noise becomes unworkable.b0tt094 said:no but really i wnt a lense that is versitile for off season too... i dont want to lug around a 5 pound lense everywhere.
For a "versatile" off season lens, you'll probably want a reasonable zoom lens. If you want to use that for sports, you're talking a lens that weighs at least a kilogram, possibly more (my 100-400mm - which I would not class as a good sports lens - weighs 1300 grams, IIRC.)
Such a lens is fine if you're planning on doing telephoto work in the off season, but if you want to use it for "standard" work (relatively close up), you have two options: (1) get two lenses - one for the off season, one for sports, or (2) get an "all rounder" lens - eg, Canon's 28-300mm L series lens, which costs $AU4000 or so, and weighs 1670 grams (according to Canon Australia). That second option means you're compromising on speed - the 28-300 is f/3.5-5.6, and not all that great for low light sports work.
Can you buy cheap telephotos? Yes. Will they be any good? Not really. You'll find that they're slow (f/5.6, most likely), and the optical quality will be poor (I still shudder when I look at a shot I took with the $AU300 Canon 75-300mm - very soft focus, and lots of purple fringing. I sold it shortly after looking at that shot.) As with everything in this world, you get what you pay for. By all means get a cheap or slow (or both) lens if that's what you feel you want - just don't expect to get high quality images from it.
You're really jumping in the deep end here; with your budget, you probably need to accept that you're either renting the good quality gear, or buying cheap equipment that will depreciate like crazy and won't do what you want as well as you might like. There's a reason why Canon's L series glass holds its value so well ...
(I'm talking Canon here because that's what I own and know. Nikon has equivalent glass that's pretty much just as expensive ...)