Jump to content

Sports Photographer - Lens Recommendation

roadtripns
 Share

Recommended Posts

roadtripns Newbie

roadtripns

Posted
Posted

I recently made a jump from Canon to Sony, going from the 7D MkII to the Sony A7III. 

I'm not in a rush to get a new lens due to COVID-19 stopping my sports opportunities, but I would like to find something to replace the range of my Canon 70-200 F4 IS. 

I see Sony has a comparable lens with OSS. Budget isn't super important, but I do value weight savings. Plus need to factor in that many used lenses aren't selling, so tough to offload my Canon gear in this climate. 

Would you recommend the new Tamron 70-180 F2.8, the Sony 70-200 F4 or perhaps a Metabones adapter and keep my Canon 70-200 F4 IS? 

I will note that I shoot in low-light (horse racing). And I have tried the Sigma Canon-to-Sony adapter without any luck (it worked great for 50% of the shots and locked up my camera for the rest).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pieter Mentor

Pieter

Posted
Posted

I think the Tamron is a great option for your case. From what reviews I read / watched, it is optically better than the Sony 70-200 F/4 and weight/size is quite similar. I don't think you'll miss lens stabilisation much:

 - The Sony camera has IBIS

 - The Tamron is a stop faster than the F/4 lenses, allowing faster shutter speeds

 - For sports photography, you'll likely be using shutter speeds high enough to not suffer from camera shake at 200mm focal length anyway

A Metabones-adapter is quite an investment as well and likely won't give you native AF accuracy. IMO better invest it in an E-mount lens straght away and hold on to your Canon lens until market improves.

Regards, Pieter

Link to post
Share on other sites
roadtripns Newbie

roadtripns

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Pieter. That's very wise advice. Thank you so much. 

That new Tamron lens is really interesting and I don't think missing the last 20mm is a big deal. At the very least, the weight savings is going to be a bigger difference. 

Really appreciate the insight! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • felipe
      Sony 16 mm f/1.8 G: Vea las primeras fotos tomadas

      By felipe · Posted

      Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...