DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> would this lens be good for sports?????
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/28/2008 03:37:14 PM · #1
Just wondering if this lens would be good for sports? Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon.

Message edited by author 2008-09-28 15:37:57.
09/28/2008 03:54:45 PM · #2
Originally posted by Truegsht:

Just wondering if this lens would be good for sports? Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon.

Prolly not for skydiving......8>)

Yes, for most others.
09/28/2008 04:02:35 PM · #3
Will be using for highschool football on sidelines for newspaper, maybe soccer/baseball, etc..
09/28/2008 04:13:36 PM · #4
Linky
09/28/2008 04:44:53 PM · #5
I'm trading off a spare 30D and lens for it.... thought it might be a good swap.
09/28/2008 05:57:50 PM · #6
Just to give you an idea of that lens. I started my canon adventure with it mounted to a 30D. It did serve the purpose of giving me 70-200 range at 2.8, however I have since replaced it with the canon NON-IS version. The difference, is IMHO extreme. In decent light the sigma focus is fast and it has acceptable sharpness. Give it tough light including HS Friday night football and you are going to get hunting and not super sharp focus. Given the chance to start over I'd never have bought the sigma simply because the difference between it and a good used Canon 70-200 is pretty slim when you look at the results compared to the cost.

Matt
09/28/2008 06:51:47 PM · #7
It has to be better than what I've been having to use... this was shot Friday night at local high school football game.

Canon 400D XTI
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II/III USM
f/4.5
1/125 sec.
ISO-1600
190 mm

[thumb]725915[/thumb]
09/28/2008 07:17:47 PM · #8
Originally posted by Truegsht:

It has to be better than what I've been having to use... this was shot Friday night at local high school football game.

Canon 400D XTI
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II/III USM
f/4.5
1/125 sec.
ISO-1600
190 mm

[thumb]725915[/thumb]


Please dont misunderstand what I am saying. Its a decent lens, but given the chance to buy it new, or a used 70-200 which will go for real close to the same price range, I know which way I would go. You may want to spend a little time browsing the Fredmiranda site, or POTN and see if you can squeeze a bit more. You will get decent and certainly better results then shooting at F5.6 on your current lens. I'm just trying to save you a bit of $$$ in the long run if you plan to make $$$ with the lens.

Matt
09/28/2008 07:27:34 PM · #9
I traded a 30D backup for the Sigma at FredMiranda. Lens is still under warranty and was just purchased 05/08. I never use the 30D, so it is usually just sitting in the case, and really out no cash up front which is what I needed at this time.

Message edited by author 2008-09-28 19:28:42.
09/28/2008 07:59:03 PM · #10
Cool, best of luck shooting with it. Do you not use flash for some reason? I noticed that your shot you posted is all natural light.

Matt
09/28/2008 09:36:33 PM · #11
I'm not Truegsht, but I don't use a flash when shooting football at night. I have, I just don't like to.

The teams I shoot are little league, and many are easily distracted (6 - 8 years old for the first game), so I don't like to add that element. Also, and it may be lack of practice, I've just never had great success with the flash. I do have some shots up with it, just not many. It takes a bit more work without it, but the results have been okay.

Link to random image, taken at night, without flash

09/28/2008 09:47:31 PM · #12
Originally posted by karmat:

I'm not Truegsht, but I don't use a flash when shooting football at night. I have, I just don't like to.

The teams I shoot are little league, and many are easily distracted (6 - 8 years old for the first game), so I don't like to add that element. Also, and it may be lack of practice, I've just never had great success with the flash. I do have some shots up with it, just not many. It takes a bit more work without it, but the results have been okay.

Link to random image, taken at night, without flash


You must have either some slow kids or actually have a field with good lighting! I looked through the photos and I dont see a whole lot of motion blur at all. HS football you will get soft or unusable photos at anything slower then 1/500 and I dont know many fields that you could get that on around here without going to ISO 6400 or 12800. Flash doesnt have to be distracting or have that flash look to them. It also doesnt have to have horrid redeye to it.
These are a couple of samples from friday night where I took on a new approach to flash football and really like the results.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725263.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725263.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725262.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725262.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725266.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/45000-49999/45524/120/725266.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Matt

Sorry if we are highjacking Truegsht some day I'll start a thread on what I am working on once I am sure I have it down.
09/28/2008 09:59:52 PM · #13
Granted, the first two teams are "slow" -- they are only 6, 7 or 8 years old. :) They also don't hurt when they run into you on the sideline.

The third team is 9 - 11, so not a lot of speed, relatively speaking.

The fourth team, though, (also the one at night), has the equivalent of middle school or JV high school aged kids.

So, yea, they may be a touch slower than your senior year varsity.

The stadium lights, though, SUCK majorly. There are 5 sets around the field, and they are bad Middle School lights. :( The better pictures come from the 20 yard line where the lights are. :)

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/811/120/726019.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/811/120/726019.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This little guy has skinny legs, but he is probably one of the fastest runners I've ever seen.

All that to say, I now have a 70-200 f/4L, but before that, I shot with a 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 III. The f/4L is infinitely better than the 70-300. Last year I rented a f/2.8, and would recommend that, obviously, but for the money, the f/4L has already paid for itself in two games. :)
09/28/2008 10:21:48 PM · #14
The only better lens would be the Canon 70-200mm 2.8f IS USM lens.

Good hunting.
09/28/2008 11:40:02 PM · #15
I like that everyone is throwing some imput in here...helps me learn more about what I'm doing and the equip. I am using and what the other possible lens are out there.
09/28/2008 11:40:16 PM · #16
wait your selling you 30d and keeping your xti? i would keep the 30d for the 5fps and 3200iso if i were you.
09/28/2008 11:46:46 PM · #17
I like the XTI better than the 30D, I know most everyone will think I'm crazy for that, but it is just what I like...planning to buy a new camera in a few months anyway, and the XTI will just be a backup.
09/28/2008 11:52:02 PM · #18
oh for sure for sure. yeah i had an xti for the better half of a yeah and i went to the length of downgrading the sensor to the 20d but gaining huge advantages in iso and fps. do you have a grip on the lil body? i couldnt stand the small size of the body and how its so easy to accidently change your iso or any other settings cause the controlls are on the back. but i miss the 2.5 lcd for sure :) if you were thinking of getting a new body, i would look at either a used mark II (around $1300 on fredmiranda) or even the newer 50d. but i basically would get the mark II only cause the af is amazing on the 1series and the 8fps cant be recned with when the key play hits.
09/29/2008 12:01:44 AM · #19
hey and put an update on whether you like or love the lens. cause im gonna have to get a 70-200 in the short term and would love to get another review. thanx
09/29/2008 07:49:09 AM · #20
Originally posted by jaimeDp:

hey and put an update on whether you like or love the lens. cause im gonna have to get a 70-200 in the short term and would love to get another review. thanx


Will do. It should be here Thursday. I do have a grip on the XTI also...makes it alot easier to hold and not bump the controls. It works for me especially if I have to hold it a long time since it is lighter. I had surgery on torn ligaments in my right wrist on August 21 this year and I still am not allowed to lift over 4 pounds with that hand..so being light helps alot. Will be picking up a monopod this week to help with the 3 pounds of lens coming this way.
09/29/2008 08:12:04 AM · #21
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

The only better lens would be the Canon 70-200mm 2.8f IS USM lens.

Good hunting.


How so ?

The non-IS version is sharper and the IS won't help for fast action.

bazz.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/28/2022 10:06:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2022 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/28/2022 10:06:07 AM EDT.