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…
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.
I actually took it to one MLB game and a couple farm games more to experiment and learn than anything else.
I’m guessing as far as range, the farm stadium setup would be a decent approximation of what you’re doing. And if I wanted to get the very cool shot of a pitcher mid throw with sweat coming off the face, and the ball leaving the hand from say the waist up… yeah I would have to use pretty close to 400. But most action shots, like a slide, or home plate tag… No, more like you said, 300 ish, maybe less.
You talked about future proofing, I don’t know if this is relevant but I can say the larger stadium makes a significant difference, but also because they don’t let me hang out with the actual press on the field.
I do also have a feeling that at least on my APS-C , anything longer would absolutely require a monopod at least, even with the stabilization on the lens. (The 6400 doesn’t have IBIS). I don’t know if that would be practical for your purposes or setup.
Those shots are from years ago on a HDD somewhere. I’ll see if can find any to give you an example.
When you said 400mm, did you mean FF EQ or after the APS-C crop? Haha
Yup, this looks like it will eventually be my hurdle if my kids stick with it long enough. I’m not sure that a ton of extra reach will really save me here.
At this point, I’m leaning toward a lens that tops out at 400mm, but I might ask the local camera store if I can get a feel for tamron’s 150-500. If it’s not that much more heavy in hand then I might give it a go. Sony’s 200-600 looks great, and isn’t that much bigger than the 150-500 when it’s fully extended, but I think it’s still going to not really be appropriate at a T-ball game.
Sorry, all my measurements are without conversion. So yeah I’m shooting between 450-600. Mostly towards the lower end but occasionally all the way. I also think the150-500 would be a nice move but I have no experience with the Tamron as far as focus speed and stability.
Ditto on the Sony G-master or whatever, when I see birders with one, I always wonder if they worked up to it or just bought the highest end lens they could. It has to be super hard to use that range without a gimble mount.