Can I get some input on some super zoom lenses? Sigma & Tamron?

[mom2mikel]

I posted a few months ago --

I primarily use my D80 to take outdoor photos of my children playing soccer. I use sports mode and have been really happy with the results (Tamron 75-300mm lens). However, I want a lens that reaches further. I initially thought about buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ18 with 18x optical zoom, but I know the quality would suffer.

Can I get a teleconverter for my Tamron lens?

I was also considering 3 new super zoom lenses. I'd love any input you could offer:

Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

Tamron Zoom Telephoto SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD IF Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF

Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG AF-D

I'm quite content with the image quality from my Tamron lens even though I understand that there are better lenses out there. I realize there are limitations with all of these lenses and that it requires full daylight for good results. In the future, I may upgrade to a better 200mm or 300mm lens that would produce better results with less than ideal outdoor lighting and for some indoor photos.

I would greatly appreciate any/all feedback!

Thanks!

[tcadwall]

I remembered your previous post, and just re-checked it.

What size prints are you making?

Did you try yet to bump your resolution and crop to your target? Did we explain that well enough? The point here is that a big lens that will work well will cost big bucks. If you can make do with what you have by cropping, you might be just as happy. Some (quite a few actually) post processing software will allow you to make a macro action or default settings for cropping from the center if you can keep your subject centered it wouldn't cost you a lot of post processing time.

[K1W1]

Those big lenses really require a tripod or monopod to operate correctly and they are generally very heavy to lug around then there is the issue that the ones you have mentioned are not at the fast end of lens technology which means that getting a fast enough shutter speed for sports action in anything other than perfect light will potentially be a big problem.
Personally I think a better quality 200mm or 300mm lens would be a better option and you could then simply crop the photos both for size and composition.
I'm not sure what level of sports your kids play but here in Australia I have seen issues at pro grade events where security will not allow SLR's with longer than 300mm lenses in as longer lenses are considered "pro" and if you are wanting to use them you need press accreditation. For some strange reason of course things like Canon S3/ S5's or Panasonic FZ series cameras are ignored.

[Telecorder]

I posted a few months ago --
I primarily use my D80 to take outdoor photos of my children playing soccer. I use sports mode and have been really happy with the results (Tamron 75-300mm lens). However, I want a lens that reaches further. I initially thought about buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ18 with 18x optical zoom, but I know the quality would suffer.

Doubtful the FZ18 would match the capabilities of your D80.

What's your budget?


Can I get a teleconverter for my Tamron lens?
Probably the best one to consider is a Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC that can be had for ~$135 - it'll maintain AF and mounts on most lenses. Personally, I'd recommend replacing the Tamron with a better lens in the same range as you might find its just been the lens quality that's held you back.


I was also considering 3 new super zoom lenses. I'd love any input you could offer:
Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
Be aware that this is not user/MOM friendly for your indicated uses as its bulky/heavy. I love mine but I do mostly wild raptors that are hard to get close to - I'm doubtful you'd enjoy it for your stated uses. Here's a comparison of my Bigma to my FZ30...

at 50-mm
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/BIGMA%20vs%20FZ30/P1010007Small.jpg

At 500-mm
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/BIGMA%20vs%20FZ30/P1010009Small.jpg


Tamron Zoom Telephoto SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD IF Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF
This is a good lens that is lighter than the Bigma that a lot of people like.


Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG AF-D
By most accounts - not easy to find a good copy and doesn't have as near of IQ as the Bigma or the Tamron 200-500. Most comment that its best to stay away from unless you have a good return policy where purchased.


I'm quite content with the image quality from my Tamron lens even though I understand that there are better lenses out there. I realize there are limitations with all of these lenses and that it requires full daylight for good results. In the future, I may upgrade to a better 200mm or 300mm lens that would produce better results with less than ideal outdoor lighting and for some indoor photos.

You might consider the Nikon 70-300 VR as a replacement for your Tamron. -- its reported to have good IQ for its price point and the VR will help a lot when used hand held for action shots. I just picked one up for myself for a good traveling/vacation lens to compliment my 18-70 DX.

The Bigma/Tamron 200-500 will run about $850-950 new while the street price for the 70-300 VR is about $550 (I lucked out on a Cord Camera sale and picked mine up for $399. Haven't got it as yet so I can't personally detail any images from it...)

There are a few more alternatives out there but your budget will be the main limiting factor...

[hankbeblazin]

i'm borrowing my dads Tamron 200-500 its pretty cool i dont use it much cuz thats a massive zoom level. Its unusually light, it gets a little soft around 400-500 though. cool lens though. i don't know how much it is. when fully extended or even half you really do need a tripod it moves too much even though its light

[mom2mikel]

Thanks for all of the replies!! I did try cropping my photos and while I appreciated eliminating non-essential parts of the photo -- I didn't like how the cropped photos work with my DVD slideshow software (remember, I only print 4x6 maybe up to 8x10, but primarily I'm creating DVD slideshows each season). I simply used Microsoft Office Picture Manager -- could that be the problem? (The cropped photos showed up as cropped -- they did not fill the screen so they had black borders all around).

I'm looking to spend about $1000. Thanks for the photos comparing the lenses...I think I'd be okay with the size -- would be using a monopod or tripod at the games.

My kids are both playing travel soccer and my daughter is moving up to the next field size in August (11 players on the field per team & bigger fields). Her team is one of the best in the state and will start competing in many top level out of state tournaments.

What about upgrading to the 70-300 VR and then adding a teleconverter? Or is there a better 300mm lens that I can buy for about $1000 and then add a teleconverter?

I know I'm not going to get a phenomenal lens on a budget, but I'm looking for something that will give me good photos.


I didn't get to play around after my first post because outdoor soccer was over and it won't start back up until April again. Now that life is a little more back to normal (holidays over), I can invest more time trying new software/techniques. I'm running Vista which might limit my options...

Thanks again.

[K1W1]

I turn literally thousands of photos of kids sport into DVD slide shows each year. The issues you have are software related and are nothing to do with lens selection.
First dump the Microsoft software and get something decent. I use Memories on TV from Code Jam (http://www.codejam.com/) that is probably a good place to start but there are plenty of great programs out there it's just that Microsoft Picture Manager is not one of them.
Next you need to be aware of the issues relating to displaying pictures on TV as opposed to a computer screen. Generally a TV screen is brighter with higher contrast than a PC monitor so to make the pictures look really good on a TV it's often necessary to flatten the image a bit - this is really a trial and error thing that I personally don't worry too much about but many people do and it depends exactly who is going to see the images and how professional you want the output to be. Do some web searching on the issue if you are interested.

[mom2mikel]

I turn literally thousands of photos of kids sport into DVD slide shows each year. The issues you have are software related and are nothing to do with lens selection.
First dump the Microsoft software and get something decent. I use Memories on TV from Code Jam (http://www.codejam.com/) that is probably a good place to start but there are plenty of great programs out there it's just that Microsoft Picture Manager is not one of them.
Next you need to be aware of the issues relating to displaying pictures on TV as opposed to a computer screen. Generally a TV screen is brighter with higher contrast than a PC monitor so to make the pictures look really good on a TV it's often necessary to flatten the image a bit - this is really a trial and error thing that I personally don't worry too much about but many people do and it depends exactly who is going to see the images and how professional you want the output to be. Do some web searching on the issue if you are interested.

I used Microsoft for cropping only. Slideshows are created with either ProShow Gold or Ulead DVD Picture & Slideshow (the last I checked though - this was not compatible with Vista). An important feature is the ability to have the slide show sync to the music...is that an option on the software you use? I did quite a bit of research but found my options limited due to the Vista compatability.

I'm really just trying to get some input on the lenses -- I realize that to a serious photographer, it may not be ideal. As I mentioned, I'm quite content with the pictures from my Tamron lens that I would imagine would be frowned upon in this forum too.

[K1W1]

What do you mean by sync to the music?

If you have a track that is say 3 minutes 27 seconds long and you have 50 slides then yes POTV can be set to automatically adjust the slideshow to the length of the music. (It also deletes the 2 second pauses between tracks).

If you want particular slides to show at particular times during a passage of music you can do that as well but it's manual and you will to fiddle. The tools are provided for you to do it.

There is a free trial version.

What were the actual size in pixels of the cropped photos that did not display full screen?

[mom2mikel]

What do you mean by sync to the music?

If you have a track that is say 3 minutes 27 seconds long and you have 50 slides then yes POTV can be set to automatically adjust the slideshow to the length of the music. (It also deletes the 2 second pauses between tracks).

If you want particular slides to show at particular times during a passage of music you can do that as well but it's manual and you will to fiddle. The tools are provided for you to do it.

There is a free trial version.


Thank you -- I'm downloading the trial right now. I never came across this one when i purchased my last slideshow software (ProShow Gold)...I'm going to load the same photos to see how it turns out.

thanks again :)

[tcadwall]

Ok, This is where we get funky answers.

If you use good video editing software, the software will allow you to zoom, pan, etc. the photos. For best results when NOT zooming and panning in your video (that is typically referred to as "Ken Burns" style) - use a good photo editor to crop your image.

If you are only displaying an image, and not zoooming and panning on it in your video, then you should have NO PROBLEM at all cropping the HECK out of it. Standard DVD resolutions is PIDDLY compared to your images, and that goes for both 6MP as well as 10MP

BTW if I am doing a Ken Burns style I will keep the original image size and control the framing inside the video editing software. Good NLE's will have no problem generating good video from straight jpgs.

The main reason I resize my shots outside of video editors is because if I can match the resolution, then the rendering goes faster - there is very likely some quality benefits to this as well.

Oh and my advice on video montages, stretch the timeline out so that you can visibly see the music beat on the soundtrack. Match your image transitions to the beat, and preferably to a phrase for the most fluid video and professional feel.

[Telecorder]

[QUOTE=mom2mikel;277757]
I'm looking to spend about $1000. Thanks for the photos comparing the lenses...I think I'd be okay with the size -- would be using a monopod or tripod at the games.

My kids are both playing travel soccer and my daughter is moving up to the next field size in August (11 players on the field per team & bigger fields). Her team is one of the best in the state and will start competing in many top level out of state tournaments.

What about upgrading to the 70-300 VR and then adding a teleconverter? Or is there a better 300mm lens that I can buy for about $1000 and then add a teleconverter?

I know I'm not going to get a phenomenal lens on a budget, but I'm looking for something that will give me good photos.
[QUOTE]

Given your indications - I'd suggest evaluating a few options.
If the Tamron 70-300 is sufficient IQ and you're getting adequate number of 'keepers' - you might consider the Nikon 70-300 VR. It will give you more IQ; same reach and the VR will help a lot for stability ~$550 street

Since larger fields are in store -- You might evaluate the Tamron 200-500 Di. It'll give you a great reach with good IQ. Only drawbacks are its a screw drive AF so will be a bit slower but you'll have a good long reach lens that will compliment your existing 70-300 Tamron.

Another alternative, albeit at the high end of your budget would be the Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/sigma/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx

Its faster aperture which will aid for late afternoon games and its IQ should be a leap over your existing 70-300. Its f/4 will allow for use of a 1.4X TC and should still have better IQ than your existing 70-300

Bigma would give you a 10X reach that could handle both ends of the field.

[mom2mikel]

Thanks so much for your reply. I ended up getting a great deal on a used Sigma 170-500mm lens so I'm going to give that a try. Again, I realize that to the more serious photographers, this will not give great quality, but I honestly believe it'll be fine for me.

I would like to upgrade to a better 200mm-300mm lens as well -- for taking those late afternoon soccer photos or indoor soccer/basketball. I'd like to stay around $500 (if possible). Is there anything in particular I should be looking for in order to get some better shots.

Thanks again for your input.

[Telecorder]

Here's hoping that you got a 'good' copy of the 170-500... Probably best to keep it on a monopod or tripod to minimize any motion blur.

Some suggested settings to try are to use it in shutter-priority mode at 1/640-sec or faster; Auto-ISO, center-weighted exposure and burst mode. This will keep the shutter speed up when at 500-mm.

As to the 200-300 range - its looking like the 70-300 VR Nikon, for $450-550 is a great system for the price.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2161

Beach Camera has it for $469 at this time...
http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NK70300AFSVR

[WestCoast]

As to the 200-300 range - its looking like the 70-300 VR Nikon, for $450-550 is a great system for the price.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2161

Beach Camera has it for $469 at this time...
http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NK70300AFSVR

I got mine from Beach Camera for $450. It's a very nice lens. The AF is fast, the VR works well, it's not too bulky/heavy, I don't see much barrel distortion or vignetting, and I was surprised how good my shots at f/5.6 and ISO 1600 looked. The only negative I've experienced is that it can be a bit soft at 300 mm at times. You'll be hard-pressed to find a similar lens of higher quality for that price.