Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    310

    A future owner of a Sony DSLR

    i have not been on this forum for over 10 months now, been out of the game since. the last equipment i had was all canon and had to sell due to the same issues almost everyone else is having with the economy, but now the family and i are back on track and now im planning on getting back into the DSLR world. after doing some research im just feeling the sony DSLR's. now currently what i have added to my wishlist is the Sony A500 with the vertical battery grip, now for my first lens its going to be one of the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses. my question is, is it worth the 1k more to get the sony? comparing to the sigma version. currently im saving and planning on my purchase in several months. i know im sure most of you will say, pickup the sony G but i would rather save the 1k if its not worth it to go more for the sony.

    thanks,
    andy
    Flickr

    Sony a560 w/ B50AM Vertical Grip
    Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Question Why so long at first?

    I guess I am of the mind ... what are you planning to use under 70mm? Certainly not a "kit lens", if you are considering a pricey 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM.

    More often than not, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is like the third lens in your purchase decision. The first being the 17-50mm f/2.8 or something similar, then a 50mm f/1.4 for lowlight, indoor stuff, THEN the 70-200mm f/2.8 (or for many, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6).

    From your signature and post count, you are no novice. I guess without further explanation, I'm a bit perplexed.

    Don't get me wrong here, I love the 70-200mm f/2.8 (TAMRON) ... but, based on what I normally shoot, it is NOT the first one I grab for.

    Share your shooting style just for a bit more understanding. Thanks.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-25-2009 at 10:52 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    310
    i decided on that lens first only because im mostly planning on shooting my sons sports. i dont really feel the need for a 17-55mm for my first lens, maybe pick one up in the near future as well. although i might pick up the nifty fifty 1.4 as well for low light close up shots. my son is starting basketball next month at the age of 4 and will be playing soccer as well in the winter.
    Flickr

    Sony a560 w/ B50AM Vertical Grip
    Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    i used a 70-200 sigma 2.8 for my kids games with no problem...but now that i have the A900 i like using my zeiss 100 1.8

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Lightbulb Why not some real outdoor reach?

    Since you aren't avoiding a couple of bucks for better glass, you just might consider the SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens, which really gives you the "reach" for outdoor sports, without having to swap lenses at all.

    Name:  Sony_SAL70-400G_telephoto_zoom_lens.jpg
Views: 152
Size:  149.6 KB

    Just a thought ...

    If cost is an issue ... Tokina's 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is just slightly darker at the short end, but $1000 less to use. For alot less than the cost of either SONY suggestion ... you could have both the SIGMA APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM and the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (Model I)

    Third-party is a solution to struggle with.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-25-2009 at 01:17 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    You'll have to run higher iso though..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    Some gyms can be a little on the dark side..for the most part i could keep it a 800 iso 250 2.8
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    For basketball, you're going to want f/2.8 or better.

    I am selling my Tamron 70-200mm if you are interested when the time comes (my sig).

    It's an awesome portrait and fast (bright) telephoto lens. The autofocus is a bit sluggish at times, but it depends on the lighting conditions. I've shot high school football with it and it did alright.

    Seanhoxx does basketball all the time with this lens and he's managed some nice shots. A flash too would definitely help.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    I never liked the look of a flash for bball...that and the players will hate you!!!!!!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    You can use a higher ISO to help lessen the flash, but I'm just saying it could help. Another thing you could try would be to leave a flash somewhere near the court and trigger it with radio triggers .

    http://strobist.blogspot.com/search?q=basketball
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •