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.
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
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.
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.
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 TokinaAT-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
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.
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 .
Reply With Quote
Why so long at first?
Why not some real outdoor reach?
.