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! I weighed my 70-300 and it's around 830 grams, making the Tamron 150-500 about a kilo heavier. I hope to be handholding and am reasonably young/fit, but I also know the weight could get annoying. A tripod at a T-ball game seems a little weird, which is pushing me toward more compact options. Maybe I should rent the Tamron for a weekend.
I've hand held and walked around with the 70-300 at a number of 8+ hour race weekends.
It seems like anything beyond 400mm is going to be in this weight class, so the question comes down to whether the extra 100mm (or 200mm for say the 200-600) is really necessary.
I've got the Pentax version of the 70 - 300, and, yeah, it's a world of difference.
Like you say, renting might be a good idea, maybe with a monopod. They're a bit more subtle, and won't stand out as much as a tripod.
I crawled through through the EXIF data of the 230 photos I've taken so far across one soccer game and two t-ball games. Here's the spread of FF EQ focal length:
In terms of already-taken EXIF data, it seems like a toss up between a 50-400/100-400 and the 150-500.
I stopped by my local camera store today to feel Tamron's 50-400 and 150-500 on camera / in hand. I walked out with the 50-400. It was hard to argue about 1,155g / 40.7 oz (2.54 pounds) vs 1,725g / 60.8 oz (3.8 pounds). They have a 14 day return policy, so if push comes to shove over the next two weeks I can always swap.