this post was submitted on 14 May 2024

16 points (90.0% liked)

Photography

4579 readers

135 users here now

A community to post about photography:

We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Photographer

Recommended focal length for outdoor youth sports? (self.photography)

submitted 7 months ago by IMALlama to c/photography

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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....

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Andonyx 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I assume you know this, but I believe the d5300 has a crop sensor of 1.5. So if you shoot at say 300 regularly with that you would need to shoot 450 with an a9 to get the same FOV/zoom.

I have the Sigma 100-400 DX for my a6400 so I'm getting an equivalent FOV of 600mm. The lens is still rock solid with image stabilization, even fully hand-held. The auto focus motors are lickety-fast. It's ~$900, and I'm thrilled with it.

It sound like you really liked the a9, which is cool, get a body you like and are comfortable with, but you may still get more use from an APS-C than a full frame for less money. You said everything is outdoor day, and now the upscaling in PS, or Capture One, etc are so good prints from the smaller sensor don't have to suffer.

Well, that's two of my particular cents, but I also would be curious what others would have to say.

[–] IMALlama 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Andonyx 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IMALlama 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Andonyx 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] IMALlama 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When you said 400mm, did you mean FF EQ or after the APS-C crop? Haha

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.

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.

[–] Andonyx 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I can't say much about kids on a field, but I bought the Tamron 150 - 500mm to go with my a6000 for wildlife, getting approximately 225 - 750 FF equivalent.

It's a decent lens, and the reach is great. As you say though, it's quite heavy. I don't find it too bad while I'm out and about, as I don't tend to be standing in one place for long periods holding it, but it's quite awkward when I'm moving from place to place. It's heavy to carry, especially at the end of the day, and I wouldn't like to hand hold it for the length of a match / game. It's quite difficult to swap lenses compared to the kit lens and the 55 - 210mm too, due to the size and weight.

If you're likely to be in a seat, or somewhere where you can use a tripod, and have something to lean on if you change the lens, then the two biggest problems are gone immediately.

I don't want to put you off it though, it is a good lens. Apart from anything else, I feel like a 'proper' photographer when I've got it on a tripod :D

I'm still getting used to the weight, but I've got some great photos out of it recently, as well as some wobbly ones :)

[–] IMALlama 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IMALlama 2 points 6 months ago

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:

I've taken 11 (~5%) photos that have a FF EQ focal length of > 400mm. In looking at them, they're not photos that I'm likely to try to take again. A number of them were taken from behind the chain link backstop at home plate of my kiddo in the outfield and the shots weren't compelling, had the fence in frame (but significantly out of focus obviously), etc
I've taken 16 (~7%) photos that had a FF EQ focal length of < 150mm. These sub-divide into 50% soccer game pics with the action somewhat close to where I was and 50% of photos of the kid that wasn't playing being goofy on the sidelines. For the soccer action, it looks like I could have been a little tighter than I was for most of the shots and for the kiddo on the sidelines I could have probably backed up more

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.

[–] somethingp 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Sigma 60-600. The one lens to rule them all.

[–] IMALlama 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That thing is big and heavy, lol. I'm currently rocking Tamron's 50-400. I could see maybe switching to Sony's 200-600. The Sigma is more than twice the weight of the 50-400. Sony's 200-600 is 500 grams lighter and I don't think the extra weight is worth the wide end that I'll only occasionally use with this kind of mass/reach.

I did try out Tamron's 150-500 and didn't think the extra 500 grams (roughly 50% heavier) was worth it for only 25% more reach.

[–] somethingp 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I was only slightly kidding about that sigma haha. I have the Sony 200-600 and it is a great lens. Not one you'd regret, though it is bulky and attention grabbing, so maybe not exactly what you're looking for either. There is also the sigma 500mm prime for e mount which is pretty small and light.

[–] IMALlama 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I could see the sigma being a great lens for the right person. 600mm does sound nice, but I suspect 60mm brought some weight penalties with it.

The one time I needed a wide lens at a soccer game I was competing with a wall of parents with cellphones for end of season team photos. I had a 70-300 on an APS-C body and there was no way I could get a wide enough shot without backing up behind the wall of fellow parents. 60mm on a FF body would be better than that, but most phones seem to be 24mm-35mm FFEQ so it probably still wouldn't have worked out. For this kind of reach I'm OK trading a loss at the wide end for size/weight since 99% of the photos I'll be taking will be of things far away.

How do you like your 200-600? Do you hand hold it often or do you use a mono (or tri) pod? The 50-400 I'm using now is about 300 grams heavier than the 70-300 I was shooting with previously and I'm somewhat feeling the weight. The 200-600 is full kilo heavier than the 50-400. I think I would probably adjust, but it seems like a lot of lens to being to a youth sports event. For now, 400mm is serving me pretty well but it's likely I'll want more ready when the kids are on bigger fields.

[–] somethingp 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I take it on walks for wildlife and usually hand hold there. If your subject isn't very far and tiny, you can hand hold relatively comfortably. I did get a small rig baseplate to make my a7iv's grip tall enough so my pinky fits comfortably. I'm 5'11" and kind of chunky, but if you're a lot smaller the lens may not be as easy to hand hold. In that case even a monopole is enough to make it easier to use the lens, I think. I used to feel shy about carrying my big lens around, but once I got over that, I realized I should use the best thing I've got to take photos I enjoy taking. I just got back from a Yellowstone trip where every dude over 55 years old made some comment like "now that's a camera/lens" when they saw me, but I just laughed and carried on. I wouldn't be too worried about how you look. Just carry on with the things you enjoy, and get those overly profession photos of your kids' sports.

[–] IMALlama 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the reply!

If your subject isn't very far and tiny, you can hand hold relatively comfortably.

My subjects are 40"-48" or so tall and 75-100 feet away from me depending on the field. I thought my 50-400 was serving me pretty well, but I went through the EXIF data and realized that about a third of the photos I had taken were at 400mm. I haven't taken any photos at the field with the 100 foot distance yet either...

I did get a small rig baseplate to make my a7iv's grip tall enough so my pinky fits comfortably.

Ha, I did the same on my former A7III. My pinky seems to fit fairly well on the A9II, but I do find myself missing the massive grip on my former Z6II.

I'm 5'11" and kind of chunky, but if you're a lot smaller the lens may not be as easy to hand hold.

I'm 5'10" and reasonably fit, but I haven't actively worked out in a very long time.

I did swap for the Tamron 150-500 today and did a tiny amount of shooting with it. It's a 4 pound lens vs the 50-400's 2.5 pounds or the Sony 200-600's 4.65 pounds. I did briefly handle the 200-600 today and the zoom was amazing and the weight wasn't that different than the 150-500. Having the zoom ring further toward the front of the lens, since it's always "extended", might actually make it better handling than Tamron's 150-500 in hindsight. Maybe I should swap again and then wrap the lens to make it not white, lol.

My main concern is fatigue from shooting a full 1.5 hour game.

I wouldn't be too worried about how you look. Just carry on with the things you enjoy, and get those overly profession photos of your kids' sports.

I really appreciate the entire end of your reply. If this wasn't for pretty young youth sports, the 200-600 would be the lens to have. It's not like the 150-500, or even the 50-400, is that much more compact when they're fully zoomed. My wife likes to rib me about being the creepy camera guy, but the other parents on the team seem to really appreciate the photos. At this age the expressions the kids make are priceless and you're not going to see them without reach, but I'm wary of taking it too far. At this point I'm just the guy with some disposable income. One of the parents did ask if I was a professional photographer and was surprised when I said no.

[–] somethingp 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Glad I could help! The zoom ring really is perfect. It's so easy to go through the whole range from 200-600. This makes it much more comfortable to hand hold since you never actually have to take your left hand off of it.

And yeah, you're never gonna regret a photo that looks too good haha! As for wraps, I really like the alphagvrd vinyl wraps. They even have a Lego one that the kids might get a kick out of!