mattsteg wrote:What do you have now and what's your budget?
jobodaho wrote:I forget what camera you are shooting so I can't make many other recommendations.
mattsteg wrote:(although in-body anti-shake probably helps some here, its effectiveness is potentially reduced a bit as you go to longer focal lengths. Camera shake at 300mm on a crop body is a big issue and might be contributing t your current unsharp results.)
Given the still-strong following of the beercan, I suspect that you'd get worse performance in other areas from a replacement. Other than CA it still seems to have a good (if possibly exaggerated at times) reputation. CA can often be corrected and neither of the lenses you mentioned are immune to it.Hoser wrote:mattsteg wrote:What do you have now and what's your budget?
I have the good ole Minolta 70-210 beercan. I guess I'll just have to wait for a bit and save a few more $$ to get a better lens. Looking at pics with newer lenses mine look pretty bad in comparison with respect to CA. If I do have to save more, I just might get something in a 70-500 lens.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Would you consider a 70-200mm f/2.8 as an upgrade?
Hoser wrote:I'm looking for something at least in the 300mm range. The reason being is that I want to get into some sports photography (specifically hockey), so I think I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and look at some of the good 100-500 zoom lenses. Looking at some of the Sigma lenses in that range I guess I'm gonna be about $700 lighter in the wallet.
mattsteg wrote:Aperture is way more important. Are your hockey players going to be playing primarily outdoors on sunny days? If not, you need f/2.8 WAY more than you need 300mm, and anything that gets to 500mm for only $700 or so is probably going to be extremely unsuitable (and you don't need that much focal length anyway).
Hoser wrote:mattsteg wrote:Aperture is way more important. Are your hockey players going to be playing primarily outdoors on sunny days? If not, you need f/2.8 WAY more than you need 300mm, and anything that gets to 500mm for only $700 or so is probably going to be extremely unsuitable (and you don't need that much focal length anyway).
I've got permission from the local AHL team to take pics during practices, and a few actual games, so the pics will be in an arena mostly at ice level. The 500mm length would be more useful for that than the aperture would it not?
The 500mm length would be more useful for that than the aperture would it not?
Do you mean something like the $1300 Sony SAL-135F18Z 135mm f/1.8, or are you thinking more along the lines of the $3000 Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG? I was suggesting something like the $700 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD or the $800 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM. I see a used Minolta 100mm f/2 lens for $600+ (on e-bay).jobodaho wrote:Used, fast, fixed focal lens? I'm not that up to date with available lenses in your mount, but are there auto focusing primes that might work better for his situation or are they all old manual focus lenses?
Hoser wrote:Ok, I see what you guys are saying. I'm gonna try and see if I can snag a 75-200mm f2.8 Sigma lens.
JustAnEngineer wrote:The crop factor for the Sony is the same 1.5 as for Nikon, so your 165mm shot is comparable to what a 70-200mm lens could capture when mounted on an α300 camera. With 10 MP resolution, there's room to crop a bit more once the image is out of the camera.
JustAnEngineer wrote:I haven't seen any lenses that are labeled with "effective" focal lengths, SS.
SecretSquirrel wrote:rent it first to give it a try
What lens out there has a max aperture of 3.5 where it matters? 3.5-5.6 does not count, as it's only f/3.5 on the short end of the zoom. I've never seen a constant aperture f/3.5 zoom.Hoser wrote:What about something with a maximum aperture of 3.5? I know it's not as good as 2.8, but it's gonna save me about $200 if I get something at that level. Do you think I would really see that big of a difference.
Well, I'd recommend that you make sure you have more than just "seeHoser wrote:I'm gonna go to a couple of local camera shops and see if they'll let me rent one of the G series lenses from Sony. That way I can try out both aperture settings and see what works.
Hoser wrote:Another plot twist......
I picked up this Minolta 85mm lens from a local pawn shop for $40. Yup that's right.......$40. It seems this is a very good lens that goes for aver $1000 on eBay. The capability of it doing f1.4 should be good enough for stopping the action in front of the net and allow good lighting. It had a few smudges on the lens, but a quick clean up and it looks almost as good as new. I'll give this a whirl tomorrow night at the rink.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests