- This topic is empty.
Leinster vs Wasps
-
Decent night for a game with no rain at all which made a massive change for me.
Nice shots Ken, like that 4th one. Great expressions in all. Show us one of your bad ones – make the rest of us feel human!!!!!
Great shots Ken.
Here’s a sample of mine from the game too.
Charging down a kick
Horgan being tackled
O’Kelly charges forward
Chip ahead
Fumbled ball
Nice shots Paul, like that last one the most. Love the look on his face, would love to see the expression on No. 15’s!!!
Ken
Great shots as always. Just a quick question – like some other posters here I have been using a 70-200 f2.8 zoom for most of my sports bits and pieces and would now like to move up to something a bit longer. I have worked along side the boys from sportsfile/inpho and newspaper blokes with their 400mm babies but as you well know they are a bit pricey. So from your experience with the 300mm (I have seen Peadar O’sullivan with the same lens) do you think that 300mm is plenty long enough, could you use the extra 100mm of a 400mm for your work, is there any times that a 400mm could be too long, etc etc. Any advice is appreciated as you have hands on experience of the lens and the sports here in Ireland (small rugby pitches , big GAA pitches)
Many thanks in advance
Well, I give my view here.
It takes a bit of time to get used to using a prime. But, there is much more quality in the big glass, so you can crop a bit more. Another cheap way to extend your range on the 70-200mm lens is to use a 1.4x TC.
A 300mm is decent for range. You get to know what range of the pitch you can cover. Sometimes even 300mm is too long for close in action. It’s a matter of knowing your gear and the range that is comfortable.
The extra 100mm can be very nice, especially for a large pitch. A cheaper way to get that is to use the 1.4x TC. That will give you 420mm f/4, which is still decent (except in very poor light).
I’ve covered a number of local rugby and local football games using just the 70-200mm lens, since you have the ability to move up and down the line as well as covering the end.
But again, the 300mm lens gives you more detail, more clarity and that extra range.
Is that of any use?
Thats perfect Paul – thanks. I have been trying out the 1.4x convertor but not having too much success (from reading posts that is common on the Nikon side of the house) as you need to come down to f5.6 or smaller to get a sharper image. With the poor “Summer” we have had and the fact that I mostly cover evening / weekend events (9-5 getting in the way) the light is normally poor enough. I have heard better things about the 1.4x on the primes so hopefully.
Suppose my issue is if I go with the 300 will I regret not spending the extra $$$ on the 400 down the line. The saying “the poor man pays twice” comes to mind. The other issue is the fact that Nikon have moved to FF with their latest bodies providing fantastic high ISO ability. Hopefully they will bring out a DX format as capable but if not then the extra magnification of the DX is lost – requiring longer glass again.
Decisions, decisions. For now I reckon I will go with the 300 – if Santa isn’t caught up in this credit crunch….
Thanks again. Realy enjoy the site – alway a good bunch to knock heads with or get answers
I can’t speak about Nikon bodies/lenses, but my experience is on the Canon side.
Your TC will effect the focal length and the max aperture.
So – 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC becomes 420mm f/4
400mm f/2.8 with 1.4x TC becomes 560mm f/4
300mm f/2.8 with 2x TC becomes 600mm f/5.6 …….. and so on.Obviously, you will find times (very low light) where you’re using very high ISO and you find f/4 to be too slow. I have had cases where I can’t afford to use the 1.4x TC due to light, so am restricted to 300mm f/2.8.
Really, I would love a 400mm f/2.8 lens, but the cost is way too prohibitive. You would need to be making a good return on your photos to afford one. In saying that, the large prime lenses tend not to devalue too much, so selling on a 300mm f/2.8 to buy a 400mm f/2.8 would seldom be a bad idea.
I guess it boils down to how much you have to spend, how much you expect to make back with image sales, and how serious you take your photography. I’m more than happy with a 300mm f/2.8 (and I think Ken and Peadar would express similar views).
Thanks Paul – all good advice. Will probably go for the 300 – like you said the 400 is a bit pricey, not theat the 300 is cheap.
The odd time, you’ll see a 300mm for sale, 2nd hand – https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=16051
Never hurts to ask, or keep your eye open.
Paul more or less has it all summed up. The 300mm has suited me at every venue covered including Croke Park and various cricket venues.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
