Originally posted by boriscleto Indoor sports are what the 70-200/2.8 is made for.
As norm pointed out, you can use a Tamron F AF 2x teleconverter with the 70-200/2.8 to get a 140-400/5.6. Less than $170 on eBay...
Seems like using the 2x multiplier is debatable with respect to still having the ability to focus well and get action shots.
I imagine it is debatable because of different lenses used and degrees of compatibility with the converters.
Also different abilities of the shooters.
I am a beginner, and if anyone would have a hard time with a slower lens trying to capture action - it would be me.
Do you know what teleconverters may pair best with a tamron 70-200 f2.8?
I was just at ebay looking at TCs - there are so many - it is hard to figure out what's what?!?!
---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:21 PM ----------
Originally posted by quant2325 f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.
---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 01:53 PM ----------
Just look at the photozone.de test results, which should mirror in real life (they did for me). The 60-250 is a great lens. It is sharp enough a f/4 throughout the range. The only thing wrong with it is that it is not an f.2.8, so too much of the background might be in focus when shooting a kid's soccer game from distance. Of course, a 70-200 with a tele-extender could be worse due to the effective change in aperture and image degradation. A really good 70-200 could be good enough as is, if you don't need the reach. The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever) probably will disappoint on the long end, and at best won't have the IQ of the 60-250 or a decent 70-200. But if you need the reach, it is an easy way to do it.
Hi,
Thanks for the info.
Do you have any thoughts on a good TC to pair with a tamron 70-200?
I checked ebay and it gets confusing with all of the naming and nomenclature for the TCs.
On this site - some of the higher rated ones that I think may work are:
Pentax DA 1.4x
tamron f1.4x pz-af - this one may be best for me because of price and matching the manufacturer - I could not find it on ebay though
promaster 1.7x
kenko 1.4x and 1.5x
Thanks,
---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:23 PM ----------
Originally posted by quant2325 f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.
---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 01:53 PM ----------
Just look at the photozone.de test results, which should mirror in real life (they did for me). The 60-250 is a great lens. It is sharp enough a f/4 throughout the range. The only thing wrong with it is that it is not an f.2.8, so too much of the background might be in focus when shooting a kid's soccer game from distance. Of course, a 70-200 with a tele-extender could be worse due to the effective change in aperture and image degradation. A really good 70-200 could be good enough as is, if you don't need the reach. The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever) probably will disappoint on the long end, and at best won't have the IQ of the 60-250 or a decent 70-200. But if you need the reach, it is an easy way to do it.
I like the idea of the long reach of the sigma - just not sure if the IQ, ability to focus, and ability to stop motion will be included.
Thanks for your time and advice!
Have you or anyone else here shot action with the 50-500?
Best,
---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:29 PM ----------
Originally posted by Kath I beg to differ. The OP spoke of outdoor sports as well. If I can catch an eagle flying 50mph on a cloudy Northwest day, surely the OP can capture girls playing soccer on an outdoor field, sun or not.
Hi Kath,
I imagine some of the issues with the kids sports that may be less prevalent with birds in flight would be:
interference with other players in front of the camera
sudden changes in direction
But if you can stop the motion of a bird going way faster than a person - that says a lot about the sigma 150-500
Have you used the 50-500 to be able to compare or say that the 50-500 can do the same?
In general, do lenses focus faster on objects that are closer?
For instance, when you use the 150-500 - does the camera and lens focus faster on a bird that is in the 150mm range versus an object in the 500mm range?
Thanks for your time and advice