I currently shoot my kids U9s rugby with a Nikon Z6 and 70-200 2.8 with an FTZ adapter. But as the pitches are bigger now than when they played tag only I’m finding the 200mm reach limiting and I end up doing a lot of cropping. I’m not printing these or publishing them anywhere, but it does consume a lot of time in post processing.

So I’m considering some long lenses, almost certainly second hand.

I obviously rely on decent autofocus speed as the kids are pretty quick. I’m less worried about edge sharpness as it’s centre sharpness that matters most and vignetting I consider a solved problem using PhotoLab.

I’ve had my eye on either:

  • Sigma 150-600 DG OS HSM SPORT
  • Nikon 200-500

The Sigma is more expensive, but i don’t mind if its woth the extra. I don’t know much about Tamron or others.

What would you recommend or have experience with shooting outdoor field sports?

  • @kobra@lemm.ee
    3•25 days ago

    I shoot with Sony but I will say that I am impressed with the one Sigma lens I own. It feels very similar in quality to my Sony G master glass and takes great photos.

  • @afk_strats@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3•25 days ago

    I have the Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC G2 ( A022) for a couple of years and I think it’s pretty great and it has very similar qualities as the Sigma. At the time, this and the Sigma (non sport) were reviewed about the same and the prices were the same too. I ended up asking my trusted local photography shop for their opinions and they convinced me to go Tamron because one of them actually owned one.

    It’s an incredible lens for outdoor stuff. Sharpness is very good up to 500mm and usable after there. I love the colors and bokeh.

    Physically, it is a beast. Add the FTZ for and the hood and it looks like you’re shooting a telescope. It is a workout to shoot with and takes up a lot of room. Terrible for travel or backpacking/hiking.

    Focus was difficult for my D750 but is much, much, better on the Z8.

    I use it primarily as a briding lens and it does Ok. But shooting something unpredictable, small and fast with a heavy lens, smaller aperture, and with a tiny FOV is a learned skill.

    You need plenty of light or stillnesses. There is no way around this. Zoom and small aperture are facts here.

    Now… Here’s the big question. Do you need the extra reach past 500mm? If I remember correctly, the Nikon is slightly more sharp throughout its range, is smaller, and I assume their focus is better than the 3rd party lenses. Knowing what I know today, those factors would have pushed me to the 500mm.

    • @Aufgehtsabgehts@feddit.org
      1•23 days ago

      I am using the Tamron 150-500mm F/5-6.7 Di III VC and I enjoy it a lot. Autofocus with the Sony works fast, with the right light even flying swallows are not save.

      Regarding the focal length: I noticed that I don’t care much if I go 450 mm or 500 mm. But what I do care about: sometimes I wish I could below the 150 mm, to be a bit more flexible. So my next lense in my next live would probably be a sharp and fast 100-400mm.

  • @wallybeavis@lemmings.world
    2•26 days ago

    I too am interested in responses/opinions regarding the Sigma sport. I’ve been keeping an eye on both:

    Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Contemporary
    Tamron SP 150-600mm F/ 5-6.3

    As Spring is starting up I’d like to get back outside, and annoy my local neighbourhood cardinals 😁

      • @Aufgehtsabgehts@feddit.org
        1•23 days ago

        Challenge: Bird or church-person? Cardinals are often seen in groups, twitter a lot and shouldn’t eat too much white bread, or they will poop all over your car.

  • KevinFRKEnglish
    1•25 days ago

    Just in case it helps with further online research - according to Wikipedia, a super telephoto lens is one with a (maximum) focal length of over 300mm, a superzoom lens is one with well over x3 difference between shortest and longest focal lengths.

    So, those lenses discussed so far are definitely super telephoto, but are mostly, or all, not super zoom.

    Alas, I can’t help on actual subject of your interest: mine is bird photography and so rarely want to be at anything other than maximum focal length (and I even found a 600mm Prime lens pleasing and effective to use). For sports, I can well imagine a good zoom (if not super zoom :) ) is very useful, to swap quickly from overall pitch to individual player.

  • @IMALlama@lemmy.world
    1•25 days ago

    Another Sony shooter here. I have a few Sigma primes and optically they’re pretty good. I imagine their zooms are too, but I don’t have any.

    For youth sports, I use Tamron’s 150-500 on e-mount. It looks like it’s available on z-mount too. It focuses very quickly and accurately, is sharp end to end, and has really nice rendering. It’s also a bit smaller/lighter than the Sigma. Yeah, you loose 100mm, but 500 vs 600 isn’t that drastic.

    So far I’ve been through two T-ball seasons, one baseball season, and one soccer season with it. I’ve never found myself wanting for more. On the biggest baseball field our kids have been to, the fences put me either 100 or 175 feet (30-50 meters) from home base at the end of the fence. With 6-7 year old kids I don’t need 500mm on the shorter side for a full body + bat shot.

    Downsides:

    • 150mm is pretty long, so my phone usually comes out of my pocket for post game stuff. I try to stick to a single lens bag
    • On Sony, all third party lenses tend to not hold focus well when zooming. This is more annoyance than anything