1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sigma 50-150mm or Nikon 70-300VR for Baseball in a domed stadium??

Discussion in 'Sports Photography' started by slapshotk, Jul 17, 2008.

  1. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    I've had my first dslr (D40 with 18-55 and 55-200VR) for a month and love it! I'm a big baseball fan and attend as many games as possible in Houston. Looking to potentially upgrade the quality of my "ball game " lens to either the Sigma 50-150mm or the Nikon 70-300VR...Size, weight, and $$$ are all important factors...Any thoughts???

    Below is a link to my first baseball images with the D40...Lighting inside Minute Maid field appears to be a challenge for me...

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28426668@N03/sets/72157606079662797/

    TIA....
     
  2. tjk60

    tjk60

    Dec 4, 2007
    troy, mi
    Lighting in every indoor arena is difficult for sports shooting. I'm not sure either of those lens would be a significant upgrade w/o getting faster glass, but of course that cost more money. Given the option of the two lenses, I would do the 70-300, just for the reach.
     
  3. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    I'd stay away from the 50-150 unless you have really good seats (not enough reach). Go for an 80-200 AF-S or the 70-200 Sigma HSM...both f/2.8 lenses.
     
  4. eng45ine

    eng45ine

    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    I agree with Dave, I would opt for an f/2.8 lens for shooting in this venue.
     
  5. Oldtime

    Oldtime

    Jul 5, 2006
    Durham, NC
    As others have stated 2.8 lens for inside stadium lighting and a D40
    Otherwise you will be wasting time
    Good luck
     
  6. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    Seems like the Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 is my best option taking into consideration size,weight, and $$$$..I'm assuming that lack of VR won't hurt given that my subject will be moving and that I have F/2.8?? Range *should* be ok given that I normally get seats 15-20 rows from the field... Appreciate any other thoughts before I pull the trigger...

    My last game with D40 and 55-200VR..First time out with a DSLR:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2842666...7606079662797/
     
  7. Oldtime

    Oldtime

    Jul 5, 2006
    Durham, NC
    Sitting 15-20 rows from the field and using a 50-150mm will still leave you with pictures you will have to crop pretty seriously
    You may et some OK shots on the players on your side of field but 150mm is not alot when you want to catch faces
    Good luck and post your results
     
  8. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    Great feedback! Thanks everyone!! Still not sure which way to go.. Seems like a question of priorities for me given what I'm trying to achieve (awesome action baseball images) taking into account size, weight, and $$$...The question in my mind is what's most important when comparing these two options: reach or image quality given my shooting conditions (indoor stadium lighting etc).. Can lack of reach be somewhat made up by cropping or can less than stellar IQ be made up by post processing?? Would be interested in your thoughts if this all makes sense to you..

    Thanks as always..
     
  9. eng45ine

    eng45ine

    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    Here are a couple of images I hope will help you decide on your future purchase. The first taken with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens when I was seated at least fifty rows off the field along the third base line. This image was severely cropped, but with decent results...

    Sliding into second base...
    45599846.

    This image taken from the first row along the first base line with a 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter....no cropping...
    View attachment 223315
     
  10. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    WOW Frank! Amazing images! They are both great but my favorite is the 2nd image! Seems like reach for what I'm trying to do should be my priority and that would place me in the 70-300VR camp based on my two choices...
     
  11. Cima2oo7

    Cima2oo7

    360
    Aug 11, 2007
    Mountain Home, ID
    Mark
    Save your money and get a 2.8 lens. As others have said, either of those will give you less than great results and you will end up spending more money to get the right lens on top of the wrong one than if you got the right one in the first place. I have a Sigma 80-200 2.8 that I picked up for $475 (I think) in the "for sale" section here.

    I hope that all made sense. Im tired and will edit tomorrow if necessary.
     
  12. gilbo

    gilbo

    367
    Feb 10, 2007
    Texas
  13. gilbo

    gilbo

    367
    Feb 10, 2007
    Texas
  14. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    Wow Gilbo! Amazing! I don't mind saving my money to make the right choice the first time... Since I'm new to this I gather that you don't find the size and weight of the 70-200VR cumbersome while at the ball park?? Would this size lens be ok with a D40 (which is what I have)???
     
  15. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    Gilbo, what SS do you normally use? I assume you use Shutter priority or Manual??
     
  16. gilbo

    gilbo

    367
    Feb 10, 2007
    Texas

    sorry typo on my part, those photos were taken with my d80 and 70-200vr not my d200.

    i don't find it cumbersome at all, i also got the black rapid strap, for it recently, so i have no complaints

    it should b fine with the d40

    did u goto any of the cubs/astros this wkend?
     
  17. slapshotk

    slapshotk

    38
    Jul 17, 2008
    Houston, Texas
    Gilbo...Thanks for the reply... I did go to the game today...I'll take a look at the images I took and update my flickr page in a bit..I was in row 16 bit towards the 3rd base side but still behind the net...As much as I tried with my 55-200VR I could not get a decent image above 1/320 at f/5.6.... I think the right answer is the 70-200VR.. I just need to get my head wrapped around the size and weight and save a few pennies...Are you a Yankee fan? I am as well..I've been in Houston for a few years.. I went to all three games when they played the Astros (unfortunately before my D40..did take a few P&S shots)...
     
  18. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    It is amazing how quickly you get used to the size and weight of new gear. What seems large and heavy now will soon be a thought of the past.

    When I first moved up to a 200 f/2 from shooting with a 70-200 f/2.8 I thought the lens was a monster. Now I find I enjoy hand holding it as much as using it on a monopod.

    I went shooting recently with a fellow Cafe member who owns a 400 f/2.8 and after 30 minutes shooting with it on a monopod no longer felt intimidated by the larger glass.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.