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

Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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....
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
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.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
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.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,166
Location
Durham, NC
As others have stated 2.8 lens for inside stadium lighting and a D40
Otherwise you will be wasting time
Good luck
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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/
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,166
Location
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
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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..
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
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...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


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
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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...
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
360
Location
Mountain Home, ID
Real Name
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.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
367
Location
Texas
here r a few from about 15 rows up outside the netting on the visitor side, at the Ballpark in Arlington, these were taken with d200 and 70-200vr 2.8, bp was taken up on the dugout

these r from last year

http://gilbo.smugmug.com/gallery/3975330_q593x#231056120_PCiKz
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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)???
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
367
Location
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)???

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?
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
38
Location
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)...
 
R

RichNY

Guest
I just need to get my head wrapped around the size and weight and save a few pennies...
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.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom