I think I’m going to lean into the FF E-mount world, which means giving up my D5300 + Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (115 - 450 FF equivalent). Before kids, I used this lens for motorsports/landscape/travel. Post kids we don’t do a ton of that, so I’ve been getting along well with a pair of 35mm and 50mm primes.

My kids are pretty young and are starting to play outdoor sports like T-ball and soccer. This has brought my D5300 + 70-300 out of retirement. I’m missing the conviences of my A9, so I’m trying to figure out what lens I should get for sports duty. At this point, everything is outdoors during the middle of the day so there’s no need for a fast lens. It was pretty drizzly last weekend and my current (slow lens) setup still kept ISO below 1k most of the day with a 1/640 shutter. I figure I can comfortably double ISO and halve my shutter speed on the A9 while still getting a lower noise image than I have today, so I don’t think I need fast glass.

Looking through EXIF data from the previous few games on the D5300 + 70-300 it looks like I use the full range of focal lengths, but the vast majority of shots are under 400mm FF EQ and above 150mm FF EQ. I’m a little wary of wanting more reach in a few years when the kids are on bigger fields, but they’ll also be bigger so maybe it will wash out. Who knows if they’ll still be interested in playing either.

So what do you think?

  • Third part lens that stops at 400? This means no teleconvertor in the future, but this seems like it would work well for today
  • First party 100-400? Adding a 1.4 teleconvertor makes this a 140-560, but it also makes the f-stop at the long end f/8 which might not be great for sports
  • 500mm? Tamron’s 150-500 seems decent and doesn’t call too much attention to itself, but it is heavier
  • 600mm? These lenses are all fairly bit/shouty visually, but are potentially more future proof…
  • Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    I’ve got the Pentax version of the 70 - 300, and, yeah, it’s a world of difference.

    Like you say, renting might be a good idea, maybe with a monopod. They’re a bit more subtle, and won’t stand out as much as a tripod.

    • IMALlama@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      6 months ago

      I crawled through through the EXIF data of the 230 photos I’ve taken so far across one soccer game and two t-ball games. Here’s the spread of FF EQ focal length:

      • I’ve taken 11 (~5%) photos that have a FF EQ focal length of > 400mm. In looking at them, they’re not photos that I’m likely to try to take again. A number of them were taken from behind the chain link backstop at home plate of my kiddo in the outfield and the shots weren’t compelling, had the fence in frame (but significantly out of focus obviously), etc
      • I’ve taken 16 (~7%) photos that had a FF EQ focal length of < 150mm. These sub-divide into 50% soccer game pics with the action somewhat close to where I was and 50% of photos of the kid that wasn’t playing being goofy on the sidelines. For the soccer action, it looks like I could have been a little tighter than I was for most of the shots and for the kiddo on the sidelines I could have probably backed up more

      In terms of already-taken EXIF data, it seems like a toss up between a 50-400/100-400 and the 150-500.

      I stopped by my local camera store today to feel Tamron’s 50-400 and 150-500 on camera / in hand. I walked out with the 50-400. It was hard to argue about 1,155g / 40.7 oz (2.54 pounds) vs 1,725g / 60.8 oz (3.8 pounds). They have a 14 day return policy, so if push comes to shove over the next two weeks I can always swap.