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…
  • somethingp@lemmy.world
    2·
    6 months ago

    I take it on walks for wildlife and usually hand hold there. If your subject isn’t very far and tiny, you can hand hold relatively comfortably. I did get a small rig baseplate to make my a7iv’s grip tall enough so my pinky fits comfortably. I’m 5’11" and kind of chunky, but if you’re a lot smaller the lens may not be as easy to hand hold. In that case even a monopole is enough to make it easier to use the lens, I think. I used to feel shy about carrying my big lens around, but once I got over that, I realized I should use the best thing I’ve got to take photos I enjoy taking. I just got back from a Yellowstone trip where every dude over 55 years old made some comment like “now that’s a camera/lens” when they saw me, but I just laughed and carried on. I wouldn’t be too worried about how you look. Just carry on with the things you enjoy, and get those overly profession photos of your kids’ sports.

    • IMALlama@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      6 months ago

      I appreciate the reply!

      If your subject isn’t very far and tiny, you can hand hold relatively comfortably.

      My subjects are 40"-48" or so tall and 75-100 feet away from me depending on the field. I thought my 50-400 was serving me pretty well, but I went through the EXIF data and realized that about a third of the photos I had taken were at 400mm. I haven’t taken any photos at the field with the 100 foot distance yet either…

      I did get a small rig baseplate to make my a7iv’s grip tall enough so my pinky fits comfortably.

      Ha, I did the same on my former A7III. My pinky seems to fit fairly well on the A9II, but I do find myself missing the massive grip on my former Z6II.

      I’m 5’11" and kind of chunky, but if you’re a lot smaller the lens may not be as easy to hand hold.

      I’m 5’10" and reasonably fit, but I haven’t actively worked out in a very long time.

      I did swap for the Tamron 150-500 today and did a tiny amount of shooting with it. It’s a 4 pound lens vs the 50-400’s 2.5 pounds or the Sony 200-600’s 4.65 pounds. I did briefly handle the 200-600 today and the zoom was amazing and the weight wasn’t that different than the 150-500. Having the zoom ring further toward the front of the lens, since it’s always “extended”, might actually make it better handling than Tamron’s 150-500 in hindsight. Maybe I should swap again and then wrap the lens to make it not white, lol.

      My main concern is fatigue from shooting a full 1.5 hour game.

      I wouldn’t be too worried about how you look. Just carry on with the things you enjoy, and get those overly profession photos of your kids’ sports.

      I really appreciate the entire end of your reply. If this wasn’t for pretty young youth sports, the 200-600 would be the lens to have. It’s not like the 150-500, or even the 50-400, is that much more compact when they’re fully zoomed. My wife likes to rib me about being the creepy camera guy, but the other parents on the team seem to really appreciate the photos. At this age the expressions the kids make are priceless and you’re not going to see them without reach, but I’m wary of taking it too far. At this point I’m just the guy with some disposable income. One of the parents did ask if I was a professional photographer and was surprised when I said no.

      • somethingp@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 months ago

        Glad I could help! The zoom ring really is perfect. It’s so easy to go through the whole range from 200-600. This makes it much more comfortable to hand hold since you never actually have to take your left hand off of it.

        And yeah, you’re never gonna regret a photo that looks too good haha! As for wraps, I really like the alphagvrd vinyl wraps. They even have a Lego one that the kids might get a kick out of!