Tamron 200-500mm for football? sports?

[mma]

I am wondering if anyone has any experience with the Tamron SP Autofocus

200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) Lens for football or sports like soccer or lacross.

I am starting out doing sports photography and I'd like the extra reach that my

70-200mm 2.8L lense cant give me. However I am concerned with the picture

quality and perhaps a loss of depth of field with the higher fstops. I would

prefer to stick with canon however after renting the 100-400mm, I couldn't get

use to the push pull zoom method. I like the flexiblity of a zoom however I

notice alot of pros just go for the 400mm prime.. short of getting the $$$ 2.8L

would the 5.6L be worth the trade off of not having the zoom feature in the

tamron lense.

 

Any advice would be good.

[jcmellen]

I don't know anything about the Tamron, so I can't comment on that...but my instincts tell me that quality won't be excellent on that. The big problem that I see is that its terribly slow. Are these sports that you are shooting daytime or nighttime? If nighttime...don't waist your money. WAY too slow for that.

[jcmellen]

Hit submit too fast....

 

what kind of budget are you looking at? I think you'd be better off buying a used 300mm 2.8. Even a Sigma 300 2.8 would be a descent option.

[matthias_meixner2]

At f/6.3 your autofocus may have problems, since it is only designed to work up to f/5.6, only some of the (semi-) professional cameras are designed to work with f/8.

[shambrick007]

<a href = "http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_200500_563/index.htm">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_200500_563/index.htm</a>

[mark u]

I think that you will be struggling for shutter speed, at least in anything other than reasonable daylight. You will be looking for perhaps 1/1000th or faster to avoid camera shake at the long end, and 1/500th minimum to freeze motion. A faster lens is a good idea. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 would be a better choice - but beware if you've not used so large and heavy a lens - it takes practice, and at least a good monopod.

[mma]

Thanks for all the responses.. I agree that with sports photos speed is definitely a factor. I guess the Tamron doesn't cut it. I probably could do the 400mm 5.6 prime, the 300mm 2.8 by sigma is interesting option still breaking $2000 tho.. i feel that 300mm would not bring me close enough. Ive never shot with more than my 200mm for football so i don't really know. only shot with the 100-400mm for softball.

 

I know there's soft focus but would it be worth it to stick a 2x teleconverter for a min fstop of 4 on my 70-200mm2.8L for night photography.

[forrest.berkshire]

If you are shooting high school football at night, the slow lens will not be worth it. I've shot a

lot of high school football games. I used to use a Nikon 300mm 2.8 and was still often

shooting at 1000 ISO. Even with a Nikon D2H, at ISO 1000 I couldn't stand the noise.

 

My advice would be get a 1.4x extender, and walk the sidelines to get closer to the action if

need be.

[doug_landrum]

Hi Melissa,

 

A 2X Teleconverter will give you a two stop loss in exposure. I bought a 1.4X Teleconverter, which results in a one stop loss. The 20D/30D 1.6 crop factor provides a 150mm to 450mm zoom range with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM and the 1.4X II. The combination of 2X and 70-200 is not reported to be very good at maximum aperture.

 

I found that the one stop loss was too much light gathering loss for night football in Laguna Beach.

 

I shoot 1600 ISO Manual f/2.8 1/250sec and use a 580EX set at center weighted averaging flash metering (set by custom function on the 20D) with the flash compensation at minus 2/3 stop. A local newspaper pro shooting an EOS 1D MKII N gave me this set up and it works. Various football fields require tweaking the flash exposure compendation. The pro hooks in a Quantum battery pack to shoot his camera at 8 frames per second. I also use a monopod and get to the sidelines or end zone as close as possible to the action.

 

At least for high school football at night, anything slower than f/2.8 is too slow.

 

Good shooting.

[ko photo]

I have limited experience in night sports photo, and I am not a pro by any means. I really like the 100-400 canon and have used the Tamron 200-500 (only one day barrowed to try). I will say the IS feature is great on the 100-400 but you do need full sun! I have a 300 2.8 for late afternoons or limited light, non IS and monopod not great - i use a full wimberley head on heavy tripod to get best photos possible...I had the opportunity to shoot at my grandsons football game in Tx Stadium...light was 60% and had to really stretch to get enough light, even with the 2.8...there are a few photos from the game on photo.net...

 

full light the100-400 IS does a great job on soccer, baseball etc. Goodluck!

[mark u]

There's really no point in getting the 400 f/5.6 for soccer if you already own the 100-400. Especially when shooting at floodlit games, there is no substitute for a fast lens - the more so if the pitch isn't lit to broadcast TV lighting standards. Field lighting may be easily as much as 3-4 stops darker than TV lights at some venues, limiting you to say 1/250th at f/2.8 using 3200 ISO - only useable with an IS lens with significant risk of motion blur.

 

The best advice is to get closer to the action where you can - don't feel you have to follow the entire game using a long zoom lens.