chriscoscia

If the light is mediocre, then faster is better. So go for 200mm F2.8 instead of 300mm

F5.6. You can always put a 1.4 or 2x TC on the 200mm to get better shots than the

300mm F5.6 when you have low light. And the 200mm without the TC will be awesome.

However, I take a lot of surfing photos, and 200mm isn't long enough. I usually use

500mm for surfing shots. Surfing is one of the most diffucult sports to shoot I think,

because the dark water will show noise (darker colors are always noisier), so you need a

fast lens PLUS a long one for surfing.

You will get nice pics using 200mm plus 2x TC for surfing, but later you will yearn for a

bigger lens.

You need F1.4 for indoor shots, but you can probably get close so 50mm should work well.

If you increase ISO too high the pics will be noisy.

Correct link of the white background is here (you might have to cut and paste this instead

of clicking on it):

http://gallery.mac.com/chriscoscia#100209/tree-20house-203-

20DSC01934_2&bgcolor=white

I thought of what Alan mentions above before I posted this question, but that's not the

problem. Below is the pic with a white background. Notice the color difference in the leaves,

the right tree trunk, and the roof of the house. They are definitely different.

Here is the pic with a white background.

http://gallery.mac.com/chriscoscia#100209/tree-20house-203-

20DSC01934_2&bgcolor=white

I just uploaded this pic to photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/photo/6758249

This is the EXACT same file that i also uploaded to this location (the pic on my computer also looks like

this one):

http://gallery.mac.com/chriscoscia#100209/tree-20house-203-20DSC01934_2&bgcolor=black

You will notice that, although the files are identical, they look different.

Why is this? Does photo.net process the photos in any way?

This is the first time I noticed that a pic I uploaded looks "different".

One of my cameras is the A100. I use it often. The AF works great for me. If ALL your pics are

blurry then it sounds defective;

I use Sigma and Sony lenses and they AF. Also I have the Minolta 50 F1.7 (for film camera)

that I use on the A100 in low light and it works.

I'm using the Sony Alpha, for this question. So it seems from comments above that there is

little difference in the speed of focus. If anyone disagrees and has seen significant difference,

then let me know. thanks for all your comments.

I agree with recommendations above. BTW I always prefer to shoot under ISO 800, no

matter how "good" the noise control in the camera is, it's still noticeable in dark areas

when you print 8x10 or larger. Shooting lower ISO requires faster lens (lower f number)

of course.

Cropping is also going to degrade the pics.

So the key is a fast lens, f2 or lower for under 200mm. If you shoot other sports where

you are farther, a 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 tc will work nicely but the tc reduces your

speed.

One nice thing about the 50mm is you can get them cheap, even at f1.4, if you are close

enough.

There are many people that do this themselfs. But I prefer to have it done professionally,

much safer.

Thanks for your replies, much appreciated. I had heard before that SSM was mostly for

silence but thanks for confirming.

I've been looking at 300mm F2.8 lenses like the Sigma and Tamron. (I'm aware of the Sony f2.8 but that's

much to expensive for me at $5,000).

But Sigma does not have HSM for Sony Alpha mounts. Tamron makes a 300mm F2.8 but I don't know how

fast its auto-focus is.

1. How much "faster" is HSM/SSM? I don't really care that HSM is quieter, I only care about the AF speed.

2. What good 300mm F2.8 is there for Sony?

3. Would I be disappointed with Sigma 300mm F2.8 without HSM?

4. Is the Autofocus speed on Tamron 300mm F2.8 faster/slower than Sigma?

Thanks Mark. To clarify, I would also like comments on using the 2x TC with the 300mm

F2.8. I need 500-600mm for some shots, since 420mm doesn't bring me close enough.

I would definitely go for the faster lens (2.8). Also, Sigma makes good lenses... read their

reviews. The Canon 100x400 f4.5-5.6 is pretty slow, even if it is an L lens. Look at Sigma

options. Remember that adding TC will lower your speed though.

I'm shooting sports, nature and surfing. I need a longer lense, but I cannot afford a 500m F4. So which of

these two is better? Does the 300mm do well with teleconverters? I know the 500mm below is slow.

1. Sigma APO 300mm F2.8 EX DG/HSM with 1.4 and 2x teleconverter, or

2. Sigma APO 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM

Any comments are appreciated.