Great video! I do sports photography as well and I use a Tamron 70-200 mm f 2.8 lens and a Nikkor 200-500 mm f 5.6 lens. The Question which lens is better depends on the situation. I must say there are times when the action is almost always on the other side of the field, so the 200-500 mm can get me really close, whereas the 70-200 mm is too short at times. But of course, when the action is closer, the 70-200 mm performs also really well. If you photograph games in the evening and the floodlight goes on, the 70-200mm f 2.8 is a must have due to the larger aperture.
Thanks. I have a Nikkor 70-200 and did come away thinking that it would have been very useful to have! As you say though, sometimes you need the extra reach too, so perhaps the double camera setup is the way to go. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. 😊
I have 70-200mm tamron very little images I want super close, and I am thinking of buying this lens USD to get super closer shots. SO QUESTION IS SIGMA OR TAMRON (cheap) lens for my D610 nikon? Thanks
I've found 300mm to be a great focal length on a FF body, standing on the sidelines at the top of the box looking up the field waiting for action to come towards me, or shots on goal; 450mm effective is too long for me. In the 'old days' I used a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a DX body with the same strategy and effect.
Awesome video, really got everything covered! Would the sigma work well with the Canon r7? I’m trying to find a good lens but I don’t want to spend too much, would the sigma be the right fit for me and sports photography?
Thanks Roy. It's very good for this price range. The other options are the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. I haven't tried one, but from what I read, the Tamron is very similar to the Sigma. The Nikon has a constant 5.6 aperture, but you lose some of the range. What I found photographing this match was that I didn't really need the 600mm end very much, but the 150mm was already a bit too long in some situations. So that would rule out the 200-500 for me. So in short, yes - you can't do a lot better than the Sigma at this price. It is very heavy, so perhaps also consider the Contemporary version, which is lighter. If I were doing this again, I'd actually carry two cameras, one with the Sigma and another with a shorter range zoom for the closer shots. Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks Paul. Absolutely, I do sometimes use a monopod, but left it at home on this occasion so that it was a fairer comparison to the Nikkor. Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks for watching Dave. I believe the contemporary is quite a bit lighter and therefore a bit easier to use hand-held. I do like the weather sealing on the Sports version though, so it's swings and roundabouts, a bit. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I didn’t even think of the weight. The contemporary is already a hefty piece to haul around. I do love my weather sealed lenses though! In a place like New England they’ve come in real handy. I look forward to checking out your other videos! 💪🏼
Hi there, comparing these two lens together i like chalk and cheese, it would have been better to compare the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 against the Nikon 300mm, and away to do most field sports you need 2 bodies 1 with a longer/ long lens 300mm or longer and a shorter 70-200 F2.8. Another point is you need to shoot from lower position this will make the players look bigger, works even better with kids field sports.
That was the point here Paul - I suppose you could say I wanted to know whether chalk or cheese would work better in this situation. If I ever get hold of the Sigma 120-300mm I'll happily do a video comparing the two. Thanks for the getting lower tip. 👍
Thanks Robert! I'm a convert to Zoom in the mid range, my 24-240 Canon RF lens is brilliant! I agree a fixed focal length lense is not practical for sports I'm not a fan of 3rd party lenses, I would rather buy a 2nd hand camera makers lens Great Video as always, thanks for sharing
Wow, 24-240 is quite some range! On a bright day like this one, I guess that would be all you need. I might have to look at a super zoom option for my D500. Thanks for watching Tony. 😊
Cheers Andrew. I'm thinking a double camera setup could be good too, with a short tele zoom, and then something longer on the other cam. Not looking cheap though! 😁
Yeah, probably - I imagine I just didn't have time to adjust my settings and opted to get the shot with the settings I had, rather than miss it. I'll probably experiment with shutter priority mode next time.
not Quick enough to freeze fingers during fast actions, it depends of light conditions and the lense. if you can, of course go to min 1/1600 for hight quality results
Great video! I do sports photography as well and I use a Tamron 70-200 mm f 2.8 lens and a Nikkor 200-500 mm f 5.6 lens. The Question which lens is better depends on the situation. I must say there are times when the action is almost always on the other side of the field, so the 200-500 mm can get me really close, whereas the 70-200 mm is too short at times. But of course, when the action is closer, the 70-200 mm performs also really well. If you photograph games in the evening and the floodlight goes on, the 70-200mm f 2.8 is a must have due to the larger aperture.
Thanks. I have a Nikkor 70-200 and did come away thinking that it would have been very useful to have! As you say though, sometimes you need the extra reach too, so perhaps the double camera setup is the way to go. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. 😊
I have 70-200mm tamron very little images I want super close, and I am thinking of buying this lens USD to get super closer shots. SO QUESTION IS SIGMA OR TAMRON (cheap) lens for my D610 nikon?
Thanks
I've found 300mm to be a great focal length on a FF body, standing on the sidelines at the top of the box looking up the field waiting for action to come towards me, or shots on goal; 450mm effective is too long for me. In the 'old days' I used a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a DX body with the same strategy and effect.
Yeah, after trying this, I tend to agree. The 300 vs 70-200 might be a good comparison for the next time I do this. Thanks for watching. 😊
Awesome video, really got everything covered! Would the sigma work well with the Canon r7? I’m trying to find a good lens but I don’t want to spend too much, would the sigma be the right fit for me and sports photography?
Thanks Roy. It's very good for this price range. The other options are the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. I haven't tried one, but from what I read, the Tamron is very similar to the Sigma. The Nikon has a constant 5.6 aperture, but you lose some of the range. What I found photographing this match was that I didn't really need the 600mm end very much, but the 150mm was already a bit too long in some situations. So that would rule out the 200-500 for me. So in short, yes - you can't do a lot better than the Sigma at this price. It is very heavy, so perhaps also consider the Contemporary version, which is lighter. If I were doing this again, I'd actually carry two cameras, one with the Sigma and another with a shorter range zoom for the closer shots. Thanks for watching. 😊
Excellent review Robert. I use the sigma for wildlife and is a great lens but the weight is a real issue - def recommend a monopod.
Thanks Paul. Absolutely, I do sometimes use a monopod, but left it at home on this occasion so that it was a fairer comparison to the Nikkor. Thanks for watching. 😊
good day sir… thank you this video…. can you also do a review on nikon 80-400mm, thank you
It's not one I own, but I'll keep an eye out for one, and make a video if something comes up. Thanks for watching. 😊
Really like this comparison betwen them, thank you for doing this video.
Thanks Ralf, really glad you liked it. 😊
I use the Sigma Contemporary version (not for quick action) and have loved it. Good to see the Sport in action - thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching Dave. I believe the contemporary is quite a bit lighter and therefore a bit easier to use hand-held. I do like the weather sealing on the Sports version though, so it's swings and roundabouts, a bit. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I didn’t even think of the weight. The contemporary is already a hefty piece to haul around. I do love my weather sealed lenses though! In a place like New England they’ve come in real handy.
I look forward to checking out your other videos! 💪🏼
Hi there, comparing these two lens together i like chalk and cheese, it would have been better to compare the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 against the Nikon 300mm, and away to do most field sports you need 2 bodies 1 with a longer/ long lens 300mm or longer and a shorter 70-200 F2.8. Another point is you need to shoot from lower position this will make the players look bigger, works even better with kids field sports.
That was the point here Paul - I suppose you could say I wanted to know whether chalk or cheese would work better in this situation. If I ever get hold of the Sigma 120-300mm I'll happily do a video comparing the two. Thanks for the getting lower tip. 👍
Surely a300mm lens on a D500 body would produce a effective focal length of 450mm
The focal length is still 300mm John, but yes, the field of view is equivalent to 450mm. Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks Robert! I'm a convert to Zoom in the mid range, my 24-240 Canon RF lens is brilliant! I agree a fixed focal length lense is not practical for sports I'm not a fan of 3rd party lenses, I would rather buy a 2nd hand camera makers lens Great Video as always, thanks for sharing
Wow, 24-240 is quite some range! On a bright day like this one, I guess that would be all you need. I might have to look at a super zoom option for my D500. Thanks for watching Tony. 😊
should be sat down and shoot horizontal for football
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind for next time. 👍
Yeah I'd agree with going for the zoom for sports, it just gives you more flexibility. Great video Robert.
Cheers Andrew. I'm thinking a double camera setup could be good too, with a short tele zoom, and then something longer on the other cam. Not looking cheap though! 😁
@Robert Bishop photography never does look cheap Robert 😀
@@AndrewWaltonPhotography 😂
1/2000 is a bit overkill isn't it? 1/1000 is plenty to drop that iso in triple digits. you lost 2 stops on aperture and shutter speed.
Yeah, probably - I imagine I just didn't have time to adjust my settings and opted to get the shot with the settings I had, rather than miss it. I'll probably experiment with shutter priority mode next time.
@@Robert-Bishop or go manual, with shutter speed 1/1000 , f/6.4 and auto iso
not Quick enough to freeze fingers during fast actions, it depends of light conditions and the lense. if you can, of course go to min 1/1600 for hight quality results
Bro forgot to photograph 7:25
Haha, the perils of making UA-cam videos, I guess. It's okay though, this was only for fun. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop i thought it was a perfect touch well done 👍