email conversation about a lens

[badpickev]

A friend of mine sent me this after one of my rants on dp. I was bemoaning the lack of a real fast usable zoom for DSLRs. I was asking for a 50-250 f2.8-4.

I saw your post about the need for a 50-250....which was weird,since just lat night I told my friend MSW on the phone that " I would give my left nut for the ability to BUY a 50-250mm 2.8 lens!!!!" With the doggone crop factor, for sports/action/candids, there is a HUGE need for a 50 or 60mm-250mm "speed lens" like an f/2.8 model. 70-200 is not adequate--too long on the 70mm end, NOT long enough at the 200mm top end....there's a big need for something between 200 and 300mm with "reasonable" speed. I bought the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but it does not focus right on action....it's prone to mis-focusing. I shot it 800 frames this weekedn on a college women's soccer playoff match, and it sucked!!!! THe 28-200 or 28-300's Anthony suggests are not fast enough focusers,nor fast enough aperture-wise. So, you've actually hit upon an area where the LACK of a 50- or 60- to 250 or 300mm lens is actually a problem for crop-sensor cameras....I myself am having a very difficult time at ssports like soccer and track and field with the lack of a lens that's wiude enough on the bottom end for close-range work,and also LONG enough for distances. THe 100-300 f/4 Sigma is the best compromise,as far as the LONGER end, but it has too long a bottom end at 100mm.....it is better though than a 70-200 with a 1.4x added, AND is LONGER for real at the top end (300mm as opposed to 280mm) and sharper at f/4 than a 70-200 2.8 is when a 1.4 is added to make an effective f/4 lens. THere is a real,genuine LACK of a quality,affordable sports/nature lens that focuses fast, has a wide aperture, and delviers the focal engths needed to make a ONE-lens setup possible to carry. Sigma comes closest,as far as I know. Nikon and Canon have problems....the 80-400 VR focuses too slowly,and is slow,and not that sharp,and has the M/A switch problem,and so on.

The 1.5x factor means there reall *IS* a hole in there which a 50- or 60-250mm f/2.8 pro-type les would bring.....a ficed 300mm f/4 is longer, but has no zoom. THe consumer lenses are f/3.5~5.6 variable aperture lenses, and f/5.6 at 200mm or 300mm is not very good. The small,inexpensive new Nikon 50 or 55-200mm lens looks interesting! But you have actually identified a REAL area of need with the idea that there is a lens problem in the mid-tele area....I run into this problem every outdoor sport....it demands TWO cameras,and TWO high-speed, AF-S capable focusing lenses to get the best pictures. Which sucks.

I am thiniing the best comporomise might be the 120-300 f/2.8 Sigma EX for $1799 from TriState photo in New York...they can deliver it at $1799 I think.As a sports lens I think the 2.8 aperture and the 200-300mm range would make it worthwhile....I am considering buying one myself. If the crop factoir were 1.3x,not 1.57, the 120-300 would be even MORE useful, but still with a 1.5x camera like D2x, I think the 120mm bottom end would be,well still a problem for MANY sports situations,but the longer reacfh of 300mm with all thje zooming abilkity back to 120mm and f/2.8 aperture means the 120-300 might be the next lens I buy for my newspaper sports assignments. But, I have to say, you've identified a PROBLEM, a genuine problem, which a lot of people just do not seem to "see". ANd I don;t know why they cannot see the need for a 50-250mm f/2.8 zoom! Maybe some day, but I am not holding my breath.

[scoundrel1728]

There is a tradeoff between size, cost, light gathering power, image quality, and zoom range. I am not entirely sure that a 50-250mm f/2.8 zoom with sufficient image quality is even possible, given the current state of the art, and if it is, it would be big and expensive. What is being asked for is a lens with a 5x zoom range, which by itself is certainly possible, and an f/2.8, again possible but perhaps not with a 5x zoom range. The truly high-quality f/2.8 zooms available today don't exceed a 3:1 zoom range.

For the time being, I suspect that your photographer friend must live with two lenses and two bodies. If and when such a lens becomes available, it would probably cost more than the two lenses plus extra body. How much would your friend be willing to pay for such a lens?

[badpickev]

true on all your points. while a fixed 2.8 would really push the evelope, a f2.8-4 might not, or even a 3.5-5.6. Just give me something faster than a f4

[scoundrel1728]

It's precious hard to find anything with a focal length at 250 mm or greater as fast as f/4, even in a prime, let alone a 5x zoom. I think this requirement is also pushing the state of the art. And they weigh a ton!

[Gbee]

My 300mm ƒ2.8 L Canon is not a week old as I write.

I’ve been struggling with similar problems too. My beloved 70~200 ƒ2.8 suffers from both of the ‘problems’ described. I have found good results with the 1.4x adapter but they are not totally reliable and THE shot may be occasionally missed.

I did not want to spend the big money but as your friend already discovered the Sigma is not fast enough and the 120~300 ƒ2.8 also suffers from too slow a focus for the more dedicated soccer photographer, a search in Fred Miranda will reveal some users reviews.

Definitely the two sporting problems are, AF and tracking. ƒ4 is an absolute minimum IMO, one can ‘get away’ with ƒ4 but again, as your friend has found the performance between the ƒ2.8 v ƒ4 can be spectacular ~ if one is talking about Canon camera these are very important indeed as Canon users know.

ƒ5.6 is a disaster on the field, sunny weather maybe, but otherwise it’s just too, too, slow. The 400mm ƒ5.6 L from Canon is a spectacular lens and economical too, but for the serious sports guy, maybe not.

I was seriously considering the Sigma 120~300 ƒ2.8, I still think it is arguably a good choice. I like the zoom and it’s a weighty but well balanced lens, with quick AF and it is a tempting lens as it’s comparatively small and neat and probably is a better take it anyway, just in case lens then my monstrous new addition.

My personal decision to spend the big money and not buy the Sigma was based in part on the owners own review of the lens with soccer and football particularly in mind coupled with the comparisons found on the Fed Miranda’s site and the lack of IS and weather sealing.

However, whilst I’ve bought one of the top lenses in the world, I am not satisfied that the solution is the best one as using multiple cameras is realistically too slow, and changing lenses is also too slow and virtually impossible in bad weather.

And of course the more one analyses it the more one must make a decision as to what type of photograph are they going to tackle today. Until recently, on matches that I had the luxury of staying for the full time, I’d us the 70~200 with either the 2x or 1.4x converter for the first half and based on where the majority of the action took place I’d position myself with the 70~200 bare lens and wait for the action to come to me, but one needs time and patients. Not a position to be in when one needs to ‘cover’ three matches separated by miles and all starting at the same time!