I have a Sony alpha 58 and considering a Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and a Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 lens. Which would best suit my needs for sport photos?
1327201
As you go up om magnification two problems happen. 1 increasimg blurrimg with less motion. Therefore you need a tripod. 2. There is less light so you need lower f stops in the 3 - 4 region. Of course these restrictions can be overcome with more costs
2034642
I would not use my 85mm for sporting events, I would use my AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED. And use the sports mode on the dial. I am not a pro though.
795054
This lens is great for bright daylight sport photography. Although it is a constant aperture F4 lens, it may not be fast enough (i.e. collect enough light to keep your shutter speed high) to be able to stop sports motion. Also the image stabilizer will not help you to stop motion, it is only designed to prevent camera shake which it does well. Keep in mind the other comparable lens is the significantly more expensive EF 70-200 2.8L but it is 1 stop faster (i.e. doubles your shutter speed or you can lower your ISO). So it is possible to take good sports photography with this lens but you'll need to crank up your ISO but 1 stop more than you normally would with a F2.8 lens. This is especially true with the newer camera sensors where you can crank up the ISO without much of a noise penalty.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
496027
I understand your situation, but for shooting indoor sports the wider aperture is the way to go. Save up for the 200mm telephoto. It's a great lens and considerably less expensive than something like a 70-200 IS ii.
495811
Hi, I have a lens 55-200 for Sony Alpha, Could you tell me what is correct the size for it?
1705909
I think this is a wonderful lens for sports. Same as Nikon only better build quality and smaller body.
1211556
I don't think you would have an issue. We have used it extensively with a good 70-200 2.8 lens for sporting events with no issues.
1130012
What are you going to be photographing? I would be the f/2.8 but I concentrate on low light and sports.
2203914
This is a 500mm lensIt has an add on multiplier that when used make it a 1000mm. Unless you just want to have some fun and spend some money I would not recommend it.Save up and get the Tamron 150-600mm lens and you will have something you can use for everything but sports.
824633
I find the 28 to 70 lens to be a really great lens, sharp, easy to use, fast focus but a bit heavy when used for an event such as weddings. I would recommend looking at 24 - 70mm lens by sigma.
320074
I have a D800 and all the lenses you listed as well. The 35 i think would lend itself to portraits and the like. I take mostly outdoor stuff which the 28=300 is a fantastic all around lens that I use for a walk around lens. Necessary no not at all but a nice addition.
708425
I'm sorry I don't know the answer to that question. I have a 18 to 55 mm and a 18 to 135 mm Sony which are great lenses. I just don't have any experience with a alpha a300. A call to their local distributor or the Sony website should get that information for you. John F
970589
I take flower and action scene shots. It stops action very well and with 18-55 mm and 55-300 mm lenses, both nikon works great. It's a general pack not specifically for just sports. It does it all.
18315
I purchased the 56/1.2. What an amazing lens! I have a blast with the portraits now I am able to take. Another great prime lens would be the 23/1.4. I don't have it since I have the X100s as well. My last Fuji lens is the 55-200. Very sharp, well built lens. Took it on an air show and was able to take great, sharp photos on fast moving jets and airplanes. Can't go wrong with it.
941929
They make a Nikon version..a number of people have commented on low speed for sports. Most. Lens of this focal length have similar F-stop range
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.