tamron 70-200mm v. tamron 70-300mm

[TheFantasticG]

That too general of a solution and won't work in every situation. Sometimes you need a smaller aperture, sometimes even the bigger aperture won't be enough to compensate.

Stop talking. Brain is right. You do not know what you are talking about Hamlet, and you are confusing the OP. Please, for her benefit, stop posting in this thread.

 

[petto]

Stop talking. Brain is right. You do not know what you are talking about Hamlet, and you are confusing the OP. Please, for her benefit, stop posting in this thread.

Lol

OP See if you can rent both for a weekend and try them out. My $$ would be on the 70-200 at 2.8 vs. a lens that is 5.6. The 70-300 seems to be more of a "travelers" all around lens than a sports lens.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Now. Kgirl. What Brianeack said is correct. You need "faster" glass, I.E. F2.8 of the 70-200mm VC Di USD lens. This allows you to keep your shutter high and you ISO low to freeze the action so your subjects aren't blurred. Now, before you drop $1500 on the 70-200mm F2.8 VC Di USD, please consider learning (like Hamlet needs to do) about the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture by reading this: Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera http://amzn.com/0817439390. Also consider this: Nikon D5100: From Snapshots to Great Shots http://amzn.com/0321793846 or something to that affect to teach you about your camera.

Bottom line is no matter what lens you use is that if you aren't using the right autofocus mode there is no way you are going to get the results you are looking for.

 

[hamlet]

That too general of a solution and won't work in every situation. Sometimes you need a smaller aperture, sometimes even the bigger aperture won't be enough to compensate.

Stop talking. Brain is right. You do not know what you are talking about Hamlet, and you are confusing the OP. Please, for her benefit, stop posting in this thread.

Why are you so evasive when i asked you to explain yourself? Expound or leave it be.

 

[kgirl16]

I'm just focused on sport pictures, I'm not worried about noise because it's for a yearbook. Clearly I shouldn't have posted this because this is I simply asked for one answer, not complicated answers because I don't understand it,and I'm still trying to understand my camera.

-thanks.

 

[PaulWog]

I'm just focused on sport pictures, I'm not worried about noise because it's for a yearbook. Clearly I shouldn't have posted this because this is I simply asked for one answer, not complicated answers because I don't understand it,and I'm still trying to understand my camera.

-thanks.

To get straight to the point and avoid confusion: If I were choosing between the two for a yearbook sports photos, I wouldn't worry too much between the two lenses. Either will suffice. The 70-200 f2.8 is the superior choice though (it's more than twice the price as well). I personally would want the 70-200 f2.8 if my name were in any way associated with published sports photos (if I were pursuing a career in photography), since it offers a constant fast aperture. There's the quick and easy answer.

 

[ratssass]

 

[Braineack]

This is why you buy a 70-200 2.8: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ry/345980-yet-more-athletics.html#post3107222


was the 70-200 2.8 Matt using not the VC version? Not really a great comparison testing hand held shutter speed limits if that's the case...

 

[18.percent.gary]

This is why you buy a 70-200 2.8: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ry/345980-yet-more-athletics.html#post3107222


was the 70-200 2.8 Matt using not the VC version? Not really a great comparison testing hand held shutter speed limits if that's the case...

For shooting sports VC is irrelevant due to the higher shutter speeds used. In fact it should be turned off for speeds faster than 1/500 or so.


KGirl:

Your camera is fine for what you want to do. Just keep the shutter speed faster than 1/500 for sports, whatever way you have to do it.
The 70-300 VC would be excellent for outdoor sports in bright sunlight. It would be bad in low light. (I have one, it's a great lens overall.)
The 70-200 would be FAR better for any indoor sports or nighttime outdoor sports under lights.

And just disregard Hamlets posts, he's providing false information. High ISO freezes motion? Yeah....

 

[hamlet]

This is why you buy a 70-200 2.8: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ry/345980-yet-more-athletics.html#post3107222


was the 70-200 2.8 Matt using not the VC version? Not really a great comparison testing hand held shutter speed limits if that's the case...

For shooting sports VC is irrelevant due to the higher shutter speeds used. In fact it should be turned off for speeds faster than 1/500 or so.


KGirl:

Your camera is fine for what you want to do. Just keep the shutter speed faster than 1/500 for sports, whatever way you have to do it.
The 70-300 VC would be excellent for outdoor sports in bright sunlight. It would be bad in low light. (I have one, it's a great lens overall.)
The 70-200 would be FAR better for any indoor sports or nighttime outdoor sports under lights.

And just disregard Hamlets posts, he's providing false information. High ISO freezes motion? Yeah....

First you take it out of context, then you completely ignore the basics. But to recap: higher iso allows you to set the shutter speed higher and makes it possible for you to freeze everything in bad lighting conditions in the picture. If that is false information to you then you need to go back to reading your manual. An adult conversation is impossible here, rude and boorish infantile people who are wilfully ignorant out of spite. Talk to me directly if you have an issue and learn some manners.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Hamlet. Stop posting. Really. Stop. You didn't say that in your first post. You said raise ISO to freeze action. That is grossly misleading. You didn't say raise ISO to allow a higher shutter speed while maintaining a wide aperture. Had you said that we all would have known that to be true. What you said was false which is why Braineack said what he did and I said what I did. Now that you went and read up on what we said you have changed you're latest comments to reflect something that could be truthful. Let me explain as simply as I can: Wide aperture = 2.8 With an aperture of 2.8 you can use a LOWER ISO and STILL use a higher shutter speed. You are literally letting in more light because of the WIDE (aka BRIGHT or FAST) APERTURE. To keep noise low as possible you need to keep the aperture as wide as possible to use the lowest ISO and highest shutter speed possible! This is a simple concept that depends on the ambient light levels available at the time of shooting. Since you don't care about the noise aspect, kgirl, just get the 70-300 and shoot it on "S" mode, set it to 1/500, and focus (pun intended) on having a good time. Hamlet: Order that book I posted a link to because the manual you have read has confused you in some way I can't identify.

Oh. OP never said if she'd be shooting in noon day light or in the dark skies of a 9pm game. I wouldn't dare try with a 70-300 on the D5100 at a night game... It had a hard enough time in bright day light.

 

[ratssass]

...good work.Once again,someone asks what time it is,and is told how to build a watch.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Poor analogy. Good try though. But I'll play: Teach a man to fish and all that funky jazz.

Or... Using that analogy there, rat, would be like she asking how to drive a car and telling her turn the wheel in the direction you want to go and hit the gas pedal. Done.

 

[ratssass]

"Give a man a fish,and he'll eat for a day.Teach a man to fish,and you'll be able to sell him bait."
...i think the OP's last post said it clearly.Perhaps it should've been moved to "Beginners"
What I'm saying is the OP's question was lost quickly in a lot of posturing.

 

[18.percent.gary]

Oh. OP never said if she'd be shooting in noon day light or in the dark skies of a 9pm game. I wouldn't dare try with a 70-300 on the D5100 at a night game... It had a hard enough time in bright day light.

I might have to retract my 70-300 VC recommendation now that I think about it. It works amazingly well in sunlight on my D300, however that's with a pretty awesome AF system. The D5100 probably won't even be close in accuracy at 300mm with an f5.6 lens even in good light compared to my camera. KGirl, you might want to lean towards the 70-200 ESPECIALLY if you plan on shooting sports at dusk/night under lights or indoors. FWIW it would also make an awesome portrait lens so you could view it as a worth wile investment all around. That's how I would reconcile the added cost LOL.

I shouldn't bother but... Hamlet: You could easily avoid any of these arguments by simply stating your hazy theories as exactly that... theories. Before presenting your thought start by saying "in my opinion..." or "unless I'm mistaken..." or something similar, rather than stating false or misleading information as imperial fact (which will in all likelihood will just confuse the OP). Then you won't have to continually back-pedal and try to substantiate all of your ambiguous or false statements. Might save us all some time in the long run. Cheers!