50-200 SWD - Sports

[chrisdefaria]

Anyone have any experience or samples?

I own an E3 and several great lenses, but have resisted buying this one because when I do shoot sports (every weekend with kids on the high school team) I borrow my company's 1DMrkII with a Sigma 120-300/2.8. The images from this set-up are, predictably, very high quality and the 8fps captures every moment.

That said, I will be traveling next week to a tournament in NY and dread the idea of dragging 11 pounds of Canon gear along with my Oly basic pkg. Adding a 50-200 would give me the same fov as the Canon set-up, albeit a stop down, Clearly ($) it is not a casual purchase, so I would welcome anyone's experienced advise.

BTW, I am not worried about dropping to 5 fps with the E3.

 

[Jan3x5]

I tried it just once and I was satisfied with 50-200SWD speed. I don't know 120-300/2.8, but tried few Sigma lenses with HSM and I assume that 50-200SWD should be at least same fast if not faster.

Only one drawback of E-3 combo could be (?) continuous AF performance, but I didn't compare it side-by-side (didn't have possibility to try 1D MkII from the E-3 release, but 2 years ago I found 1D MkII tracking excellent).

 

[randrand]

Here is one I shot the other day with an E3 and 50-200 SWD:



Here's a link to a gallery with more pictures from this same game:
http://randrand.smugmug.com/gallery/5369983_UgwRv

It works great for sports. Of course I could spend a lot more money and get a Canon set up with more fps, but this works just fine for my purposes.

-- rand

 

[chrisdefaria]

Thanks for the link to the gallery. That's some pretty serious soccer going on! The pictures are great and really capture the intensity of the competition.

I noticed that you shot most of the pics wide open. My concern with the lens is that old 4/3rds issue of shallow DOF (or lack of it).

Trying to get that Sports Illustrated look by throwing the bg out of focus may not be possible with this lens. But I'll probably get a lot more keepers.

In the below photo, the crappy old chain-link fence was only 6 feet away from the batter, but it still dropped out nicely at 2.8 (and a larger sensor).

 

[bobinsandyeggo]

...there's not a doubt in my mind the E3 and 50-200 will give you excellent results.
You'll be fine all the way to the outfielders.

I use a 510 and the 50-200 to shoot college baseball.

Keep in mind you won't look as cool as you do with the Mark, and you won't be able to fire those machine gun bursts, but, hey, you won't need that monopod, either.
--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/

 

[maddogmd11]

That is a great shot!!!

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.

 

[chrisdefaria]

Seriously, I am ready to lose the mono-pod. Just wondering about the DOF. Don't want to spend $1100 and then revert back to my machine gun.

Imagine this pic if the cars were sharper?

 

[Adanac18]

The pic would have been better if the background wasn't so distracting.

This is a case where a camera with a larger sensor would have helped (i.e., a camera capable of "shallower" DOF).

Seriously, I am ready to lose the mono-pod. Just wondering about the
DOF. Don't want to spend $1100 and then revert back to my machine
gun.

Imagine this pic if the cars were sharper?

 

[maddogmd11]

The pic would have been better if the background wasn't so distracting.

This is a case where a camera with a larger sensor would have helped
(i.e., a camera capable of "shallower" DOF).

You missed the point. The shot in question was taken with a Canon EOS-1D Mark II not an OLY. I believe that the Canon is in fact a "full frame" sensor.

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.

 

[alan scott]

Don't know whether this helps or not but I've just done a quick calculation using the Barnack dof calculator.

Assuming you were 10 metres away from the batter and you had used a focal length of 200mm at f4 the depth of filed would have been about 0.21 metres (about 9-10 inches).

This should have rendered the fence out of focus if it was 6 foot behind the batter I think.

I can't guarantee these results but if you're interested google the calculator it's worth messing about with to see the various results as you change the paramaeters
--
Alan Scott

 

[profborg]

The pic would have been better if the background wasn't so distracting.

This is a case where a camera with a larger sensor would have helped
(i.e., a camera capable of "shallower" DOF).

You missed the point. The shot in question was taken with a Canon
EOS-1D Mark II not an OLY. I believe that the Canon is in fact a
"full frame" sensor.

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.

No, the 1Ds MkII is full frame, not the 1D MkII. I believe that picture could do with more DOF, not less because I find big white blobs more distracting than cars, which I see all the time.
--
Daniel

 

[chrisdefaria]

The 1DII is a 1.3x crop. So the 120-300 Sigma becomes roughly a 150-390/2.8 which is very close to the FOV of the Oly 100-400.

The shot in question was shot at f/4. So the DOF is the result of 300mm, f/4. My point is that, in my opinion, the shot would be better with less DOF and since the most I could hope for with the Oly is a 200mm f/4, this kind of shot would suffer.

 

[eyespy]

The 1DII is a 1.3x crop. So the 120-300 Sigma becomes roughly a
150-390/2.8 which is very close to the FOV of the Oly 100-400.

The shot in question was shot at f/4. So the DOF is the result of
300mm, f/4. My point is that, in my opinion, the shot would be
better with less DOF and since the most I could hope for with the Oly
is a 200mm f/4, this kind of shot would suffer.

That's basically the trade you are going to have to make if you opt to go with the E-3. The E-3 + 50-200 will give you a lighter kit to get you the same FOV but also provide a little more DOF at the same equiv FL & aperture as your current setup - only you can decide if your happy to trade.

--
http://www.pbase.com/eyespy

If it moves shoot it ;-)
eyespy.

 

[chrisdefaria]

But I would have to sell my car.

 

[bobinsandyeggo]

there's that option...
I am going to rent it, though, just to see what I'm missing.

--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/

 

[chrisdefaria]

Where can you rent it? I would love to.

 

[bobinsandyeggo]

these guys have gotten some good reviews on this forum:

http://www.prophotorental.com

When I decide to do it, I'm giving them a shot. Prices sure look reasonable, all things considered.
Going to try an E3, from them while I'm at it.
About 3 times the weight of the 50-200, though.
--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/

 

[chrisdefaria]

I found a place called Dan's Camera in Penn who will ship me the lens for use that week. $125 (plus shipping) for the week!

 

[photo_owl]

pack the monno pod again though...........whilst you can HH it it's a whole lot easier all round on a pod.

and if you have the ec14....don't leave it behind!

--

• enjoy your camera equipment -

 

[Adam D Perler]

I really like this lens. It is now my favorite. It is pretty responsive and very sharp with the E3. I do not have any experience with Nikon so I cannot compare. I have really come to appreciate my E3 with the addition of this lens. I am now just waiting for Olympus to release the 8-16mm. I am just learning how to shoot sports, but here are a few. The biking ones were taken in the rain. I love the weather sealing. Best of luck with your decision.











--

When I see it... I remember it.
When I read it... I learn it.
When I do it... I understand.