My stongest telephoto used to be a similar Nikon lens. I replaced it because sharpness suffered at the longest telephoto setting. I bit the bullet and paid the extra money to replace it with an f/2.8 lens that held that widest f/stop throughout the range. For me, it was a good decision.
Why do you think that the aperture isn't large enough? I've taken perfectly acceptable basketball shots on micro Four Thirds with a 35-100/4-5.6 lens. The aperture of that is half the size of the one you're talking about here.
Aperture half the size but f-stop the same.
Yes.
It shows that f/5.6 on mFT can do the job, which means that f/7.5 on APS-C or f/11 on FF could do the same job with regards to noise, DOF and diffraction blur.Your shot does show f/5.6 can do the job, which is the important bit
If I'm not mistaken, the Commonwealth Games require a lighting level in the range of 100-125 fc (1100-1350 lux) for televised basketball. That would be considerably brighter than many US high school sports venues and even brighter than many US college sports venues. 50-75 fc is the standard for US collegiate regional telecasts. 100-125 fc is the minimum light level for nationally televised NCAA games. At least, that was the standard about 5 years ago.Why do you think that the aperture isn't large enough? I've taken perfectly acceptable basketball shots on micro Four Thirds with a 35-100/4-5.6 lens. The aperture of that is half the size of the one you're talking about here.
The one gripe I'd have about the results is that they'd be better with more background blur, since the background detail is somewhat distracting. A larger aperture would help there.
All good points, Bill. Further, if the crowds are smaller, a big lens will be less anti-social.If I'm not mistaken, the Commonwealth Games require a lighting level in the range of 100-125 fc (1100-1350 lux) for televised basketball. That would be considerably brighter than many US high school sports venues and even brighter than many US college sports venues. 50-75 fc is the standard for US collegiate regional telecasts. 100-125 fc is the minimum light level for nationally televised NCAA games. At least, that was the standard about 5 years ago.Why do you think that the aperture isn't large enough? I've taken perfectly acceptable basketball shots on micro Four Thirds with a 35-100/4-5.6 lens. The aperture of that is half the size of the one you're talking about here.
The one gripe I'd have about the results is that they'd be better with more background blur, since the background detail is somewhat distracting. A larger aperture would help there.
Depending on where the OP does sports photography, they may be dealing with lighting levels in the 50-75 fc range (540-800 lux). If so, an f/5.6 lens is going to be pretty dark. I've shot American football in a college stadium lit at about 60 fc (650 lux) and my typical settings were f/2.8, 1/800, ISO 6400.
The OP's f/5.6 lens may be up to the task in a well-lit arena. If the lighting they're in is in that 100 fc and higher range, awesome! But if they'll be shooting in darker conditions, an f/2.8 zoom will be a much better fit for the task.
This depends upon the photographer and where he is relative to the baseline and sideline and if he is standing or sitting/crouching. Mom and dad shooting from the bleachers with a big lens is often anti-social.All good points, Bill. Further, if the crowds are smaller, a big lens will be less anti-social.If I'm not mistaken, the Commonwealth Games require a lighting level in the range of 100-125 fc (1100-1350 lux) for televised basketball. That would be considerably brighter than many US high school sports venues and even brighter than many US college sports venues. 50-75 fc is the standard for US collegiate regional telecasts. 100-125 fc is the minimum light level for nationally televised NCAA games. At least, that was the standard about 5 years ago.Why do you think that the aperture isn't large enough? I've taken perfectly acceptable basketball shots on micro Four Thirds with a 35-100/4-5.6 lens. The aperture of that is half the size of the one you're talking about here.
The one gripe I'd have about the results is that they'd be better with more background blur, since the background detail is somewhat distracting. A larger aperture would help there.
Depending on where the OP does sports photography, they may be dealing with lighting levels in the 50-75 fc range (540-800 lux). If so, an f/5.6 lens is going to be pretty dark. I've shot American football in a college stadium lit at about 60 fc (650 lux) and my typical settings were f/2.8, 1/800, ISO 6400.
The OP's f/5.6 lens may be up to the task in a well-lit arena. If the lighting they're in is in that 100 fc and higher range, awesome! But if they'll be shooting in darker conditions, an f/2.8 zoom will be a much better fit for the task.
If money and size are no issue, then a 70-200 / 2.8 or 120-300 / 2.8 would be preferable, as they would give more DOF/noise options than a 70-300 / 4-5.6. However, I suspect money and size are an issue, to one extent or another.
I m responding to your post because I want to piggy back on some of the things you said. But this is really intended for the OP to read rather than you, Great B.
I have not read the prior posts ... but the bottom line is that the 70-200 @ f/2.8 (constant aperture-f/stop) is the traditional "sports" lens.
Sounds like advice from 1990 or earlier. It's of course nonsense. If he buy 70-200f2.8, he will use it at f2.8. Otherwise big money spent for nothing.
