@ jackspra: If this lens and the A9 can't catch up, which camera would you suggest for doing such action photography?

C/N high end cameras with a mirror that block autofocus when in upper position, with their much slower AF lenses?

I can't take great sports photos with a Flagship DSLR....said no pro photographer ever.

D5. 1DX2 D500.

@ jackspra: All capable cameras, but then you have to deal with bulkier, heavier ans slower cameras than the A9, and much heavier and even front heavy 400 mm f:2.8 lenses with slower AF. So I have to repeat your original post: "Can it work in the premier league. Players move a lot faster." :-)

@Magnar W my point is, I think we have reached a limit in sensor technology. All the rest is just marketing hype. These shots look no better than what a 5 year old DSLR can produce In my eyes.

The difference is, the grain at 100% pixel-peeping might look similar to 100% grain five years ago, but now you get that grain on 24 megapixels instead of 18 or whatever... so if you printed both of them on the same less-than-huge size, having those extra pixels = it's gonna look cleaner at that size (since the noisy pixels are smaller) and sharper too.

@CreeDo nothing to do with Sony, but i just moved from a 6D classic to a 5D4, i read everywhere the ISO performance is better. But I don't feel that way at all.

@ jay jay02: Expect much more from future sensors, like very fast full electronic shutter, better object recognition, faster AF, insanely fast dual or multi exposure for expanded dynamic range, etc. and even better quantum effiency. The sensor is very much the camera nowadays. You are of cause free to stay with yesterday's technology and slamming mirrors.

jay jay 02 - https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a9-sensor-review-game-changer/

If you personally can't notice a difference with newer sensors (any brand) that is YOUR issue, no one else's.

jay jay02. Every sensor is a little different. Since the 5D IV has more exposure latitude you need to take advantage of that to see the lower noise. In other words, expose to the right to bring up the shadows then adjust the exposure down in RAW conversion.

@Thematic DXO mark is.......? Ask Google. I'm talking about real life images not something from a lab. I mean what is it that really counts? For me it's the final results, something my eyes see not a chart in a magazine. And however good these photos look (I still don't like the colour) I'm pretty certain a good old 1DX or older Nikon could have produced images just as stellar. There is nothing groundbreaking about the latest sensors especially when it comes to colour reproduction.

Jay jay maybe your monitor needs to be upgraded?

32 inch 4K BenQ monitor. Should be showing enough detail ;-)

examples of questionable Nikon 400/2.8 bokeh:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42505002472/in/pool-1552080@N24/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42373473361/in/pool-1552080@N24/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42324265782/in/pool-1552080@N24/

I think the slight swirl effect and low contrast makes the background look a little unnatural, almost fake... like the subjects are models standing in front of a bubble-shaped print of the background scenery. I like other lenses with visible swirl though for portraits, or foliage. So maybe it's just weird for a soccer game but nice for other settings.

@CreeDo - In b&w, the slight swirl is even more pronounced. The nervousness in complex backgrounds appears to be a problem. Comparing to ther lenses is irrelevant...it appears here, and that is what is important. Just because one finds ugly bokeh on a Nikon or Canon or Pentax lens, does not make the Sony any better....it still is poor.

@The Davinator
The comparison to Canon and Nikon is completely relevant since that is the competition for this lens. It also suggest that this type of bokeh is a normal byproduct of this focal length and aperture.

Only a coward makes a puchasing decision based what another pro might use at a sporting event.

Pros don't care what other pros use - they are too busy making money.

Thematic

I asked a simple question why would you even bother to write such a non-answer.

Which pro sony photographers are too busy making money at the World Cup?

Thanks

Sony's color science is different as Canon's is different as Nikon's is different.

I'm not bad mouthing just the lens. I think the camera is doing the lens a disservice. Regardless, this kit costs 16 thousand dollars, I think it's fair to expect better results from a company claiming to turn the world on end with their revolutionary camera technology.

I bought my a9 for this and the 500/4. I’m still waiting on some credible shots, these don’t justify jumping over from Canon.

I have no idea why people have issues with this lens’s Bokeh. Looks fine to me.

@trungtran: Where is your common sense?
This is a quick test of the equipment, not a reportage on the football game.
The people who took the pics are staff members of dpreview and not professional sports photographers.

Nope its soccer!

It's kickball.

It's nohandball!

I'm curious why you think the quality of bokeh doesn't matter for sports?

Sports (especially in stadiums) often have very distracting backgrounds (such as tens of thousands of fans wearing the same colours as the players). I would think in such a context the ability to effectively blur the background with high quality bokeh (ie. not 'busy') would be very important...

Most disturbing backgrounds are of indoor sports, but then your subject is closer anyway. Basketball for example, is rarely shot with anything longer than a 300.

@Relaxed - any stadium sport, indoor or outdoor, is going to have distracting backgrounds.

No, I don't remember the bokeh from my favourite sporting images, but in this context that's kind of the point. Good bokeh is not distracting and therefore not noticed/remembered - you remember the subject and the background is dismissed. Poor bokeh (with a busy background) draws the eye and distracts from the subject.

Sorry but ain't has better skintones than Canon or Nikon.

Ken Rockwell approves the photos 👀

This grass appears... guess what...green ! Pathetic ! Why not blue sky ?!

@Rob40:
No it’s the same. Cropping is cropping and doesn’t change regardless of brands. So with TC2, you’re cropping from 800mm f5.6.
If you use a 1.5X crop (which is the APS-C crop) then you arrive at 1200mm f8.4 equivalent. But remember this is the equivalent fov and aperture. Actual remains at 800mm f5.6.
So if you need to crop, starting with a larger MP has advantages. Basically you have higher pixel density.
It’s the same as sticking the 400mm f2.8 + TC2 on an APS-C camera instead of cropping 1.5X from FF.

It still is football.

It should never be called football, that's too ambiguous, there are half a dozen of codes of what some might call "football". Much better to call it by its specific term ;-)

What little sports shooting I did professionally (way back in the late 1970s), the idea usually wasn't to freeze everything, but to allow a little motion blur to show in such shots (e.g., feet, hands, and maybe the background as you tracked the athlete). Shutter speeds I picked were usually between 1/125s and 1/500s and ISO around 400 with my relatively very slow lenses, although my XK could do 1/2000s and I wasn't afraid to push-process film to 1600+ if truly necessary, but almost never did for sports -- sports lighting is usually quite bright and outdoors usually is too.

These shots look lifeless to me thanks to insanely high shutter speed choices. For example, the 7th shot here was at ISO 1000, f/3.2, 1/2500s. Was the subject even moving at all?

In any case, the high ISOs really make IQ hard to judge.

There is not one shooter I know that would go under 1/1000...even when faced with ISO up to 12,800. Sports at night under lights will be ISO 1600-6400 with a f2.8 or f4 lens. I'm sure the photog was using the same action settings when taking the non-moving subject.

scokill: Kids today are so spoiled. ;-) You know, I was talking about shooting at those lower shutter speeds while MANUALLY FOCUSING and following the action with a lens that HAD NO STABILIZATION -- and ISO 12,800 wasn't even a push-processing option with film in the 1970s. Sports photography used to really challenge the skill of the photographer (and my skills were barely up to the challenge), but now I'm hearing it's largely point and burst-shoot with shutter speeds that are fast enough to freeze anything. Sort-of takes the art out of sports photography, doesn't it? Like I said to begin with, I don't do sports photography any more....

«Tony and Chel youtube» lol looks more like a Sony ad than anything else. 20 vs 10 fps and lighter than Canon and Nikon. How does that even compare to dpreview sample images?

Why not get a Olympus 300mm f2.8 then, cost 1/3 of the price with way more range (600mm), 60 fps with Oly mkIi, much lighter and smaller than Canon and Nikon.

@ 5DMK3: Why not go for a superzoom camera with 1" sensor …

@ HowaboutRAW: Look at dynamic range graphs - there is not enough data to fill a 12 bit container when using ISO 640. For lower ISO settings, you need to push the shadows a lot to see any difference, which is pretty much the same as using higher ISO settings. So there is not much need for more than 12 bit unless you are shooting scenes with extreme dynamic range.

Then look at what is important for sports/action/wildlife photos, the kind of photography one do with such lenses. No one will be able to spot the difference between 12 and 14 bit capture.

@ HowaboutRAW:

Then just take a few test shots and compare! Fine if you post the results too! The A9, A7rIII and A7III offer 14 bit mode, and 12 bit when shooting high speed sequences.

I bet you can't tell the difference from looking at action photos, and hardly when looking at photos showing high dynamic range scenes.

That said: We can't discuss quality when you are not interested in looking at graphs and facts about bit depth and stored data. I am not interested about how people feel about 14 versus 12 bit files.

Magnar W.
another priceless exchange with the 'rain man'. Do yourself a favor and don't expect him to get what you are saying...LOL

@ HowaboutRAW: How much image data is left in the final image file?

Do the real world test (easy, can be done with any lens), and post the results with samples and your analysis. Then we can discuss.

MP3? Is this an image file format? LOL!

@ HowaboutRAW: Looks like you did not pass the "mp3-test" … :-)

Use your Sony camera and ANY lens. A 14 versus 12 bit test is lens-independ. I have already done this with some Sony cameras.

Trolls not kidding. Trolls serious.

Not worse than Canon/Nikon, imo. Backgrounds in a stadium are difficult for all lenses.

At first I had a bad reaction to it, I think it's partly the washed out colors from the camera. Swirly bokeh is cool when the subject is in the center of the frame IMO.