8 replies to this topic

[jclay]

D500 with 18-300 3.5 - 6.3 ED VR, handheld

 

Manual mode, Autofocus AF-C, Auto ISO, JPEG, WB Auto

 

These samples are at noon with full sun. Camera and lens were recently cleaned and calibrated. Can't seem to get the faces any crisper. Considering a new lens if it will help but don't want to go all the way up to 600.

 

 

 

[Merco_61]

If 300 mm is enough reach for you, the AF-P 70-300 in the FX version is much sharper and has less chromatic aberrations.

If you need a bit more reach, the AF-S 80-400 is a good choice, even if it is expensive. There are some 100-400 zooms from third-party suppliers, but I have bo experience with them.

If the funds allow, the 70-200/2.8 in any version and the 200-400/4 were the pro sports photographer’s choice for many years.

[jclay]

If 300 mm is enough reach for you, the AF-P 70-300 in the FX version is much sharper and has less chromatic aberrations.

If you need a bit more reach, the AF-S 80-400 is a good choice, even if it is expensive. There are some 100-400 zooms from third-party suppliers, but I have bo experience with them.

If the funds allow, the 70-200/2.8 in any version and the 200-400/4 were the pro sports photographer’s choice for many years.

Thanks Merco!

[Merco_61]

Looking at your photos again, it looks like you have a bit of back focus. Have you fine-tuned the AF for the typical distances where you need the most precise focus?

[Ron]

Considering your lens choice and the fact that you're shooting hand held, these are actually very good. All purpose zoom lenses rarely deliver the best image quality.

 

If you can afford it, I believe a fairly fast telephoto prime would probably give you the best results. However, I also believe the addition of a good monopod (or other camera support) would help considerably. I can't speak to the lenses Peter mentioned because I don't personally own any of them.

 

--Ron

[jclay]

Looking at your photos again, it looks like you have a bit of back focus. Have you fine-tuned the AF for the typical distances where you need the most precise focus?

I have not. I will do that before the next match. Thanks!

Considering your lens choice and the fact that you're shooting hand held, these are actually very good. All purpose zoom lenses rarely deliver the best image quality.

 

If you can afford it, I believe a fairly fast telephoto prime would probably give you the best results. However, I also believe the addition of a good monopod (or other camera support) would help considerably. I can't speak to the lenses Peter mentioned because I don't personally own any of them.

 

--Ron

Thanks, Ron! I travel a lot and love one all-purpose lens.  

 

 

I'll try out the monopod and look at a prime lens as well. Those will both be new to my camera bag and skill set.

[TBonz]

A quality monopod is important for most photographers...Especially if you move to higher quality lenses...they tend to be larger and heavier... I have the 200-400 and it is a wonderful lens. I know several folks who bought the less expensive 200-500 and it is nice but it doesn't have the f4. I also have tested the 300 and the 400 f2.8 lenses. They are amazing but in my case, I really couldn't justify the price. I also like the flexibility the zoom gives me although the f4 takes me to a higher ISO than I would like based on field lighting...It seemed the best compromise for my needs... An all-in-1 zoom can be handy for travel but like the lenses I mention above, each of them are good at some things and sacrifice in other areas...

[jclay]

A quality monopod is important for most photographers...Especially if you move to higher quality lenses...they tend to be larger and heavier... I have the 200-400 and it is a wonderful lens. I know several folks who bought the less expensive 200-500 and it is nice but it doesn't have the f4. I also have tested the 300 and the 400 f2.8 lenses. They are amazing but in my case, I really couldn't justify the price. I also like the flexibility the zoom gives me although the f4 takes me to a higher ISO than I would like based on field lighting...It seemed the best compromise for my needs... An all-in-1 zoom can be handy for travel but like the lenses I mention above, each of them are good at some things and sacrifice in other areas...

Thanks, Sportz Guy! I'll look at the 200-400. It looks like I'm taking most of my photos near my max 300 so I won't lose much in the lower zoom areas with the 200-400... or I can just move my feet backwards in those moments. I'll also consider the monopod - I usually position myself in one place on the pitch during each half so it may not be as much hassle as I think.

[TBonz]

For me, they are worth their weight - no pun intended...the 200-400 is not an easy beast to hand hold either...I think I have done it a few times but only if it is necessary...