Lens Quality

[Deleted member 29733]

As some of you know I had to decline the offer of assistant club photographer at my local rugby club because my lenses are f4 and I really need a f2.8.

So the question is, I know Nikon and Sigma are beyond my pocket so because I dont want to be beaten I was thinking about a Tamron lens which I may just about manage. When I had my film cameras we called Tamron lenses TAMPON because you know where you can stick 'em, as they were considered rubbish.

So lads 'n' lasses have any of you any experience of Tamron lenses or do you actually own/use a Tamron lens, if so how do you rate them?

TIA.

 

[Gary Coyle]

Tamron f/2.8 lenses are as slow as snails to focus, they produce nice sharp images but if you need to use an f/2.8 then the likelyhood is youre shooting in dark conditions and if this is the case forget it, Tamrons AF cant handle fast moving sports during brightly lit days never mind at night

 

[Gary Coyle]

If budget is a major concern then your only real choice is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 lens, second hand about £1000, forget the Sigma 300mm prime, too many bad copies out there.

 

[Deleted member 29733]

Cheers Gary, most of the guys on here have said in their PM's that I really need a f2.8 and I am looking at other options and this was one of them. I will have to save up for one and hopefully by the start of next season everything will fall into place.

I so wanted to photograph at Southend RFC and I have even thought about shooting in RAW and turning up the lighting in Adobe Cam Raw, I know it adds noise but I cant let this beat me, its what I want to do.

 

[snapzz]

Martin
As I've already suggested sell that 50- whatever to raise cash to buy the 120-300 Sigma. With this lens you can cover floodlight games ok and with a single lens/body. If you are determined you'll find a way. Also look at proper noise reduction software like Noise Ninja.

 

[Deleted member 29733]

Cheers Graham, Oh yes I will find a way. The only reason I feel reluctant to sell my 150-500 is I only bought it about 2 months ago....lol, but if thats what I have to do then so be it.

I have noiseware at the moment which I have had good reports but I haven't looked at Noise Ninja yet.

 

[KIPAX]

You seem to be looking for the holy grail mate.. if there was a cheap f2.8 lens for sport that did the job then we would all have one.. truth is (and I know how bad this sounds) your going to have to pay good money for a good lens.. If you cant then your not going to get what you want..

As everyone has said.. your only real option on a budget is the sigma 120-300 because you can do the game on one body and one lens... but its not a magic lens.. the reason we have 15 to 20 thousands pound worth of bodies and lens instead of a 1k 120-300 is because you do get what you pay for..

Your starting point is either a sigma 120-300 OR get a sigma 70-200 and stay at one end of the field waiting for the action.. or middle of field and not get the goals but get plenty of other action ... Sorry to be blunt but your not going to find a good f2.8 lens with a good reach for hundreds of pounds...

 

[Phiggys]

So what's the E.V.readings you get under the flood lighting?
Can you not raise your iso by 1 stop?

 

[Deleted member 29733]

You seem to be looking for the holy grail mate..

I Know there is no holy grail... if there was a cheap f2.8 lens for sport that did the job then we would all have one..yes I know that truth is (and I know how bad this sounds) your going to have to pay good money for a good lens.. If you cant then your not going to get what you want..yes, same as anything else in life.

As everyone has said.. your only real option on a budget is the sigma 120-300 because you can do the game on one body and one lens... but its not a magic lens.. the reason we have 15 to 20 thousands pound worth of bodies and lens instead of a 1k 120-300 is because you do get what you pay for..er yes I know that, but not everybody can afford £15k - £20k worth of gear, thats why some things are cheaper than others so that people who haven't got pockets full of money can join in as well.

Your starting point is either a sigma 120-300 OR get a sigma 70-200 and stay at one end of the field waiting for the action.. or middle of field and not get the goals but get plenty of other action ... Sorry to be blunt but your not going to find a good f2.8 lens with a good reach for hundreds of pounds......yes the same way I wont get my Aston Martin DB5 for a couple of hundreds of pounds[/QUOTE]

All I was trying to do was to enquire how good a Tamron lens was.

 

[KIPAX]

I know that, but not everybody can afford £15k - £20k worth of gear,

You completely missed my point

End of day your asking if a cheap lens is any good.. I tried to answer that no cheap lens is any good "for this type of photography"
only expensive lens are any good "for this type of photography"

I just went into too much detail trying to get my point accross


ADDY ON BIT: For the record i could never afford to go out and buy 15-20k of equipment.. would be suprised if anyone in here who has that much equipment could afford to either.. so please dont pull that one on me... It took me a lot of years and a lot of wheeling and dealing and sacrifices and hard work to eventuly have the kit I ahve.. I didnt just go out and spend thousands.... I know others are in the same boat as me... I never suggested you can only do it if you go out and spend all that...

 

[Deleted member 29733]

MODS can you please close this thread now as everything is hunky dory and problem has now been solved.

Kipax - please read my reply again I DID NOT say "you could afford to go out and buy 15-20k of equipment" I actually said "but not everybody can afford 15k - 20k worth of gear".