Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

I have a Nikon d500 and I keep researching and struggling to decide what 70-200 2.8 I should get. There are so many options and generations of basically the same lens.

I'd prefer Nikon or sigma I think. Main function will be youth baseball. I have daytime shots covered but I need a lens that can handle lower light scenarios and still reach out some.

---

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f-2-8g-ed-vr-ii

This is the one I have and it is a great lens. There is a newer version (the E instead of the G) and I don't think it is worth the step up in price.

70-200 on the D500 is a great combo for sports. That will give you a great shot at pitcher or batter and probably decent out to 2nd but you will need to crop some there.

---

I have a 200-500 that I love for day games. But later in the day it's found wanting. The 70-200 I'd like for closer work at baseball, later games and for other projects I do with cheer teams etc.

---

The 200-500 is a fantastic lens and they have the spiritual successor in a 180-600 Z lens that I am probably going to pick up this spring.

any thoughts on using manual lens like canon FD series in mirror less camera via adopter?

has lens technology progressed so much that it is not worth the effort? or the outcome or result not so good?

OKC~Ag said:

---

any thoughts on using manual lens like canon FD series in mirror less camera via adopter?

has lens technology progressed so much that it is not worth the effort? or the outcome or result not so good?

---

I've used a manual lens on my R5 with an EF adapter and all I got was frustrated. It technically worked, but I was not smart enough to deal with it.

I don't know that FDs can even be adapted to mirrorless, and even if they could, I don't think it would be worth it.

I have a Nikon D600 and a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G lens. And a tripod.

Suggestions for settings (ISO, F stop, etc.) to shoot high school soccer games at night under lights? I use a tripod, but I feel like my images have too much blur and grain. Do I need to rent a different lens?

Set your shutter speed at about 1/640th of a second. 1/800th would be better, and there could be some motion blur on feet and ball, but faces should be sharp.

Set aperture to 2.8.

Move the ISO up until you properly expose. Probably start at 3200. Go up higher to properly expose. You may be at 6400 or 8000. As you go up, you will have more grain, but properly exposing will lower the grain you see. Under exposing then raising it in post processing will cause more noise.

Back button focus with single point.

dcbowers said:

---

I have a Nikon D600 and a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G lens. And a tripod.

Suggestions for settings (ISO, F stop, etc.) to shoot high school soccer games at night under lights? I use a tripod, but I feel like my images have too much blur and grain. Do I need to rent a different lens?

---

Guitar covered it nicely. I have shot many many many high school soccer games with the same lens but on a D850 and D750 body. Are you shooting in Raw? If so the grain can be handled in post, its an artifact of the higher ISO. As guitar said, max aperture and back button focus in key. Depending on the shot, and if light ir really bad at night, you can also get a way with a 1/500 shutter speed. Shoot continuous. Tweak your ISO up or down as lighting conditions allow.

I am headed to Costa Rica in a couple of weeks and I am trying to decide what to bring. I really dont want to be slowed down by a bunch of gear and am thinking about just taking single travel lens.

I am currently debating between the 24-200 and the 24-120. I know neither will be long enough for wildlife, but I think I am okay with that. I think I am leaning towards the 24-120 due to better optics and speed, but would you recommend the 24-200 for the extra reach?

What I own:

Z6ii
Z 24-70 f4
70-200 f4
200-500 f5.6

Side note: If I do go with a 24-120, I might end up selling all my lenses and also buying a 100-400 for kids sports and wildlife. Between the 24-120 and 100-400 I should be well covered for anything I want to shoot.

Follow-up question. What is your favorite compact, but rugged and semi waterproof, travel bag for a single body and lens?

Worried that 120 isnt long enough, I have come up with a couple options for Costa Rica. Small and light is still a priority, as is cost

Option 1: lens weight = 1.4 lbs

24-120 f4 ($1k)

Simple, light

Option 2: lens weight = 3.4 lbs

24-70 f4 (already own)
70-200 f4 (already own)
F mount TC 1.4x (buy for $500 or rent for $50), gives me 100-280 f5.6

This is a bit of an odd setup because the 70-200 would be mounted to a TC and z mount converter adding 4.1 inches to the total length making the lens 11", which is longer than my 200-500 (but much lighter).

Option 3: lens weight = 4 lbs

24-70 f4 (already own)
100-400 f4-5.6 (rent for $200, buy for $2k)

My family is headed to Japan for 2 weeks doing all sorts of touristy stuff in multiple cities.

It's been a long while since I used my DSLR to take volleyball pictures. I have an assortment of Canon EF lenses which I assume I probably don't want to use on a small body mirrorless?

Any recommendations on the best mirrorless to walk around with at an affordable price? Camera prices are crazy IMO these days compared to the old days. I don't need to shoot sports any longer and I'm no longer brand loyal unless someone recommends me to keep my old Canon lenses.

Thought I would see if anyone here have suggestions as I begin my research.

If you are open to getting lenses and selling the old ones, get:

24-120 Z
180-600 Z

Both are great and you only miss a small area that will probably be inconsequential. I would get the 180-600 over the 100-400 every time.

flintdragon said:

---

My family is headed to Japan for 2 weeks doing all sorts of touristy stuff in multiple cities.

It's been a long while since I used my DSLR to take volleyball pictures. I have an assortment of Canon EF lenses which I assume I probably don't want to use on a small body mirrorless?

Any recommendations on the best mirrorless to walk around with at an affordable price? Camera prices are crazy IMO these days compared to the old days. I don't need to shoot sports any longer and I'm no longer brand loyal unless someone recommends me to keep my old Canon lenses.

Thought I would see if anyone here have suggestions as I begin my research.

---

Hard to know without knowing what lenses you have. Some EF lenses are still great, some are trash.

The sensors haven't progressed a ton over the last decade, so sensors from DSLRs like the 5D4 are still very good.

Personally, I think Sony has the best tech, Nikon has the best ergonomics, Canon has the biggest user base. I really like some lenses that Canon is putting out like the 24-105 f2.8, but it is a $3k lens. I really love that Nikon is putting out a really high quality set of f/4 zooms like the 24-120 for about $1k and they are putting out a huge series of high quality sub-$1k primes that are 1.8. I have the Nikon 50 1.2 Z and the 50 1.8 Z and use the 1.8 more just because of size.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Hard to know without knowing what lenses you have. Some EF lenses are still great, some are trash.

The sensors haven't progressed a ton over the last decade, so sensors from DSLRs like the 5D4 are still very good.

Personally, I think Sony has the best tech, Nikon has the best ergonomics, Canon has the biggest user base. I really like some lenses that Canon is putting out like the 24-105 f2.8, but it is a $3k lens. I really love that Nikon is putting out a really high quality set of f/4 zooms like the 24-120 for about $1k and they are putting out a huge series of high quality sub-$1k primes that are 1.8. I have the Nikon 50 1.2 Z and the 50 1.8 Z and use the 1.8 more just because of size.

---

I have the 70-200 2.8L in both non-IS and IS. Maybe some other decent lenses. Should probably just dump them all.

I don't think I need 2.8 for travel so hoping to save a bunch. Body-wise, how are the Fujis?

flintdragon said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Hard to know without knowing what lenses you have. Some EF lenses are still great, some are trash.

The sensors haven't progressed a ton over the last decade, so sensors from DSLRs like the 5D4 are still very good.

Personally, I think Sony has the best tech, Nikon has the best ergonomics, Canon has the biggest user base. I really like some lenses that Canon is putting out like the 24-105 f2.8, but it is a $3k lens. I really love that Nikon is putting out a really high quality set of f/4 zooms like the 24-120 for about $1k and they are putting out a huge series of high quality sub-$1k primes that are 1.8. I have the Nikon 50 1.2 Z and the 50 1.8 Z and use the 1.8 more just because of size.

---

I have the 70-200 2.8L in both non-IS and IS. Maybe some other decent lenses. Should probably just dump them all.

I don't think I need 2.8 for travel so hoping to save a bunch. Body-wise, how are the Fujis?

---

The 70-200 is still quality.

Fujis aren't full frame, but they are actually smaller and probably better for casual travel photos. I don't have any experience with anything new there. I have an X100 from a decade ago or so

Ended up with a Canon R8. Lens prices have increased by a lot since the last time I was in the market. Going to make do with my current EF lenses though the small lightweight R8 body kind of feels and looks weird on the larger EF lenses.

potentially pretty dumb question..

I have an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. It's nice but big.

With the new fancy mirrorless tech, would the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS be good enough as a substitute? Trying to see what I can get away with.

No, that will be a big downgrade of a lens. It's about half the weight because it has lower quality glass in it and lets in significantly less light when zoomed out.

Guitarsoup said:

---

No, that will be a big downgrade of a lens. It's about half the weight because it has lower quality glass in it and lets in significantly less light when zoomed out.

---

yeah I get that. Thought this fancy schmancy mirrorless technology would help compensate some. Sounds like the laws of physics are still in order.

There's a 24-105 f4 in the mirrorless range as well that's I think 11mm shorter than the EF model. Here are those lenses on a 6D Mark II and R6 Mark II for comparison.

If anyone wants to set up some photoshop actions for photographing Aggie players, this is the official branding guide we use internally.

https://instagr.am/p/DIIBi5fSuCe

Bryan Peterson, author of the book Understanding Exposure that has been recommended many times on here has passed away.

My son is 13 and has expressed interest in learning some photography. He is in the yearbook class/committee and has used the schools camera for certain assignments. I would say there is a greater than 50% chance this is something he doesn't touch again after this school year ends but as long as it is something worth keeping and using occasionally for family pictures or more likely selling and getting a little bit of money back, I will be OK with that.

That said, my wife and I do not know anything about photography so we would not be much help to him. Would definitely be fine with getting him a used set up.

Any recommendations on where to start?

Find out what camera (make and model) and lenses the school has first. Then I'll give you recommendations for used stuff he could use. Buy used, you can likely sell again without much loss.

OK, thank you. I will ask him after school today. I want to say it was a Canon.

Well thank you for the offer of advice but he said he doesn't think he would want a camera anymore. This would have been for an upcoming birthday but he wants something else instead… for now.

For 99% of people, "just use your phone" is probably the best advice.

Hope the other thing is cheaper than the camera!

"other thing" is probably a Switch 2.

been selling my old Canon gear off. The good glass have certainly kept their value! A couple of cheap stuff left plus the 1Dm3.

If anyone has a Sony 100-400 they're looking to move, please let me know.

Sad to hear. I bought that book based on this thread. It was just what I needed to start getting serious about understanding how to use my camera.

I have a Canon EOS RP that was purchased in 2019. I would like to use it to take pictures of wildlife from 50-100 yards away. What lens would work best for this? I am open to used. I also have very little knowledge about high end camera technology.

stridulent said:

---

I have a Canon EOS RP that was purchased in 2019. I would like to use it to take pictures of wildlife from 50-100 yards away. What lens would work best for this? I am open to used. I also have very little knowledge about high end camera technology.

---

Sorry for the late answer.

A lens will give you about 10y of reach for every 100mm.

Canon has a 200mm-800mm zoom lens for your camera, that will give you the maximum amount of reach. However, the aperture is 6.3-9, which means it will really only be able to give you images during the day.

Lens:

https://amzn.to/4o7lqKJ

Canon also has a 100-500, but again it is a f/4.5-7.1 aperture.

https://amzn.to/3H2rWSq

Canon also has a 600mm and 800mm that are f/11, which is pretty interesting. F/11 is not allowing much light in at all, but the lens is under $1000.

https://amzn.to/3UCvb65

Of course, if you want to show everyone how much of a baller you are, you go pick up the 1200mm f/8.

https://amzn.to/4mh2wzB

The most typical consumer lens is the 100-400mm at about $700. Again, most of these long reach lenses are not good for the evening - they really are daytime only.

https://amzn.to/4m9Id6T