Which 70-200 telezoom for sports photography?

[dirk]

I am debating with myself, whether it is worth it to buy a 70-200 telezoom for sports photography to be able to blurr the background more and to get faster AF.

I have experience with

• Sigma 100-400/ 5.0-6.3 DG DN (1.5kg, 67mm filter size, 20cm long)
• Lumix S 70-300/4.5-5.6 (800g, 77mm filter size, 15cm long)

Both have a similar image quality. Maybe the 100-400 is slightly better. Never did a side by side comparison.

Both lenses and their AF are not optimized for sports. The reach of the 100-400 is a pleasure. But it is very heavy.

Both do not separate the background as strong I would like to have it. This is why I think about F2 8 or F4.0 lenses.

• Sigma offers a 70-200/2.8 DG DN OS Sports only. This beast weights also 1,35kg, 77mm filter size and is around 20vm long.

Panasonic offers 2 versions.

• Lumix S Pro 70-200/2.8 with 1,57kg, 82mm filter size and 21cm long
• Lumix S Pro 70-200/4 with 1kg, 77mm filter size and 18cm long

I do not know for sure whether F4 background blurr is difference enough vs. my existing lenses, but the AF speed, accuracy and image quality are my main concerns atm conpared to my existing lenses.

Does anybody has experience with these lenses for sports photography and which camera and AF settings are you using?

 

[Jayneboo]

I used the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for some track, field, and cross country events on both the SL2 and S52. Your description of it as a beast probably leads me to think you've already ruled it out, you really need to feel comfortable with the size and weight, I thought it was fine given the results it offered and would most definitely pick it over either the Panasonic 2.8 or the Leica version. I found focus speed (for L mount) and IQ excellent. I shoot sports once or twice a week (hence my move to Sony), and find a good 70-200 2.8 a real nice option, being able to add a 1.4 TC is also good. As far as background blur, I often shoot a f/4 anyway, all depends on the light, at evening under lights track events the 2.8 is an advantage.

Couple of old shots from the Sigma (on the SL2.. so hopefully you have a better AFC and tracking experience available).

• LEICA CAMERA AG - LEICA SL2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/2500 sec
• Pattern
• -0.3
• ISO 100

• LEICA CAMERA AG - LEICA SL2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/640 sec
• Pattern
• -0.3
• ISO 100

 

[dirk]

If I want to have a telezoom with F2.8, I have to tolerate the weight. I think all brands are equal with these F2.8 zooms regarding weight.

With field hockey, I am not able to get really close. Too dangerous. They hit this little ball really hard and fast. There is a reason why they all wear mouth protection.

On top of that, most hockeyfields and their surroundings, wher you can stay are not really good positions to make photos. Every soccer field has more space around the field. A bummer.

Therefore F2.8 and cropping of the 44MP sensor image might be better to get at least some blurr.

I thought also already about finding a APSC telezoom with F2.8 to save sone weight. But afaik there is none for L-Mount.

 

[Jayneboo]

If I want to have a telezoom with F2.8, I have to tolerate the weight. I think all brands are equal with these F2.8 zooms regarding weight.

Far from it. Latest Sony and Canon 2.8s are only 1045 and 1070 grams respectively, I definitely notice the difference, the Sigma sits somewhere between those and the L Mount (and Nikon) offerings. Not a reason to switch brands, I'm not insinuating that, but it is clear that Sony and Canon have both made strides to lower the weight of their faster glass.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I have the S-Pro 2.8, the 70-300 and the 100-400. I have not had a chance to compare them yet from an AF performance perspective. I will say that I used the 70-200 in a velodrome event, and was very happy with the hit rate. I also used the 100-400 to shoot a fast dog running at me, and it did OK but not fantastic. This was using Set 1 - need to try Set 3.

In the end, I am still unsure how to fully take advantage of the S1RII in such circumstances, so my ability to contrast the lenses is limited.

 

[dirk]

but it is clear that Sony and Canon have both made strides to lower the weight of their faster glass.

This is a big added value for those, who use very often these telezooms.

Sigma is known for updating lenses quite fast (see 24-70/2 8 mkii and 35/1.2 mkii), but the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is still very young (December 2023). I doubt that they will bring a new and lighter version over the next 12 months. The other two were/are already 5-6 years old. That is a pitty.

 

[pdk42]

I briefly considered the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 when I bought my Panasonic 70-200 f4. I really like the Sigma lens but I didn't need f2.8 for what I do so the lighter weight of the Panasonic made sense. But comparing the Sigma f2.8 with the Panasonic f2.8 it's a no-brainer to go for the Sigma.

While we're talking of other systems, a friend of mine with Nikon kit does a lot of rugby photography. He often shoots in terrible light and so uses the Nikon 300mm f4 PF. That weighs only 750g and delivers great results. Seems that the Panasonic S system is very light on longer focal length lenses.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

This is a big added value for those, who use very often these telezooms.

Sigma is known for updating lenses quite fast (see 24-70/2 8 mkii and 35/1.2 mkii), but the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is still very young (December 2023). I doubt that they will bring a new and lighter version over the next 12 months. The other two were/are already 5-6 years old. That is a pitty.

We really need a fast and light 135/150

 

[CharlesH]

I am debating with myself, whether it is worth it to buy a 70-200 telezoom for sports photography to be able to blurr the background more and to get faster AF.

I have the S Pro 70-200mm f/4. I did buy the 70-300, which has been a disappointment compared to the 70-200, or the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender. The 70-200 is just a much sharper lens, and has better O.I.S. Blur at f/4 is pretty good, depending on the subject distance. Obviously closer gives more blur.

Recently I've been using the 70-200 with the S1RM2. Typically I use Crop Zoom, with minimum image size S, which gives a X2 zoom and an effective 70-400mm lens. I am using AF Custom Setting SET3. The only action I have practiced on is cars and motorcycles going by on the street out front; no field hockey here. This is mostly single shot, and I briefly looked at the H+ burst mode. For single shot both subject detection and focus are quick, with a high keeper rate. I'm about to see how it does with H+, and then I'll venture out to find more action scenes. I actually have a lot of confidence in this lens, and expect it will perform well.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

My 70-300 seems sharp, even wide open. But only 24mp… after all the glowing reports on the s pro 70-200/4 I would like to see some comparison shots emphasizing the difference. The S Pro 16-35 is easily the nicest rendering lens of all my lenses. Has something special 3D look. Think it is micro contrast together with fall-off. Compared with 24-105, the 24-105 looks a bit “flat”. but still sharp And the 20-60 even a bit more sterile/flat? In that regard the Sigma 28-70 is between the s pro and the 24-105.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

It's interesting how we can reach different conclusions on lenses. I have found the resolving power of the 70-300 to be quite good, and Richard found the same in his review. But Charles and Paul reached a different conclusion. On the other hand, I have found the S-Pro 16-35 to be good-but-not exceptional, particularly from a "3D" perspective. I prefer the Sigma 14-24 Art in that regard.

I'm sure copy variation plays a role here, so maybe I got a good 70-300 but a sub-par 16-35. I know my 16-35 - which show no signs of decentering - does have more color fringing than I expect. So maybe I should order another one, but I do know other people have made the same observation about that lens.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I really like my 70-300 too, both rendering and sharpness. So that is why I’m curious how good a 70-200/4 pro would be
My feeling is that it has todo with sample variation, high pixelcount, focus/subject distance.

If I didn’t get a good picture with it, it is always my error. Too slow shutter, wrong metering, wrong focusmode etc.

My 16-35/4 does hardly show purple fringing, not even with leaves etc. Even when uncorrected.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

I'm also quite happy with my 70-300 regarding image quality and AF alike. I did some little comparison to a 70-200/4 years ago and I remember no huge difference at 200mm.

The 100-400 is one of the first Sigma lenses for mirrorless. Still with the older HSM motors. I personally didn't tested it, but I have read a couple of comparisons to the 70-300 form Panasonic. The 70-300 should be faster focusing. The image quality should be good on both.

But I think the 2.8 telezooms from sigma and Panasonic should be better then all three.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

Far from it. Latest Sony and Canon 2.8s are only 1045 and 1070 grams respectively, I definitely notice the difference, the Sigma sits somewhere between those and the L Mount (and Nikon) offerings. Not a reason to switch brands, I'm not insinuating that, but it is clear that Sony and Canon have both made strides to lower the weight of their faster glass.

But you have to mention that the Canon wit 1070 g is a extending zoom which can't take tele-converter. The newer on which can take TC is a little heavier and much bigger, but very expensive.

The Sony GM2 is very impressive though. The Panasonic S pro is one of the Panasonic lenses, that would already need a upgrade. But probably, it don't seems that it's high on Panasonic's priority to update there S pros or introduce new once. Everything is mid-range nowadays for Panasonic.