Sigma 60mm f2.8 DN Lens for nighttime sports?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by RepublicImages, Oct 12, 2015.

  1. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    My stepson has his high school football games more toward the dusk/night time. I'm looking for a lens that will allow me to shoot the high school game and have considered the Sigma 60mm f2.8, because honestly, my current line up of the O25 f1.8, O40-150 f4-5.6 and kit lens aren't helping me out a lot. I do mostly street photography in my off time and don't have a whole lot of money to throw around, so this makes the Sigma look even more tempting.

    Any recommendations on this lens for the purpose I've given? Any examples of how it performs in stadium lighting scenarios? Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Generationfourth

    Generationfourth Mu-43 Regular

    172
    Sep 11, 2015
    The f/2.8 would be pushing it for low light situations. I had the 60 f2.8 for a few weeks and it just didn't cut it for me in low light. What body do you have? if you have an Olympus with IBIS it could be better. I do think the 60mm would be a good focal length though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Not a big sports photographer, but it seems to me there are 2 issues that need to be addressed

    1) Gathering enough light to get a high enough shutter speed to freeze the action, in this case yes the sigma will give you probably 2 stops over your long zoom

    2) getting enough reach with your lens to meaningfully fill the frame with your subject. This is much trickier, as it is dependent on things like where you are allowed to shoot from, in the stands, trackside etc. But I am guessing it is unlikely that your are going to get within 20-30 yards of the subject during a game... in this care then the Sigma probably doesn't really cut it compared to your Oly zoom.

    As an example this shot is full frame from shot from 30 yards, at a focal length of 283mm ( 200+ 1.4 teleconvertor)

    P9220044.

    My advice would be to try and work harder with the the long Oly zoom, maybe shooting in manual exposure or with shutter priority at say 1/500 with ISO set to Auto with maybe a 5000 or 6400 upper limit to see what you can get imagewise


    cheers

    K
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    A few questions just to get a general idea:
    - are you going to shoot from the field side? It's a full sized football field?
    - do you already took a few pictures? If so, what was the aperture, ISO, shutter speed to get a general idea of the available light?
    - what camera do you have?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    ㅇtㅈyㅅr
    Unless you have access to photograph from the sidelines, a 60/2.8 probably won't cut it as it doesn't have enough reach from the stands to get interesting shots. With your 40-150/2-5.6, your biggest problem is going to be high ISO and my guess is be prepared to shoot at ISO 6400 to get the proper shutter speeds to freeze the action.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. kingduct

    kingduct Mu-43 Veteran

    300
    Oct 12, 2013
    All of the things others are saying are correct. I have the Sigma 60mm and Panasonic 45-150mm. I've used the Sigma a bit for indoors basketball and it is close enough if I'm courtside (which I was, for my son's game). However, if the players are at the other end of the court, it is distant. The 45-150mm was simply too dim inside, but outdoors, like for soccer, it does get enough distance. The problem is that it can't freeze the action too well.

    I'd say that neither is ideal, but that the Sigma is cheap enough that if you can afford it, you could just buy it and try it out. Ideally, I think the 75mm 1.8 would be the right lens, because it adds some distance, some light, and also is plenty sharp enough to take some cropping if you want to blow the action up. But it's a lot more expensive.

    I actually own the Olympus 1.7x lens adapter and have the adapter ring to connect it to my Sigma, theoretically giving me a 100mm lens. I tested it quickly and thought the results looked OK. However, I've never used it for real photography because I don't have the time and it adds a lot of weight.

    Another possibility, if you can manual focus, is to look for a manual focus 105mm or 135mm lens. I also own a 105mm/2.5 macro and have used it for sports, but it is even heavier!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    Sorry, I should have clarified, I am using an Oly EM5. Shooting from bleachers about 30 feet from field side. Ye, full size football field.

    Typical shutter speeds I have used that seem to work for me is anywhere between 800-1250 ISO kept at 200-400
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    @kingduct@kingduct, I was actually looking at possibly going manual focus with a cheap OM mount 135 f2.8 if worse came to worst. But really wanted something auto focus.
     
  9. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Shutter speeds sound about right, but your ISO is going to have to go way up.. It is important that you meter for the players and not the whole scene so no P or iAuto.

    K

    EDIT

    maybe I mis read....is the 800 -1250 the shutter speed or the ISO?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
  10. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    ISO 800-1250, with 1/200 - 1/400 is not so bad assuming you were using the 40-150 fully extended at f5.6. Light is not so bad. What exactly was the problem with the 40-150? Too much noise, blurry shots, AF speed, something else?

    IMO the 1.7x TC (like the T-CON 17 or the B-300) is a good suggestion to use with a strong fixed length lens (I doubt the 40-150 is strong enough to bear the weight). I have the B-300 and I like it (paid 50$). Maybe 100mm is still too short.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  11. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    @Klorenzo@Klorenzo: the issue with the 40-150 was the lighting. Even with ISO maxed out at 1600 and shutter speed cranked up, the shots were dark and/or blurry. Couldn't nail it in the low light.

    Even the kit 14-42 at f3.5 was having issues at 14mm. It may have just been where we were at with the stadium lighting, I don't know.
     
  12. halebalephoto

    halebalephoto Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Feb 9, 2015
    What? Surely the EM5 must be able to beyond 1600?
     
  13. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Maybe posting an example of what you have got so far, along with basic shutter speed/ISO info may help us make some suggestions.

    K
     
  14. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    Will do once I get back home. Don't have my hard drive with me here.
     
  15. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    Ok, I got it wrong, thought you got a few good shots with those settings.

    For sure I'd go to ISO 3200 and, for my tastes, even 6400 is fine (shooting RAW and with hand tuned denoise). You can configure the Auto-ISO range to include these values. Like f5.6, 1/500, ISO 6400 is not so bad, for example. This is an EV 8, should be about right (see here).

    The only long AF tele is the O75. There is the "native" Rokinon 85/1.4 but is manual focus.
     
  16. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I agree with these suggestions. The 75 is pretty pricey though, maybe as low as $500 used. The Rokinon is <$300 new, and certainly the weapon of choice if you can deal with MF. I think the Sigma 60/2.8 will be frustrating, unless the light is better than I imagine/remember from HS football games.
     
  17. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    No, it can surely go higher, but for my tastes the noise level becomes an issue. Even at 1600 it is an issue.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. RepublicImages

    RepublicImages Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Aug 7, 2015
    California
    That is an AWESOME chart and reading material to have for reference. Thank you.
     
  19. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I'm glad you find it useful. I use this tool for quick calculations/comparisons: http://www.endoflow.com/exposure/
     
  20. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Depending on how much reach you really needed................You could sell the EM5, get an EM1 with either the 35-100 ƒ2.0 or 150mm ƒ2.0 and either should be fine with the EC-14 or EC-20 (I know the 150/2 is, I do not have the 35-100 tho).

    Edit - and I know for a fact that the EM1 w/ 150/2 works great with C-AF and could easily get you the photographs you are after.