TeenPhotog wrote in post #10362654
Also, I do and I don't get the whole 'not the right gear' issue. The only lens worth shooting sports with is the 55-250 and while I know the focus isn't particularly fast, and f5.6 is slow as well, whats wrong with shooting at a higher iso? In full sunlight I think I would be able to swing SS's between 1/250 & 1/500 @ f5.6 ISO 800.
I fully understand that life is easier with something like a 300 2.8L, but is there an absolute need to shoot with such fast (expensive) glass? Could I theoretically squeak by? If no, whats your budget squeaking by lens? One of the 70-200's?
For me, it is more about the 55-250 just being a marginally effective sports lens. You already hit on the AF and aperture limitations and these are pretty significant limitations.
The problem with that lens for field sports is that it's just not really that long a lens. Yes, you can wait for the action to come to you and yes for things like softball it is enough to get by. However, you also are going to miss out on a lot of opportunities because of it. For soccer, football and baseball it is just way too limiting.
The other problem is that it is almost useless for indoor sports because of the aperture limitations.
Could you squeak by with it, of course you could. For daytime events you will have plenty of light and if you take enough shots indoors you are bound to get a few keepers even at really slow shutter speeds.
The main reason I think it is a limitation for you trying to break into sports for publications is because you are forced to rely too much on getting A shot instead of THE shot.
Getting a sharp photo that is well composed is only part of the equation to being successful covering sports for a publication and is more of an expectation than anything. What really sets apart the great shooters from the good shooters is being able to do it consistently and to consistently come back with a shot of the big run, or basket or touchdown that defined the game. This is where having the higher end gear really comes into play. It gives you the tools to maximize your skill and increase your opportunities for THE shot.
I personally think the 70-200 for sports is a good second lens but generally is not what I would use as a primary lens. For field sports I want long glass, 300, 400, etc. For indoor sports without strobes I want fast glass f/2, f/1.8, etc. The 70-200 does not fit into either category.
IMO the best bang for the buck lenses if money is a serious limitation would be 100-400 for outdoor sports and 85 f/1.8 for indoor sports. Personally, I am not a fan of the 100-400 but I am also spoiled with pretty nice gear and am a sharpness freak, which for me I found it to lack. However, I tend to expect more than necessary and have seen lots of people produce some really nice results with it. The 85 f/1.8 on the other hand I love and for the money, it is impossible to beat.
Hope that helps better explain my earlier post. Have a safe trip and best of luck with the college application circus.