Best lens for sports on an A7iii?

[Josi]

I've got a 100-400mm but due to current lockdown, I haven't had an opportunity to use it for sports yet. Can't wait though lol. Do you use this, or a 70-200 or something else? I'm also wondering if anyone uses a 135mm for sport? Thanks. I know the A9ii and A9 would be the preferred camera, but they are a lot outside my budget.

 

[bryan]

70 -200 all day Evey day . Have all the others but sometimes just want one ...And gets all you need . Have done NFL with just 70-200 . " Move around and NO backs and butts ".

 

[earchphoto]

The quick answer would be - depends on which sport you plan to photograph.
In general, for sports, you need fast lenses. f/2.8 zooms are a good start (24-70 and 70-200).
If your sport is played in the daytime, you can use a 100-400 or a 200-600 for longer reach. On the other hand, if you are shooting night time competitions or if your sport is indoors and the lighting is not optimal, you will need a faster lens like the 400/2.8, which is out of budget for most of us.
Agree with the post above that a 70-200 is a good start, and then go from there once you decide which sport you want to focus on.

 

[Mark0519]

I’d have to agree with the 70-200 f2.8. That lens essentially never leaves my camera. I find it is the go-to for indoor fast moving sports (volleyball, basketball) and can be used outdoors for beach VB and baseball. I have used it with the 1.4X adapter to shoot some ultimate frisbee.....still works well but focus just a smidge slower.

 

[LTS]

So, the 70-200 was on my list but I am finding myself HEAVILY considering the Tamron 70-180 instead. I'm not finding any reviews that say its incapable and while you lose 20mm on the long end I think that will be okay overall. Especially since I have the 200-600mm for the longer shots.

At this point, I could buy he 70-180 and have money left over for rounding out the collection (for now) and getting a wider lens.

Anyone have good reasons against the 70-180 from Tamron?

 

[Mark0519]

I do not have any experience with that lens nor have heard/seen much with it for sports. That’s not to say that it isn’t quite capable. What sports are you shooting? Super fast action?

 

[LTS]

It would be mostly hockey and volleyball indoors. Strictly hobby stuff.

 

[Mark0519]

So as far as sports goes, those are pretty fast action....tonight I am going to try the 100-400 f4.0 at 12800 and 25600 ISO in a poorly lit gym for high school VB. I was shocked at how usable the 12800 ISO shots were at my last outing....

That said, without experience with the Tammy, I don't feel like I can comment, but again......you can NOT go wrong with the 70-200 f2.8 for hockey and VB IMO.

 

[MikeW]

Joel, as someone who is also considering the Tamron 70-180, my two cents would be if you earn money from the sports photos that you shoot, then get the Sony 70-200 because of the lens stabilization. But, if you are an amateur like me, then you can get the same f2.8 with the Tamron for half the price and every review I've seen indicates that it is excellent - just like the Sony.

 

[LTS]

I'm think it will be the Tamron for me. I figure at a high enough shutter speed the image stabilization won't be as valuable anyway. Of course, I can always upgrade later if need be!

 

[Foamcutter]

I'm mid transition from Nikon to Sony, with the 70-200 2.8 or the Tamron 70-180 next on my shopping list .... then Covid struck
I wasn't able to shoot at race circuits due to restrictions (motorsport is my thing) but I got access to smaller circuits to shoot karts, pit bikes and motocross. I'm using Tamron 70-200 2.8 on the Nikon with a Tamron 28-75 2.8 on my A7III however, I'm finding that I'm using the Sony more. Yes, I'm much closer to the action and the autofocus is so much better, but I've also found that I'm shooting 'wider' to create a different look.

To answer your question the 70-180/200 2.8 will probably be best suited to a lot of sports but there are other options depending on what sports you shoot and your style.
Good luck with the 100-400

 

[Spiderx1]

So, the 70-200 was on my list but I am finding myself HEAVILY considering the Tamron 70-180 instead. I'm not finding any reviews that say its incapable and while you lose 20mm on the long end I think that will be okay overall. Especially since I have the 200-600mm for the longer shots.

At this point, I could buy he 70-180 and have money left over for rounding out the collection (for now) and getting a wider lens.

Anyone have good reasons against the 70-180 from Tamron?

I have the Tamron 70-180 and love it. I compared several shots head to head with the Sony 70-200 and found the Sony to be a bit softer image. It is also a lot lighter and smaller for carry. But similar in size at full length. I was really torn between the two but I have never looked back. You won’t miss the extra 20mm you get on the Sony. However both are great lenses.

 

[Spiderx1]

Joel, as someone who is also considering the Tamron 70-180, my two cents would be if you earn money from the sports photos that you shoot, then get the Sony 70-200 because of the lens stabilization. But, if you are an amateur like me, then you can get the same f2.8 with the Tamron for half the price and every review I've seen indicates that it is excellent - just like the Sony.

Lens stabilization is nice but if you also have body stabilization does it add that much? Besides lens stabilization doesn’t really help stop the movement of the players. So now you are down to aperture and ISO settings, I run speed priority ISO in auto for changing light conditions. i.e game goes from sunlight to sunset to stadium lights in 1 hour. Another issue is while the 2.8 is nice, love it, your depth of field is reduced and you may find a great shot but the player was out of focus in a fast moving game. I ise the Tamron 70-180 and if I let it do it’s thing it will stay at f2.8, I also use the Sony 200-600 , so at 600 it’s at f6.3. I have better luck with the higher f stop of 6.3 in fast moving games. This really comes down to the f stop. Consider full manual. Then there is the focus mode with players running between you and your subject, another rabbit hole....

 

[Jeff A]

I have the Tamron 70-180 and love it. I compared several shots head to head with the Sony 70-200 and found the Sony to be a bit softer image. It is also a lot lighter and smaller for carry. But similar in size at full length. I was really torn between the two but I have never looked back. You won’t miss the extra 20mm you get on the Sony. However both are great lenses.

I'm a new shooter and previously not considered an aftermarket lens for my A73. If I mounted the Tamron 70-180, what Sony camera features would not work wi8th this lens?

 

[Spiderx1]

I am not aware of any loss with camera functionality. You of course lose the swtches on the side of the lens, focus limiter, steady shot, manual focus button and focus lock buttons. Your camera has stabilization in the body, you can select manual focus in the body menu. So you do lose some bells and whistles.