Which 70-200 telezoom for sports photography?

[pdk42]

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.

I recently had a short foray back into m43 (part of planning my Japan trip) and while I had the camera (an EM1.3) I tested a copy of the Olympus/OM 100-400 (which clearly is based on the Sigma 100-400 for FF). In general I was very unhappy with the lens's performance, but what was very clear to me was that it delivered reasonable results at shorter distances but was pretty awful towards infinity. I found exactly the same with the Panasonic 70-300. In both cases I was doing my tests in cold winter conditions (shooting winter trees on the horizon) so I don't think atmospheric issues were at play.

Interestingly though, I found significant focus wander on both lenses (OM 100-400 and Panasonic 70-300) when shooting near infinity. I wonder if that's what different people are reporting. Those who shoot these lenses at short-medium distances, perhaps using burst modes (where focus wander is disguised in the glut of frames), find that they perform OK. Whereas people like me who generally shoot things far away on single shot mode find that they get a lot of virtually useless images.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Yes, could be. I generally don't focus at infinity very often, so that certainly could explain my findings.

 

[dirk]

In general I was very unhappy with the lens's performance, but what was very clear to me was that it delivered reasonable results at shorter distances but was pretty awful towards infinity.

mmmhhh... I have not had that experience so far with mine.

But I got another idea: If I keep my Lumix S1RII and use its 44MP resolution to cropzoom or hybrid zoom with a 70-200 telezoom, I would get the same focal range like my Sigma 100-400 up to 400mm and still have 20MP (same resolution maximum like with MFT). But with DOF of F2.8 at fullframe. That could kill my telezoom use cases for MFT, if it works well (ignoring the the heavy weight of the 70-200/2.8) and might make the Sigma 100-400 obsolete.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

mmmhhh... I have not had that experience so far with mine.

But I got another idea: If I keep my Lumix S1RII and use its 44MP resolution to cropzoom or hybrid zoom with a 70-200 telezoom, I would get the same focal range like my Sigma 100-400 up to 400mm and still have 20MP (same resolution maximum like with MFT). But with DOF of F2.8 at fullframe. That could kill my telezoom use cases for MFT, if it works well (ignoring the the heavy weight of the 70-200/2.8) and might make the Sigma 100-400 obsolete.

I think you have a miss calculation. If you crop from 200mm to 400mm you have a two time crop. Wit two times crop, your resolution halves in width of the frame and it also halves in heights of the frame. In conclusion your resolution quarter. That means with 44 Mpix at 200mm you end up with 11 Mpix at 400mm crop from 200mm.

 

[dirk]

ohhhh... I obviously had a 5 minute "wishful thinking" period....

 

[CharlesH]

I think you have a miss calculation. If you crop from 200mm to 400mm you have a two time crop. Wit two times crop, your resolution halves in width of the frame and it also halves in heights of the frame. In conclusion your resolution quarter. That means with 44 Mpix at 200mm you end up with 11 Mpix at 400mm crop from 200mm.

Yes, this is how I use my S1RM2. I've mentioned this on the forum a few times already.

Also, if you select both RAW and Fine then you can use either HyZ or CrZ, and if you only import the RAW into Lightroom the RAW will come in as zoomed. This may not be obvious or intuitive but it is quite powerful. If you now use the Lightroom Crop Overlay tool the entire 44MP image will show, with the crop highlighted. The crop can now be moved around to reframe the shot, or the crop can be adjusted smaller or larger (all the way up to 44MP if you want). In other words HyZ sets a crop for taking the picture, but this is also a starting crop that can be further adjusted in Lightroom. This is my normal workflow with the S1RM2. And by the way, with a 2X zoom you still need to shrink photos to show them on this forum.

 

[dirk]

I shot yesterday a field hockey game with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 DG DN Sports. On my Lumix S1Rii. This lens is a winner, but I hate the weight (same as with the Sigma 100-400)

The AF is quicker than with the 100-400. Surprisingly it is easier to hold and zoom than the 100-400. Image quality is excellent, even if you zoom in 100%. I do not need more image quality with the 44MP sensor of the S1Rii.

Obviously I had to walk more than with the 100-400. This will be difficult on some fields, because sometimes there is no space at the side where you can walk outside of the field.

Overall this lens is clearly a winner and will replace my Sigma 100-400 for sports, if I do not need more reach.

For a general purpose telezoom it is too heavy and too big. Minor negative point: You can not detach the tripod collar. You can turn it to the side, but you can not put it off.

• Panasonic - DC-S1RM2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 152.0 mm
• ƒ/3.2
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 320

• Panasonic - DC-S1RM2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/1600 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 80

• Panasonic - DC-S1RM2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 110.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/1600 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 160

• Panasonic - DC-S1RM2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/1600 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 400

• Panasonic - DC-S1RM2
• 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | Sports 023
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/3.2
• 1/1600 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

 

[Vale46]

I shot yesterday a field hockey game with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 DG DN Sports. On my Lumix S1Rii. This lens is a winner, but I hate the weight (same as with the Sigma 100-400)

The AF is quicker than with the 100-400. Surprisingly it is easier to hold and zoom than the 100-400. Image quality is excellent, even if you zoom in 100%. I do not need more image quality with the 44MP sensor of the S1Rii.

Obviously I had to walk more than with the 100-400. This will be difficult on some fields, because sometimes there is no space at the side where you can walk outside of the field.

Overall this lens is clearly a winner and will replace my Sigma 100-400 for sports, if I do not need more reach.

For a general purpose telezoom it is too heavy and too big. Minor negative point: You can not detach the tripod collar. You can turn it to the side, but you can not put it off.

Maybe you should give the 2x Teleconverter a try on your Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Many users are very satisfield how good the combination performs.

 

[dirk]

Maybe you should give the 2x Teleconverter a try on your Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Many users are very satisfield how good the combination performs.

Then I only have 140mm on the short end. I need shorter. I can not catch closer scenes with 140mm or 100mm.

Even the 100mm of the Sigma's 100-400 is already too long on the short end.sometimes.

I decided to take both zooms with me to the games and decide in the last minute depending on space around the scene which one to use.

If I could use both on that game I definitely would pick the 70-200 over the 100-400. It has better/faster AF, bokeh is better at F2.8, it is easier to zoom and I am able to catch scenes closer to me with 70mm on the short end.

I really like my 100-400, but the 70-200 is better suited to this sport.

 

[nsbrookes]

I shot yesterday a field hockey game with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 DG DN Sports. On my Lumix S1Rii. This lens is a winner, but I hate the weight (same as with the Sigma 100-400)

The AF is quicker than with the 100-400. Surprisingly it is easier to hold and zoom than the 100-400. Image quality is excellent, even if you zoom in 100%. I do not need more image quality with the 44MP sensor of the S1Rii.

Obviously I had to walk more than with the 100-400. This will be difficult on some fields, because sometimes there is no space at the side where you can walk outside of the field.

Overall this lens is clearly a winner and will replace my Sigma 100-400 for sports, if I do not need more reach.

For a general purpose telezoom it is too heavy and too big. Minor negative point: You can not detach the tripod collar. You can turn it to the side, but you can not put it off.

View attachment 12030

View attachment 12031

View attachment 12032

View attachment 12033

View attachment 12034

These shots are very impressive, especially since they are shot with a camera which is not meant to be marketed at 'sports/action'.

I now shoot more action/sports than before and I do struggle with my S1R. Even though you can learn to use the older contrast based AF to get decent images, it is by no means ideal (in fact, I do get more keepers when using my even older Panasonic G9 ). I am very tempted by the S1Rii for a number of reasons and better AF is one of them.

Dirk, you probably have answered this already but how do you rate the S1Rii autofocus for action shots, but also in low light, compared to older Panasonic cameras like the S5 or S1R?

 

[dirk]

I am very tempted by the S1Rii for a number of reasons and better AF is one of them.

I am still at the beginning of my learning curve with the S1Rii. But for that, I am really happy with the S1Rii for sports. Not only because of the many AF options (which I still have to master), but also because it has 44 MP and thanks to this, I can crop and have with the 70-200mm (depending on required resolution) also a 400mm reach at around 10MP. For web display, this is enough for sure. Most parents see the photos on PC or smartphone

how do you rate the S1Rii autofocus for action shots, but also in low light, compared to older Panasonic cameras like the S5 or S1R?

That is difficult to judge at this stage. The Lumix S1RII is too new for me. I never cared about different AF settings in the past. It could be, that the AF of the S5ii is almost as good as of the S1Rii. I never digged into the AF menu settings to try something new with the S5ii.

With my S5 (years ago), I shot sports too. The hit ratio was not as good as with the S1RII, but I can not really compare it, because I made different kind of photos and the kids were younger (=slower), the fields smaller for this age group. But it did not bother me, so it seemed to be "good enough" at that time.

Nowadays it is different. I have higher expectations on the photos. The kids are older and faster, the hockey field is as big as an adult soccer field. The action is a lot faster.

My younger son is now in the pre-selection for the national team (age 13). It is still a long way for the entry into national team (age 16) and a lot can happen over the next 3 years, but I have to adapt. The better he gets, the more II have to catch up with my photos

I never used the S1R. But my guess is, that writing speed will be too slow. You need high fps for this. The faster the movements, the faster the fps has to be. At age 13 with these kids, I would say 10fps mechanical shutter is the minimum. Shutterspeed around 1/1600s. 1/1000s is almost too slow at this age. I do not think that the S1R has 10fps. The S5 has only 6 or 7fps as far as I remember.

If you know that you will be at many sport games for your kids, I would definitely go for the newest generation. S1II, S1IIe or S1RII. Only the S1RII has the cropping power.

I will link a short sequence of a hockeyscene (recorded with a GoPro9) so that you get an impression about the speed at this age.

 

[dirk]

And read this thread about my AF settings with the Lumix S1RII for sports photography

Lumix S1Rii & sports photography - AF settings, burst modes etc.

I want to try out the S1Rii this week for sports photography. For field hockey. That means erratic and unpredictal movements. Shutter speed has to be at least around 1/1000s and it has to be mechanical shutter, otherwise the hockey sticks will look weired :) The manual of the Lumix S1Rii is...

l-mount-forum.com