Photoclubalpha

300f4 300f2.8 and what sort of price should i be looking at.

Unless you already have a collection of other lenses, and you're sure you just need to supplement it with a 300 mm, I'd avoid a fixed 300 mm lens. Most sports involve people moving around fairly quickly, and in a lot of cases they can get fairly close to you. I'm rather a bigot about preferring fixed lenses, but for sports I still use a zoom (70-210/2.8 ) nearly all the time.

Just for fun, I'm attaching a couple of pictures from a sport I enjoy. If I'd only had a 300 handy, I probably wouldn't have gotten a single usable picture.

I am not aware of Minolta, Konica or Sony making a 70-210 f/2.8 lens.

Sonolta,
Nice sports shots.
Question, I have been using the a700 recently and have noticed that whites get blown out pretty easily. How did you keep that from happening, especially since the other uniforms are black?
Thanks in advance.

AJ Gressette wrote:I am not aware of Minolta, Konica or Sony making a 70-210 f/2.8 lens.

I don't think any of them does or did -- but a long time ago, Tamron made one in A-mount. At the time, I bought it for a Maxxum 9000, but it's now survived the 9000, a 9, and a 7D. I'm currently using it on an A-700, and when I've convinced my fiance that I really need an A-900 , I'll still have it.

Nice shots from both.

Can't say much about sports photography, but I can insist that the 300mm would be great for birding.

at the moment i have a beercan, km 50 1.7 . sony16-105 km28-75 2.8 and a km 135 2.8.

Thanks Sonolta. Your comments are helpful but I think it may be a camera setting issue. I will try tom provide an example of what I mean later this evening.