I spent some time over the weekend at Disch-Falk field on the UT campus shooting the Division 1 Regional NCAA baseball tournament for Texas State University. (See previous post for photos.)
If you read a recent post of mine, entitled “Getting by with lens envy,” you know that the large lens in the top photo is not mine. No, I don’t own anything longer than a 200mm lens.
So let’s back up for a second. A few weeks ago I helped a friend in need, Don Anders. Don has been a mentor of mine for a few years and I was more than willing to help him out. I was not expecting to be repaid at all, so it was a huge surprise when he called on Friday and said he rented a 200-400mm f4 lens for me to use for the weekend.
I’ve been talking about getting a telephoto lens for a while now and I’ve been set on the 400mm f2.8 (not that I can pay for it). I’ve also thought about the 300mm f2.8 (also can’t pay for it…yet). But I really liked the zoom on the 200-400mm f4. It’s like using a giant version of my 80-200mm f2.8. The feel is very similar and it’s perfect for baseball.
Now I’m asking myself, what’s better? Zoom or depth of field? Do I want a fixed lens or do I need zoom? The f4 isn’t great for night games, but high ISO grain is getting so much better, so does that really matter?
For all you photogs out there who own one of these lenses, could you please weigh in? It’ll be a while before I can afford to get one (or should I just rent for a few years?), so I have a while to decide, but I would really appreciate your opinion!
2 Comments