I've already done a fair bit of research. I somewhat discarded the option of 70-200mm f/2.8 because of price and weight (I know I can get the new Tamron 70-200 g2 for about 1400 € but that's still too much and it weighs 1.5kg). It would probably get in my way when I move around in muddy terrain, over roots and rocks, in woods, on the beaches, etc.
I don't plan to shoot football, basketball or other team sports, at least not yet and not with the lens I choose to buy at the moment.
So I researched other options, and lots of people say they shoot 85mm f/1.8 or 105mm micro/macro lens. Or even wide lenses like 18-24mm when they can get sufficiently close to the subject, but this question is about telephoto lenses.
As such I identified a few lenses which are:
- Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/1.8g (500 €)
- Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro (400 €)
- Nikon AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens (900 €)
- Tamron F017 N SP 90 MM f/2.8 Di Macro VC USD (650 €)
All of the above have great reviews on YouTube and between 4 and 5 stars on Amazon reviews.
I am an amateur photographer but still want to produce great quality shots for the sports niche I've chosen, which is mountain biking, cycling and other action sports.
Which one would be the best fit and is any one of them to be discarded? I heard comments about slow autofocus in general on macro lenses, is this still a big deal these days with these new lenses?
Oh and btw, I only consider lenses with an aperture of f/2.8 or faster because of frequently shooting in woods.