For sports: 70-200 too short, 300 f/2.8 too expensive, 300 f/4 too slow

[FlipsidE]

Just a crazy question out of curiousity. The 70-200 (any aperture) is too short for most field sports, the 300 f/2.8 is more expensive than my 1D Mark 2, and the 300 f/4 is too slow. Is there a happy medium anywhere?

[LightRules]

Sigma 120-300 f2.8

[buze]

A new TV ?

:D :D :D

[FlipsidE]

A new TV ?

:D :D :D:lol::lol: Good one!

[dmp-potn]

Hello,

You could try shooting the 70-200 f/2.8L at 200mm f/2.8 and then do a bit of cropping in post. That's the cheap solution anyway. The other option is to look at non-Canon lenses. Good luck!

[JK]

...and the 300 f/4 is too slowIf you're shooting field sports during the day, f4 should be more than enough.
Just bump up the ISO to 400 or 800 and that should give you a fast enough shutter speed even if lighting conditions aren't too great.

[liza]

Until I can afford the Sigma 120-300, I'm using the 200 2.8L and a 1.4x TC and a 70-200 f/4L for baseball and softball.

[Jman13]

I too was going to suggest the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Outstanding lens. I was lucky enough to be able to try one out a few months ago. Very heavy, but anything that does 300mm at f/2.8 is going to be heavy. :)

[quickben]

How about the sigma 300 2.8 prime. No IS but the optical quality is "supposed" to be 95% of the canon version. For less than half the price. Gotta be an option.

Gary.

[In2Photos]

There is a local shop here selling a used Tamron 300 2.8 for $1999. I have no idea about the lens itself but thought you could do some research. Sorry that I don't know any more about it. It is at charlottecamera.com.

[Elton Balch]

I use the 1.4 TC with my 70-200 f/2.8 when I need more reach. IMHO the images are every bit as good.

[FlipsidE]

Honestly, I'm not worried about image quality when using the 1.4x TC. I've heard nothing but good things about that TC. The main thing I'm concerned with is shooting night sports at a maximum aperture of f/4. Unfortunately, from what I've herad, f/4, for the most part, just isn't quite fast enough.

[Elton Balch]

Honestly, I'm not worried about image quality when using the 1.4x TC. I've heard nothing but good things about that TC. The main thing I'm concerned with is shooting night sports at a maximum aperture of f/4. Unfortunately, from what I've herad, f/4, for the most part, just isn't quite fast enough.

Night sports adds a new dimension to the problem; I'd suggest as follows:

Use a monopod. Even with the IS version, this will help quite a bit.
Use a higher ISO to compensate for the one stop loss for using the 1.4 TC as mentioned in another post.
I'm sure you will see others using equipment at games. See what works for them.I don't shoot night sports but if there's enough light to see a softball coming at the batter at 80-90 MPH there's probably enough light for the lens to take pictures!!

[FlipsidE]

I plan to use a monopod. But, tryin to get a picture of the left fielder making an amazing catch from right behind the first baseman...don't think 200mm would be long enough for that.

[Stan43]

Use the 70-200 2.8L IS with the 1.4 TC. Should be long enough. Or... 100-400 F4L . At 400-800 in decent light you will get great pictures ( Outside). If you plan on shooting anything indoors go with the 70-200 2.8 setup.
Stan

[Elton Balch]

I plan to use a monopod. But, tryin to get a picture of the left fielder making an amazing catch from right behind the first baseman...don't think 200mm would be long enough for that.

From the looks of your gear list and professional web site you are an experienced photographer. There are usually dozens of photographers on the sidelines at pro games. That's because it isn't easy to "get a picture of the left fielder making an amazing catch from right behind the first baseman". It's all about position and having the right combination on your camera at the right time. That said, it still seems to me that the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 TC offers the most flexibility. Bring lots of memory and keep firing!!

[blackviolet]

it depends on the lights on the field. i agree, F/4 is very slow, even in high ISO. you may still try it with the 1.4x, good crop, & noise ninja in post.
i have had success on some fields with good light (i'm in the States at the moment and the high school stadium near me has a very brightly lit soccer field!!), but most of the fields i shoot on are bad at best for night shooting...

[aparmley]

I don't know what the deal is but I've seen some great photos of field sports, like Soccer, churned out with the 300 F4 over at FM. Sure in low light its not much of a performer, but once you get past that limitation It performs great from what I read. Long + Fast = Expensive.

[Camo 757]

Rent what you need but don't have, I do.