200mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/4L for Baseball/Softball?

[Kenya]

With the college baseball/softball seasons fast approaching, I'm considering purchasing a better lens. Otherwise, I'm stuck with the Canon EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III on a Canon 350D. So far, I prefer shooting with primes and have had decent results shooting volleyball with a 50mm and basketball with a 85mm prime. I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to shoot baseball/softball with a 200mm prime. (The Canon 200mm f/2.8L would also be useful to me for shooting live music.) Or is this a case where I really need the flexibility of a zoom. If so I'm thinking about the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. Nearly all the games are during the day so the f-stop shouldn't be a problem. I am concerned that I would not use this lens for anything else. I would like to try both of them, but I don't have a store near me that rents lenses. My budget is approximately $700.

Is it unrealistic to expect good baseball shots with one body and a prime? Of these two lens, which is better for shooting college baseball/softball? Is there some other lens that I should consider? Is the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III not as bad an option as it appears?

Thanks.

[MJPhotos24]

I shoot a ton of baseball, and it really depends on your stadiums/fields. I have a 300 2.8 and it's too big in some stadiums and to small in others. Having a zoom like a 70-200 is ideal if the stadiums are smaller and you can move around a bit. If the stadiums/fields are bigger the 200 plus a 1.4 convertor might be the answer. Most photographers in pro baseball I know have 2 bodies/2 lenses but not really a necessity - one is usually a 300 or 400 2.8 and the other is a 70-200 2.8 usually. Primary body is usually a Mark II or similar and the 2nd is either the same or 20D. 20D's seem to be popular out there among them, and myself it's my main body right now until I can afford a Mark IIn. I have two bodies only during pre-game, so game shots you really don't need two IMO. Either of those choices though are better than the 75-300.

[metalman1010]

Hey MJ. I noticed that you have both the Canon 300 2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

How come?

have you noticed using one or the other is better or such?

Thanks.
Ross

[MJPhotos24]

Hey MJ. I noticed that you have both the Canon 300 2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

How come?

have you noticed using one or the other is better or such?

Thanks.
Ross

I originally bought the 120-300 Sigma for range and price, however when I got enough I plunged in and bought the 300 Canon. I like both honestly, the sigma has perfect range and shoots excellent pics, however the Canon is a bit crisper and faster focusing. I only use the Canon right now as carrying around both would be way to much (already have a roller bag full I roll behind me). I'd like to keep the Sigma as a backup, but it might hit the selling block soon as I'd like to get a 70-200 2.8 IS Canon and a Mark IIn. The Mark IIn would have the 300 on it and my current 20D would have the 70-200. Good one two punch there (if I can afford it someday) :)

[Dean Humphrey]

I know these aren't in you choices but my experience with Baseball and Softball are that 200mm is not enough lens. I like my 100-400L IS for day baseball and the 70-200 for night games, also the Sigma 120-300 2.8 would be nice for night. If day baseball is all your going to shoot a f4 lens is OK. If using a 200mm max lens you'll have to stick to closer subjects which is doable its just nice to have the 400 in reserve if you need it or want a tight shot. Submitted for you consideration IMHO.
Good Luck

[vetkrazy]

I think you will find 200mm a bit short for baseball at the college level. Like Dean I use a 100-400 for day games. I love the 300 for batters, the pitcher and plays at the plate. But it is way to long for the play at the base closest to you. I normally use two bodies ( one prime, one zoom) otherwise I am running back and forth in the dugout. A 70-200 with the 1.4tc would be a good compromise.

[tbfoto]

I too shoot lots of baseball and softball. I have the cheaper 75-300mm that I use alot. It isnt a fast lens but like you said all the games are during the day so light is not a problem. The image quality of my lens has always been quite good. Many people hate it because it isn't fast and is of no use inside...but outside...it works well for me. I also use my 70-200 2.8L but when I need that extra reach...I go with the 75-300mm. Just my 2 cents worth!

Tom

[Kenya]

It seems that there is a near consensus that 200mm would not be enough reach. If I'm determined to get one for February then I probably need to consider a refurb 70-200 f/4L plus 1.4X TC as suggested above or maybe the 70-300mm IS f/4-5.6. (I've read that constant apertures are much better than variable apertures so I had not considered it before.) After checking the schedule, it seems there will be only two games I can shoot in February anyway so I may wait until the end of February when I should be able to spend close to $1,000. I should say that my problems with the 75-300mm could just be me. (In my experience, the images were rather soft, the background bokeh was horrible and in cloudy weather the images were even worse as compared with the primes.)

Thanks for the advice everyone.

[sirsloop]

For action, the constant aperture REALLY isnt an issue unless you shoot Tv or M a lot. For action you need shutter speed which is the sole reason a 70-200/2.8L (or f/4 if on a budget) would be better off for you.

If you go with the 70-200/2.8L... you end up with a 280mm f/4 lens with a 1.4x TC, and a ultra fast 200mm zoomer without it.

[DaveL]

I would recommend the 300 f/4L. If you shop
around you can find a non IS in the $600 range
and an IS for about $200 more...

[Tony-S]

Is it unrealistic to expect good baseball shots with one body and a prime? Of these two lens, which is better for shooting college baseball/softball? Is there some other lens that I should consider? Is the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III not as bad an option as it appears?

My experience is that 200mm is simply too short for covering the entire field. Will you be field-level, or shooting from the stands? Also, your 75-300 is arguably Canon's worst lens (I once had it; decent, but not great). Like with other sports, you really need high-speed focussing (i.e., USM/HSM).

If your shooting syle is "follow the action" then you really need a zooom. If your style is "focus on a position" then fixed can work just fine, although it requires more than one lens and lens changes. At least with this one, you already have one lens (the 85mm) that could be useful for home, first and third bases, and the pitcher, depending on how mobile you can be on the field. The 200 2.8L takes a 1.4x TC very nicely, so you could get it and a 1.4x for just a bit over your budget. This would effectively give you 3 lenses (I don't think the 85 can take a TC - I'll have to try that sometime).

For $700, you're really limited on what you can do. The EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) would fit inside your budget. It's supposed to be a very good lens, although I've never owned it. If you could swing another $100, you could get a grey market Sigma 100-300 f/4 (http://www.47thstreetphoto.com/item_child.asp?c=1652185&p=8172723&catky=&subcatky1=&subcatky2=&subcatky3=). Optically, this lens is really great (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=258316), second only to my 17-40L (comparing zooms only) and takes a 1.4x TC very well (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=249822) one stop down. It also has HSM focussing and comes with a tripod collar, lens hood and semi-soft case. The only disadvantage is the grey market only comes with a 1 year warranty, vs. 4 year for the USA-branded (which is $200 more).

[CountryBoy]

I 2nd the Sigma Ex-100-300 f4. I think it will do great for day games. I plan to use it myself this year. I uesd a 200mm zoom last year for my nephew's (8 yr) ball games. At times I found it to short. So on a bigger field , I think you will find a 2oomm lacking.

I will be pairing this with the 50-150 2.8 w/and without the converter, for times when I can get closer.

[Kenya]

@sirsloop: I do tend to shoot in shutter speed mode.

@tony-s: In previous seasons, I have shot from the fences. However, the university has built a new baseball field and ballpark. From the street, the fences seem much higher and I don't think I would be able to shoot from them as before. (I have been doing some freelance work for the sports public relations on campus and will seek a pass to shoot from the home team dugout.) Typically, I have rotated among several fixed locations looking for certain types of shots.

As I said earlier, I do think that I will wait until the end of February to upgrade. I'll have some time to try out different focal lengths. Then, I will try for one of the following:
* Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO with 1.4xTC
* Canon 70-200 f/4L with 1.4x TC
* Sigma 100-300 f/4 plus monopod
* Canon 300 f/4L plus monopod

Again, thanks everyone for the input.

[fulldeck]

I would like to add another option to this thread. If I was in the lower level of an MLB infield in an aisle seat, what type of results should I expect from a handheld 70-200mm f/2.8 L or a EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS on an XTi?

[Tony-S]

I would like to add another option to this thread. If I was in the lower level of an MLB infield in an aisle seat, what type of results should I expect from a handheld 70-200mm f/2.8 L or a EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS on an XTi?

I think you might miss some shots because 200mm isn't quite long enough. The f/4 will be fine for both day or night games. At night, you'll need to shoot about ISO 800 to get adequate shutter speeds for stopping balls. This one was taken last week with the 200mm f/2.8 (1/1600, f/2.8, ISO 800). I was six rows up. A little too close, though. Second was mid-deck with the 1.4x on the 200mm (a home run!). I wish I had had the 100-300 for the daylight part of the game.

[fulldeck]

Thanks for the info Tony-S.