PDA

View Full Version : Outdoor Sports Len

HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 20:23
As an intern for a small weekly in the Twin Cities, I have to shoot everything, including sports, which are really my favorite!

The problem: My 70-200 2.8L Canon isn't long enough, even for a relatively small softball field.

Can you recommend a lens that is preferably not INSANELY expensive, but is still pretty sharp? 300MM or longer is needed.
Bandit 00C5
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 20:48
Define expensive. The 300 f/4 for around $1k would seem like a good choice as long as you are shooting in good light.
HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 20:50
Preferably half of that. :)
_aravena
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:26
70-300 IS is all that's left then found from used to new ($400-$600+)
crn3371
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:27
Have you tried throwing a tcon on the 70-200?
SWPhotoImaging
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:28
There is one listed in the For Sale section now:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=306366
_aravena
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:34
Have you tried throwing a tcon on the 70-200?

I tend to forget those. 1.4 would put it 280 @ F4 and 2x obviosuly 400 @ F5.6
naqs
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:34
the 300 f2.8L is sharper than the f4 I think... also it would give you a good work out :lol:
HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:37
I've heard that the convertors slow the AF speed. I don't want that.
_aravena
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:38
Under $500 not $5000...

That depends by how much. You gotta make sacrifices much like you are about to. You can't get the lens you want for under $500 so you gotta go with something else.
HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:41
Ok. Let's say I have a budget of +/- 1,000 dolllars.

Could you recommend something based on that? I'm not asking just to keep the thread going, I just want a good lens :D
Digitalwave
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:44
I use a 2x TC on my 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma and under broad daylight it doesn't noticably slow down AF speed. I use it for sports and motorsports frequently. Once the light dips down I tend to take it off, but mainly to gain the 2 stops of light back for shutter speed's sake, not usually because of the AF speed. In low light the lens does hunt more, however.
liza
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:53
Ok. Let's say I have a budget of +/- 1,000 dolllars.

Could you recommend something based on that? I'm not asking just to keep the thread going, I just want a good lens :D

It would be difficult to find a good sports lens within your stated budget. They aren't cheap. The best you'll probably be able to get is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. The Canon 70-200 f/4L is all right but you get better background separation with an f/2.8 lens. Some on the sports forum have recommended the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but I've not used that one myself.
HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 21:59
It would be difficult to find a good sports lens within your stated budget. They aren't cheap. The best you'll probably be able to get is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. The Canon 70-200 f/4L is all right but you get better background separation with an f/2.8 lens. Some on the sports forum have recommended the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but I've not used that one myself.

Thankfully I will be shooting for a sports company this summer in addition to working part-time and not going to school.

No tuition (and no student loans!) means that I may not care.

What if I don't care about the budget? My only limitation may be hauling it around!
naqs
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 22:18
what body do you have... a 30D? that has the 1.6x crop so a 200mm lens is actually 320mm

you can pick up a 70-200 F2.8L for around $1200USD new check out www.onecall.com or b&h
HuskiesD1
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 22:21
20D, and I know about the 1.6

I have a 70-200 2.8L, thanks to a tax return, but after a softball game I've found it may not be long enough.

what body do you have... a 30D? that has the 1.6x crop so a 200mm lens is actually 320mm

you can pick up a 70-200 F2.8L for around $1200USD new check out www.onecall.com (http://www.onecall.com) or b&h
_aravena
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 22:58
At that stand, you could get a 300 F4. Um...the 100-400 would have the zoom, reach, money is several hundred over and it's not as fast but the IS might help. If it's mjor daylight then w/e but still...

At this point of a grand I'd say TC or 300 F4 prime. Reach + Speed = $$$
liza
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 22:59
Thankfully I will be shooting for a sports company this summer in addition to working part-time and not going to school.

No tuition (and no student loans!) means that I may not care.

What if I don't care about the budget? My only limitation may be hauling it around!

If you don't care about price then buy a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It's versatile and has great IQ. The only drawback is weight. It's strictly a monopod lens.
wcl4
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:08
I just picked up a Sigma 100-300 f4 for a bit over $800. Haven't received it yet, but I've read excellent things about it. I'll let you know what I think after using it for a while, but in the meantime: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_100300_4/index.htm
LightRules
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:09
As an intern for a small weekly in the Twin Cities, I have to shoot everything, including sports, which are really my favorite!

The problem: My 70-200 2.8L Canon isn't long enough, even for a relatively small softball field.

Can you recommend a lens that is preferably not INSANELY expensive, but is still pretty sharp? 300MM or longer is needed.

Try using a 1.4x with your 7-2. If the reach or IQ doesn't cut it for you, you'll have to look at spending some "more" money.

Some options are the Sigma 100-300 f4, Canon 300 f4 IS, and Canon 400 f5.6. These are "roughly" $1000 USD.
_aravena
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:12
Why is it that Sigma has fast 300 zooms but Canon doesn't? Sorry, thread hijack...

B&H

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=SI1003004DGP&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=390172
LightRules
18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:15
Why is it that Sigma has fast 300 zooms but Canon doesn't?

Sigma has done well filling a much-appreciated niche with their tele zooms like their excellent 100-300, 120-300, and 300-800. The Bigma (50-500) has a cult-like following. It will be interesting to see how good their new 200-500f2.8 is.
jgl927
19th of April 2007 (Thu), 20:53
20D, and I know about the 1.6

I have a 70-200 2.8L, thanks to a tax return, but after a softball game I've found it may not be long enough.
I use a Canon 1.4TC on my 70-200 4L with great results... In fact I love it but it is not long enough. I would have to think that a 1.4x TC on the 2.8 IS would be even better than on my F4. If that isn't long enough then your other sub $1,000 options are unlikely to impress you if you are used to a bare 70-200 L.