need feedback on this lens!

[jschao]

I am thinking about purchasing the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Can you tell me the pros/cons and if its a good lens for sports photoghraphy?

What is the best sports photography lens?

Thanks,

Jeff

[DReb-MO]

It's a marginal lens at best.

[Mike H]

What is the best sports photography lens?

Thanks,

Jeff

That depends on what sport you are trying to shoot. Several forum members have shot sports and would be happy to give lens recommendations if you can be more specific about the particular sport(s) you want to shoot.

Mike H

[tpinchback]

IMO save your money and purchase the 70-200L f4. It has alot better image quilty and is built like a tank.

[scottbergerphoto]

When you say sports, that implies the need for speed, or the ability to capture action in good to marginal lighting. I think it safe to say that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L or non IS L would be a good start. You can add the 1.4X teleconverter for a 98-280 f/4 total without any significant loss in quality. If you are going to be doing alot of work in good lighting the 100-400 IS L is a great lens with alot of reach. Forget about using it in marginal lighting though.
Regards,
Scott

[jschao]

i will be taking baseball, soccer, football and tennis pictures. so, the 70-200L f4 is a better bit ?

more advice is appreciated.

Thanks,

Jeff

[jschao]

When you say sports, that implies the need for speed, or the ability to capture action in good to marginal lighting. I think it safe to say that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L or non IS L would be a good start. Scott

so you are saying that to shoot sports pictures its better to use a non IS L lens? please explain!! i am fairly new at this and need some help picking out a good lens.

Thanks again

[blackviolet]

i guess it depends on how close you are to the action (up in the stands/bleachers, or down on the sidelines), what kind of shots you are taking (close up individual or farther back group/pack), and lighting (bright daylight or darker lit stadium / field lighting)

as you saw in the other thread, i use the sigma 50-500mm, which is great in the daytime, but impossible to use at night even at a well lit field without a flash (and that starts to annoy the athletes real quick!).

as others have suggested, the 70-200 2.8L is fantastic and you can use it with a 1.4 tcon without major loss in quality or speed.

or you can sell your car/house/first born and buy one of the ginormous 400 L 2.8 IS or something bigger/faster :twisted:


ah, and to answer your question - generally the shutter speeds at which you are taking sports shots, IS isn't as important as fast lens ie bigger aperture

[dsze]

The 70-200 f/4L blows away the 75-300 in every regard. I agree with the above, save your money and get the 70-200. I shoot two sports with mine. 1. Wakeboarding, and 2. my kids of 1 and 2 years old; pretty much like shooting sports. :) I have really enjoyed the lens. and am glad that I didn't rush things and get the 75-300. Just my opinion.

-daniel

[jschao]

how much does the 70-200 L cost? any good websites sell them? and if i shake during taking pictures do i need an IS lens?

[danphoto1]

Canon100-400 L IS is a great lens for that kind of stuff. I also use a 1.4 mulipier. I love that lens It depends on how close you can get. I shot a lot of soccer last year and used that set up with a 1D the lens is fast and can be used hand held. since I have more than one camera I somtimes shoot with two differnt set ups switching to get shots. When I shot the Womens Junior College Nationals I used a 120-300 Sigma f.28 because a lot of the games were at night but I had to shoot with a monopod. I always seem to go back to the 100-400 more than any set up except for basket ball. I use 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 or sometime even the 120-300. look at my site http://danphoto1.tripod.com if you like

[DAMphyne]

What most of the people on this forum are saying, I believe, is the 75-300 IS lens isn't as good or as fast as a L lens.
What they don't say is the 75-300IS lens is better than average, maybe even good, under the right conditions.
Good light is what they mean by the right conditions. I mean like F5.6@ 1/250 sec. A shutter speed that will generally stop action.
As for the IS, with the old school(35mm) the general rule was 1/(sec=length in mm). Or with a 300mm lens no more than 1/300sec shutter speed.
Don't forget the multiplier, 1.6x with the rebel or 10D.
I shoot all the time with full extension @1/250sec and the pics look pretty darn good.
And only about $400, Not a bad deal, in my worker ant mind.

[Aylwin]

I think it depends on your budget or how much you're willing to pay. I have the 75-300 IS. I can't say that I'm very happy with it but it's okay. "Okay" is very subjective though. I think it's okay for outdoor sports where there's enough light and the action isn't too fast. If you're shooting baseball & tennis, it should be okay. Soccer and football, maybe still okay. Motorsports, I guess you can forget it. Indoors, you can forget it. I tried to shoot a sumo wrestling event last weekend and wasn't very happy with the results.

No doubt any of the L lenses will blow away the 75-300 IS all the way back to the middle ages. But there's always a trade-off between quality and budget. How much are you willing to pay? What image quality is good enough for you? I'm sure there are 75-300 IS owners who are still able to take okay photos (again, okay is subjective). Size and weight may also be a consideration for you. It was for me.

In my case, I'm no longer happy with my 75-300 IS. In fact, I regret the purchase because I hardly use it. However, I don't want to get an L either (not yet, anyway) because I'll still hardly use it and the size and weight are a problem for me. I'd much prefer the new 70-300 DO IS. It's small and easy to bring. The image quality should be better than my 75-300 IS but won't be as good as an L. It's still expensive though.

[danphoto1]

If your going to shoot sports you just need the fastest lenses you can get. You will get some ok shots with the 75-300. I've used it but the focus speed of the 100-400 is just faster and if you shooting in an al servo mode you will get more sharper images than with 75-300. I have had mine for quite a while and love it. I have a 645 manual camera but I don't shoot sports with it. I have an old rebel 35mm and I don't shoot sports with it either. If I want just shoot fine art or portraits they will do a great job. I know that the equiptment is expensive but If I had to shoot outdoor sports my prefernce is the 100-400 L IS lens as an all around sports lens. for a while it and a low end 28 to 70 lens was all that I had and I eas very happy.

[scottbergerphoto]

When you say sports, that implies the need for speed, or the ability to capture action in good to marginal lighting. I think it safe to say that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L or non IS L would be a good start. Scott

so you are saying that to shoot sports pictures its better to use a non IS L lens? please explain!! i am fairly new at this and need some help picking out a good lens.

Thanks again
IS is usually preferrable but more expensive. It will give you the ability to hand hold a lens at 1-3 stops slower then without IS. (eg. 1/50 vs 1/200 sec). I bought the non IS because it was $500 cheaper.
Regards,
Scott