Sports Lens Help

[jcpoulin]

I have the necessary funding for 1 of the three lens's. My intention is to shoot equine shows, soccer and high school sports ( outdoor). I have the funds for:
100-400L
400 5.6L
300 4L IS

Which one would serve me best in capturing action and has the fast focusing ability I need. I have the 70-2-- 2.8 and a 1.4X already. Thanks for your input.

[tomd]

I see you already have the 70-200 2.8. Are you looking for more reach?

[22littlereasons]

I agree, how much more reach do you need... that really is your answer?

[pmarz]

Have you considered the 1.4 extender for the 2.8, it works great.

[jcpoulin]

I do want more reach but I also need fast, accurate focusing and sharpness. My plan is the 70-200 one one body and a long lens on the other to get accross a field. I like my 70-200 on my 1D, and will put a long lens on my 30D. I was leaning toward the 300 f4 because I am not sure about the responsiveness of the 100-400 in faster moving sports.

[smcclelland]

Reach wise you pretty much have the 300mm range covered with the 70-200 2.8 + 1.4x so I wouldn't really see a need for the 300mm f4 IS even though it is a superb lens. If reach is a concern then I'd probably spend the money on the 100-400 IS though it's a bit of a hog for light. Seeing as you're shooting outdoors I would imagine the 5.6 to be fine unless you were shooting on a really dreary day.

[VladDracule]

focus on the 100-400 i dont think would really be fast enough for soccer, it can work but youll tend to get more throw aways than keepers, id say go for the 400 prime

[twoshadows]

100-300 f/4 with/without a 1.4x TC. you only need one lens and if it's a night game you can use the 70-200 f/2.8.

[pagnamenta]

I made the same decision a year ago. I use a 70-200 on one body and the 300 f4L on a second body. I get very nice field coverage and still retain flexibility. The Sigma 100-300 f4 was my second choice but I ended up with the 300 f4L because it's smaller and lighter - it allows me to shoot without a monopod and it's got IS so it's useful for other things.

The Sigma 100-300 f4 is a great lens if you only want to shoot with one body. The Sigma has slightly slower AF and it's not as sharp wide open at 300.

[metalman1010]

None...If somehow you can scrape up a little more money try and get one of these.

Heck he's even throwing in a Sigma 1.4 extender.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/classitem.html?id=20807

This will be more than enough to cover 99% of the sports out there across the board. Plus you can still slap a 1.4 extender on it and still get killer results.

I just got my version fixed about a month ago and it's been a killer lens!

Ross

[smcclelland]

focus on the 100-400 i dont think would really be fast enough for soccer, it can work but youll tend to get more throw aways than keepers, id say go for the 400 prime

If there's enough available light it should be fine, I've used one for tracking motorsports and even on overcast days it still focussed fast enough to pan with the cars and retain focus. Of course a person is a much smaller object than a car but the speed difference is much greater.

[twoshadows]

Gotta say that I'm in nearly exactly the same boat as the OP, in that I have a 1DmkIIn and a 20D and I went from a one camera system (1DmkIIn/100-300 f4) to a two camera system (1DmkIIn/70-200 f2.8 and 20D/300 f/4 IS with 1.4x tc) and here's what I found.

************************************************** ************************************************** ********

1DmkIIn/100-300 f4 (with and without the 1.4x tc):

No switching cameras

better framing with zoom = less cropping = better IQ (All things being equal: see next point)

IQ is excellent with this lens and in real world usage the 300 f/4 IS has no advantages except close focus distance and IS, neither of which apply to sports shooting (with rare exceptions, maybe)

When it rains you only have to manage one camera system.

Why use the 20D when you have a 1DmkIIn? With the 100-300 f/4 you're using your 1DmkIIn and all of its advantages all of the time, instead of half of the time.

************************************************** ************************************************** *************************************

I currently own a 300 f/4 IS and will be selling it to go back to the 100-300 f/4 in time for baseball season.

Ian

PS - Oh, and btw, I find the 100-300 f/4 to be as fast focusing as the 300 f/4 and with a tc attached I'll take the 100-300 f/4 every time. Also, my 100-300 was as sharp wide open at 300mm as it was at 100mm or 200mm.

[SoaringUSAEagle]

I'd think the 300 would be a great start. If you're shooting during the daytime mostly with plenty of light, the 400 5.6 may be the better choice.

[snapmando]

None...If somehow you can scrape up a little more money try and get one of these.

Heck he's even throwing in a Sigma 1.4 extender.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/classitem.html?id=20807

This will be more than enough to cover 99% of the sports out there across the board. Plus you can still slap a 1.4 extender on it and still get killer results.

I just got my version fixed about a month ago and it's been a killer lens!

Ross

Yep, that is one gem of a lens from Sigma....

[downhillnews]

focus on the 100-400 i dont think would really be fast enough for soccer, it can work but youll tend to get more throw aways than keepers, id say go for the 400 prime

I have shot MX and DH mtbing with the 100-400 as well as soccer and it did fine as long as light was good.

[jcpoulin]

Asside from the 100-200 range which is covered by my 70-200, what doe the sigma 100-300 f4 give me vs the 300 f4 IS prime. Will there be a sharpness increase in the prime. Plus, the new sigma is close to a 300 2.8 canon which I would go with.

[twoshadows]

Asside from the 100-200 range which is covered by my 70-200, what doe the sigma 100-300 f4 give me vs the 300 f4 IS prime. Will there be a sharpness increase in the prime. Plus, the new sigma is close to a 300 2.8 canon which I would go with.

The 100-300 f/4 gives you the same IQ as the 300 f/4 IS but in a zoom so you don't have to have a two camera outfit. This way your 1DmkIIn is used to maximum capability, meaning that you will be using it for all of your shots and not just some with the 1DmkIIn and some with the 20D. I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence, but the 100-300 f/4 is within your budget at around $1100 while the Canon 300 f/2.8 is nearly $4k.

If you want to shoot with two different cameras, that's your business. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I am hoping you'll gain from my experience. Besides the things I listed in my other post about why I would go with a one camera setup, here's another one.

Timing your shots: When going back and forth between cameras (1DmkIIn & 20D) I found that my ability to time shots was severly degraded because of the difference in shutter lag between the two cameras. There's no way to "get in a groove" timing wise when you have to remember which camera you're using and then try to adjust for the difference in timing.

PS- If you really want to get the 300 f/4 IS I'll sell you mine. ;) It's about 6 months old and in mint condition. Comes with everything it had when new.

[pete.rush]

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 and use a 1.4x TC and also have the 300mm f4 IS, been happy with both.

If I had the money would go for the canon 300mm f2.8, but funds won't stretch that far, the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a great lens and would be my next recommendation but again over £1500 or $2500.

If I was buying the lens for the UK I would go for the sigma 100-300mm f4 if I had to choose one lens, the 100-400 is a great lens in good light, but that's not a common occurance in the UK (and why I didn't buy one).

I like my 300mm f4 and it's beaten the 70-200mm f2.8 combo in certain situations. No sure I would use the 400mm f5.6 for sports....birds but not sports. Depends if you want the flexibility of a longer zoom or fix length prime.

If you can guarantee good light the 100-400 fits the bill, if not the sigma wins

Peter

[dave kadolph]

I do want more reach but I also need fast, accurate focusing and sharpness. My plan is the 70-200 one one body and a long lens on the other to get accross a field. I like my 70-200 on my 1D, and will put a long lens on my 30D. I was leaning toward the 300 f4 because I am not sure about the responsiveness of the 100-400 in faster moving sports.

I use the 70-200 and 300 f4.0 on dual 1.6 crop bodies with good success.

Focus on the 300 is fast and sharp. We have a 1.4 that works well with it but we never seem to use it--The 300 is plenty long enough for baseball and softball and the action in field sports will come to you if you can get a spot near the goal.