One more question about action photography lenses

[FlipsidE]

I'm just curious. I know this may seem a little crazy, but the 75-300/4.0-5.6 USM IS was just brought to my attention. I also notice that it's $1000 less than the 100-400L that I was thinking of getting. How is this lens for action shots? I know it's no 100-400L, but it might not be a bad idea to save a bit of cash now while I'm learning and trying to find out exactly where I want my specialties to be.

Thanks

FlipsidE

[Boosting1Bar]

I'm just curious. I know this may seem a little crazy, but the 75-300/4.0-5.6 USM IS was just brought to my attention. I also notice that it's $1000 less than the 100-400L that I was thinking of getting. How is this lens for action shots? I know it's no 100-400L, but it might not be a bad idea to save a bit of cash now while I'm learning and trying to find out exactly where I want my specialties to be.

Thanks

FlipsidE

I had one, didn't care for it at all. Very slow focusing, poor IS, and it's a quite slow lens for action shots (as is the 100-400 for that matter) At f/5.6 you're going to need a lot of light to capture any action. I'd suggest something like the 70-200 f/2.8 or even the f/4 version over the 75-300. With the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 1.4x teleconverter you'd still have a constant aperture of f/4 which will be faster than the 75-300 with just a tad less range and you'll get much cleaner pictures. Just my $0.02.

[Persian-Rice]

Flipside, I have never heard anything but poor experiences with this lens.

If you want to save, try for a 70-200 F4 w/ 1.4 TC. If you buy used, this will set you back around $600 total. The best part is that it's very fast and it's L quality. It doesn't have a bad reach either.

[defordphoto]

When shooting daytime, outdoor sports, the f4-5.6 stops are not an issue and the 100-400L shines in these situations. If you want to shoot night sports, then it ain't gonna hack it and you'll have to delve into the expensive f2.8 zone. The real problem with the 75-300 is not the f-stop but the AF speeds. Not to mention that I am pretty sure it does not have pan IS like the L-glass has so that renders the IS useless for almost all sports.

Like in anything else, you get what you pay for. You might consider the 400 f5.6 as a less expensive alternative. It's a bit faster and a bit sharper than the 100-400 but, of course, you're then stuck at 400 and may need a second body.

And it's a heck of a lot lighter. IS lenses weigh a ton.

[CoolToolGuy]

Flipside, I have never heard anything but poor experiences with this lens.

If you want to save, try for a 70-200 F4 w/ 1.4 TC. If you buy used, this will set you back around $600 total. The best part is that it's very fast and it's L quality. It doesn't have a bad reach either.

P-R: We seem to be on the same wavelength this evening.

I had the 75-300 IS and I was very disappointed in it. I eventually sold it and got the 70-200 f4L and the 1.4 TC and it was one of the best equipment decisions I ever made. Flipside, don't go there - you will be much happier, even with the shorter focal length.

Have Fun,

[wolf]

I totally agree, the 75-300 IS is a waste of money. It is just a consumer grade lens with a IS installed. Don't waste your money on it if you are planning to shoot action shots.

[FlipsidE]

See, this is why I'm so glad I have you guys around to help me out. I'll definitely avoid this lens.

When shooting daytime, outdoor sports, the f4-5.6 stops are not an issue and the 100-400L shines in these situations.

Luckily, these kinds of outdoor, daytime situations are my eventual goal. Wakeboarding just doesn't happen at night (unless you are just insane and have no fear). But, I am curious about indoor stuff. Basketball season is upon us, and I might be able to get some good shots. For indoor stuff, is 2.8 needed? Or will 4.0-5.6 be doable?

FlipsidE

[Boosting1Bar]

Luckily, these kinds of outdoor, daytime situations are my eventual goal. Wakeboarding just doesn't happen at night (unless you are just insane and have no fear). But, I am curious about indoor stuff. Basketball season is upon us, and I might be able to get some good shots. For indoor stuff, is 2.8 needed? Or will 4.0-5.6 be doable?

FlipsidE

Check out my post from Friday, I was the ringside doc for the local toughman contest and used the opportunity of sitting at ringside to try getting some shots. Check out the settings I had to use to even get this kind of exposure. Should be pretty obvious 4.0-5.6 isn't really practical for indoor stuff unless it is very very well lit.

this post (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47903&highlight=)

[FlipsidE]

Very nice shots! Yeah, it looks like 4.0-5.6 is gonna be too slow. Thanks for the info.

FlipsidE

[commando]

When I was looking at this sort of range a few weeks ago, the impression I got was that the 100-300 was significantly better than the 75-300.

Edit - I just checked FredMiranda.com and they both rate the same there. It's worth looking at the other one either way.

[FlipsidE]

Flipside, I have never heard anything but poor experiences with this lens.

If you want to save, try for a 70-200 F4 w/ 1.4 TC. If you buy used, this will set you back around $600 total. The best part is that it's very fast and it's L quality. It doesn't have a bad reach either.

Wouldn't the 1.4 TC bring the max aperture down by one stop makin the lens slower...or more alone the lines of a 5.6?

FlipsidE

[Andy_T]

Wouldn't the 1.4 TC bring the max aperture down by one stop makin the lens slower...or more alone the lines of a 5.6?

FlipsidE

That's correct.

So when you don't NEED the 280 mm, it'll be a 70-200/4.0 lens.
And even at 280, it'll be a lot sharper at f/5.6 (that is: wide open on both lenses) than the 75-300.

Best regards,
Andy

[tommykjensen]

Flipside, I have never heard anything but poor experiences with this lens.

If you want to save, try for a 70-200 F4 w/ 1.4 TC. If you buy used, this will set you back around $600 total. The best part is that it's very fast and it's L quality. It doesn't have a bad reach either.

P-R: We seem to be on the same wavelength this evening.

I had the 75-300 IS and I was very disappointed in it. I eventually sold it and got the 70-200 f4L and the 1.4 TC and it was one of the best equipment decisions I ever made. Flipside, don't go there - you will be much happier, even with the shorter focal length.


I went down exact same path. I thought the results from the 75-300 IS was ok until I got the 70-200 f4L. The 70-200 f4L with the 1,4x extender is excellent.

[defordphoto]

So, here is the $20k question: What sports are you shooting? the reason I ask is that when I had to send my 100-400 in for service I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 1.4xTC as a temp replacement. I found it way to short in a lot of cases. And that was shooting sprint boats and soccer. Sprint boats weren't too bad as we stood really close on the track, but soccer was pretty tough. The difference between 280 and 400 is A LOT.

The 70-200 lenses rock the planet and are the sharpest zooms in Canon's lineup, but the reach is a little short in some cases even with the 1.4xTC. Don't even consider the 2xTC. I have one and it's probably the least touched item in my bag(s).

[FlipsidE]

So, here is the $20k question: What sports are you shooting? the reason I ask is that when I had to send my 100-400 in for service I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 1.4xTC as a temp replacement. I found it way to short in a lot of cases. And that was shooting sprint boats and soccer. Sprint boats weren't too bad as we stood really close on the track, but soccer was pretty tough. The difference between 280 and 400 is A LOT.

The 70-200 lenses rock the planet and are the sharpest zooms in Canon's lineup, but the reach is a little short in some cases even with the 1.4xTC. Don't even consider the 2xTC. I have one and it's probably the least touched item in my bag(s).

Well, I would go so far as to assume that what I want to shoot is going to be more soccer like...just that the subjects move faster and could be a good bit further away at times. I want to shoot Wakeboarding. In wakeboarding, if you are not in the boat, you are on the bank or on a dock shooting. If I was in the boat rather than on the dock, I would say that the 70-200 w/out the TC would be more than enough. I mean we are only talkin like 50 feet here.

The tournies I have been to and want to shoot are the local ones (the big name ones would be excellent, but that will be later). Unfortunately, with local tournies, there's no tellin exactly how far the boat will be out or how far the boat will travel before making the turn to come back to the dock. In football and soccer (all the way from young amateur to professional), unless you want to get pictures of the crowd, you can rest fairly assured that the action you want to photography will lie in between four lines that make up a rectangle. I would assume that most races (cars, boats, etc) are the same way...you can go scout the tracks before the race starts and rest fairly assured that your action will take place w/in a certain set of boundaries followed by pretty much all other races of the same type out there (Nascar, Amateur Drag Races, professional Drag races, boat races, etc).

Professional wakeboarding tournaments have the same kind of rigid "within these boundaries" setups. But, to the best of my knowledge, the local tournies don't really have any set boundaries. They have to be out in the water...some have to stay on the outside of shallow water marker buoys. Some don't. Some will pass by a good, empty, fairly clear and clean area of shore or have a good setup on a dock. Some won't. Some will probably pull the boarders further before turning around than others. Ya just never know. To the best of my knowledge, no titles or money rest on these tournies (probably a trophy and that's it), so the "rules" really don't matter so much.

So, unfortunately, I may have ZERO CLUE up until just a few minutes before the tourney starts as to where it will occur in the water in front of me, how far the boarders will be pulled, or where exactly the run will be. And, as you know, since it is water, I can't get any closer than the bank or a dock somewhere. I could be set up on a dock hundreds of yards from the starting point where the people starting look SO TINY as they come out of the water. But, with a boat travelling around the 18mph to 22mph mark, it won't take long AT ALL to cover a few hundred yards. They'll be on top of me before I know it.

So, that's why I originally picked the 100-400...simply because I needed the versatility of a zoom lens plus quite a long range to pick up those tricks that occur 150 yards or more down the lake.

FlipsidE

[JX]

I agree with RFMSports on using the 70-200 for soccer. I shoot a lot of youth soccer and High School school games. I would get a longer lens. Although the 70-200 F/2.8 does produce some nice pictures.

[Motorsports Photo]

Didnt read ALL the words in this thread but saw enough to respond.

Yes, the 75-300 is a "cheap" lens, but of course better than nothing if all you have is a 50mm.

for the last 10 of my 15 years of shoting for $$, I've used a 100-300. easily handheld all day long and quick to move for the unexpected shots. Other than focus, all the other "shortcomings" can be fixed in photoshop anyway.

BTW- I have used the 100-400 and hated it! I've also gotten to borrow a coule of other LARGE lenses, but didnt see any noticeable quality issues. Only the EXIF can tell me for sure which lens took a certain pic.

Stay within your budget, and when you have identified the shortcomings, then you'll have time to save for what you REALLY want.

-Pete

[saywhuut]

I keep hearing that a 1.4 extender is good for the 70-200 F4 lense...is there a certain type of converter that needs to be used on this lense? i have a tamron 1.4 converter, would that be sufficient?



Stephen

[photoshooter]

hi i do stock car racing day and night also dragracing, indoor stockcar racing and wrestleing i got a d60 sigma 500 flash a sigma 50-500 which i use a ton with great results just bought a sigma 70- 200 2.8 which i used indoors for the first time last week and truely love just ordered a sigma 24-70 2.8 which i havent got yet but im sure i will like just my 2 cents worth nothing

[CyberDyneSystems]

the many 75-300/100-300 lenses out there are literally the poster children for why L zooms are worth it.. they really are "poop" ;)

The only decent 300mm Zooms around are made by Sigma IMHO.. with the possible exception of the 70-300mm DO IS.. but even that lens, with its hefty price tag, does not come close the the 100-400mm in image quality and performance.

[Neens_wa]

There's a considerable amount of chat re: the lenses for water sports and soccer/H.S. sports - all sports which can easily be panned. I'm shooting stuff that really isn't easily panned.

I need a few more .02s on the following: I am making a rather large investment to move further into rodeo photography. II've been doing my homework, and am anxious to hear comments about my selections from those who've shot action of this sort.

I'll be coughing up for the 1D Mark II body, a 70-200 2.8L IS, 1.4x T-Conv., and I
believe I'll add the 100-400 f/4.5 - 5.6L IS lens to the kit as well. This type of shooting involves both indoor, and outdoor, sometimes I'm as close as 9 or 10 meters, sometimes I'm looking at 50 meters - and always using a monopod.

I'm also needing to invest in some more serious, or better arranged flash units... I need the extra light at night. ( I need to go to flash school!) Recommendations there would be most welcome. Currently I've got the 420Ex, and the 580EX(thanks, santa). Should I shoot an arm with both units, or invest in a separate higher capacity unit? Some arenas have some terribly poor lighting.

I have the need for the quick reflex as the roping, and barrel racing are relatively easy for panning, but the bulls and broncs are really difficult, as everything on the animal and rider seem to be going a different direction ;o).

The Mark II with it's massive number of focus points, monsterous buffer, etc. will assist me greatly - but lens and flash have me really antsy.

Thanks!@

nina
No, I'm not made of money, just have company stocks that are gathering dust and won't go up or down... so I'm selling and investing in something that will, hopefully, in the future place me in a different career. ;o)

[flyfishnj]

I keep hearing that a 1.4 extender is good for the 70-200 F4 lense...is there a certain type of converter that needs to be used on this lense? i have a tamron 1.4 converter, would that be sufficient?



Stephen
Good question - I'm interested too with the opinion of the forum - Giving this a bump

[Vegas Poboy]

I've never shot rodeo before but I would guess that you may not be able to use flash in the low light setups. Most of the Pro's does not use flash while shooting the action, in most events it's not allowed on camera @ least. I have seen it done with remote triggers but now you're talking more $$$. The flash close up can seriously effect the outcome of an event if flashed @ the wrong time.
Me my self I shoot with the 20D & the 10D as a backup & only use one focus point when shooting fast action. If you use multiple points during the action the camera might choose the wrong subject. Example when I'm shooting boxing I use the back button & focus on one of the fighters 95% of the time I get the clear sharp shot. Before the all the focus points would have a hard time choosing what I wanted.
This is just what works for me :)