Baseball Lens

[pjd196]

My son is a center fielder. I have been using a cheap Tamron 75-300 on my 40D but the quality is killing me.
Can anyone recommend a lens that will give me good sharp shots of him playing the outfield? I would also like this lens for his batting and baserunning shots as well.
Thanks in advance.

[KayakPhotos]

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533555-REG/Sigma_579_101_70_200mm_f_2_8_II_EX.html) would probably make a good lens for you. It has a fast f/2.8 aperture for starting action and the image quality is at worst very close to the canon equivalent. It has HSM, which is very close to USM from my experience, and is built like a tank. You can also get one of the older versions of the sigma 70-200, but the reviews seem to suggest that the newest one is the sharpest at the long focal length (200mm) which you would probably be using for the games.

On another note, how often do you need to shoot out past 200mm? If you need a longer focal range, you don't have many fast options that don't cost a fortune. Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 is a pretty good lens, but not as fast. Might try putting a tc on the 70-200 when you need it for a 70-200 f/4.

[pjd196]

Is 200 enough? I should have mentioned that he is 16 so he plays on a full size field.

[Joe Cyr]

No... 70-200 is no where near enough for you to shoot pics of him on defense... even with a teleconverter. It will be excellent for him at the plate, running the bases, etc. To get good (really good) action shots of him in the outfield, my experience has told me you need at least 300mm, but 400 would be much better. It's a question of how much you want to spend. When I cover baseball, I go with the understanding that I am not going to get shots of the centerfielder, unless I am behind the center field fence, for high school games.

[Mike R]

No... 70-200 is no where near enough for you to shoot pics of him on defense... even with a teleconverter. It will be excellent for him at the plate, running the bases, etc. To get good (really good) action shots of him in the outfield, my experience has told me you need at least 300mm, but 400 would be much better. It's a question of how much you want to spend. When I cover baseball, I go with the understanding that I am not going to get shots of the centerfielder, unless I am behind the center field fence, for high school games.

I agree, I use the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 1.4 TC, but it still requires a lot of moving to get outfield shots, even then I need to severly crop them when edititng

[cstewart]

The 70-200 should do OK for his batting and infield shots, but as mentioned, way too short for centerfield unless you can move to the outfield fence and try for some shots from there. I am guessing that a 400mm would be needed and maybe some of the shooters on here that use the 400 f2.8 L can chime in on their success with it on outfielders.

[eigga]

300 2.8
400 2.8

400 5.6
300 4.0

The question is what is your budget, current camera, and field access?

[pjd196]

I was hpoing to spend max $1500. I understand I would get better IQ out of a fixed FL lens but I will need the versatility of a zoom due to my budget.
Is IS something that should be at the top of a priority list? For instance, would I be better off forgoing the durability of an L lens in order to gain a 2.8/IS lens?

[Mike R]

I was hpoing to spend max $1500. I understand I would get better IQ out of a fixed FL lens but I will need the versatility of a zoom due to my budget.
Is IS something that should be at the top of a priority list? For instance, would I be better off forgoing the durability of an L lens in order to gain a 2.8/IS lens?

IS will NOT help with action shots. It's designed so that you can hand hold the camera at slower shutter speeds without blur caused by camera shake.
I have read here that IS can help when panning motor sports. So while IS isn't a priority, if you can afford it, get it. The lens will be more versatile.

[Palladium]

Simple 2 lens solution, just a little over your budget but IMHO this would be a very wise decision.

400mm 5.6
70-200mm f4

2 of Canon's best budget L lens - they will retain resale value should you decide to upgrade.

Using just 1 body you'll have to change lens - but that should not be a deal breaker.

[pjd196]

Sounds very reasonable. Do you have any experience with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS?. Although it does not have the reach of the 400 I wonder if this is a good alternative.

[Palladium]

Simple 2 lens solution, just a little over your budget but IMHO this would be a very wise decision.

400mm 5.6
70-200mm f4

2 of Canon's best budget L lens - they will retain resale value should you decide to upgrade.

Using just 1 body you'll have to change lens - but that should not be a deal breaker.

thinking about this a little more - you could start off slowly with just the 70-200mm f4 and pick up the canon 1.4 extender.

IMHO the image quality from the 70-200mm f4 will be the best of any of your sub $1000 sloutions. The lens takes the 1.4 extender great and if your shooting daytime baseball you'll be all set. Pick up a monopod and your really in good shape.

That's how I see it :lol:

[pjd196]

Sounds good but if you read the specs on the tele-converter it says you cant use it on the 70-200 lenses.

[mikeassk]

100-400L

[cstewart]

Sounds very reasonable. Do you have any experience with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS?. Although it does not have the reach of the 400 I wonder if this is a good alternative.

I would not recommend this lens. If you are shooting any ball games in early evening your amount of available light will go away much faster with this lens. Stick with f4 or f2.8 at a minimum. It also is nowhere near as sharp as other options.

SEE A GOOD REVIEW HERE (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

[Sports_Dude]

100-400L
I agree. 100-400L is in your budget and should work nicely.

[Palladium]

Sounds good but if you read the specs on the tele-converter it says you cant use it on the 70-200 lenses.

I'm not sure what spec your referring to but the 1.4 extender and the 70-200 are a standard combo made to work with each other.

I just revisited this thread now and I can't believe that no other poster pointed out the error of your understanding.

Anyway the 70-200 f4 plus the 1.4 extender will add 1 f/stop to your exposures - you camera will still be able to autofocus if you use f/5.6.

Lens about $550
1.4 extender about $275

[mizouse]

I agree. 100-400L is in your budget and should work nicely.

i was thinking the same thing.

[pjd196]

Here is the copy paste from the description of the teleconverter. "This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses." I got this off of Canoga Camera's web site under the product features of "Canon Tele Extender EF 1.4x II Features"
Am I reading this incorrectly? If so, I appreciate you correcting me as this solution is a real possibility.

[Sledhed]

It's saying it can be used with those lenses, except the 135. It does work well on a 70-200 but I think it will still be way too short. Even my 400 is too short for outfield shots. Your best bet is to move down the line beyond first or third when he's playing the field.

[Joe Cyr]

Here is the copy paste from the description of the teleconverter. "This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses." I got this off of Canoga Camera's web site under the product features of "Canon Tele Extender EF 1.4x II Features"
Am I reading this incorrectly? If so, I appreciate you correcting me as this solution is a real possibility.

I use the 1.4 teleconverter with my 70-200 2.8 and it's perfect. And yes if you get the Canon 70-200 f4 you can still use the 1.4 teleconverer, but not the 2.8.

As for the teleconverter itself, I highly recommend the Tamron SP-Pro. It's much less at $135-150. It's the one I bought, and I love it.

Keep in mind though, you still cannot get great centerfield shots with 70-200 and the teleconverter. You really need a 400mm for that stuff.

[DDCSD]

I'd get a Canon 100-400L or the Sigma 150-500.

[mikeassk]

OP asked for quality+reach+zoom. Canon makes only 1 such lens.
100-400.

Suggestions to add a TC to a 70-200 are fineIf he already owned the lens
Why set him back in quality out the gates.

[eigga]

OP asked for quality+reach+zoom. Canon makes only 1 such lens.

Yes, but there is a reason the lens can be changed. Baseball is not a fast changing sport. Use the 70-200 when he is batting and add the 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 for when he is in the field. Easy as pie... When I cover HS baseball I typically use the 300 2.8 as the main and 70-200 as secondary


70-200 f/4 $550
300 f/4 $1100

And dont assume you NEED a zoom . Be creative and 300mm is fun

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/7I3V1269copy-1.jpg

[namasste]

agreed on using the 300 in many different situations. heck, I shoot the 300 routinely from the baseline for basketball as the 70-200 just doesn't have the reach for the far end.

the 300 f4 w/ a tc is a solid choice imo and under your budget. gives you 420 f5.6 not even considering the crop of 1.6. For daytime ball, you should still get fast enough shutters at 5.6 to get some solid stuff.

[Big K]

My suggestion is spend the money to rent a 400 f/2.8 or bigger lens for a weekend when he will be playing several games and do nothing but take pictures of him with it. Given that an outfielder will make maybe 5-6 plays a game with most all of them looking the same, you will have all the shots you could ever need in a few games.

Spend the money on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. You will not regret it and can use the lens for so many different things. You also can never have too much aperture opening capability.

Given that you are on a budget and don't have the luxury of buying lots of speciality lenses, I would suggest getting the IS version so you can utilize it for slower shutter speed situations like a family event.

If 90% of your use will be for sports, you don't need IS. If you are in a situation where your 40D and an f/2.8 lens require you to shoot sports at a shutter speed slow enough that the IS matters, you might as well pack up the camera and just watch the game.

Rent to address a specific need. Buy something that will give you the best and most overall use and you will be much happier in the long run.

[eigga]

Given that an outfielder will make maybe 5-6 plays a game with most all of them looking the same, you will have all the shots you could ever need in a few games.

This also assumes that the OP is able to capture those images with limited opportunity. I think we can all agree that takes practice and knowledge. So maybe plan on renting it a few times but otherwise a great option as well. I would rent the 300 and 1.4 tele instead though

[pjd196]

Going back to the 70-200 scenerio, I assume it would make most sense to stick to the f/2.8 version. Now the question becomes is it worth the extra $ for the IS or will the non-IS be fine? I realize IS will not help "stop the action". I believe it would help me most to help stop the shakes? Either that or drink less coffee!

[polarbare]

although I agree with mikeassk to some degree the 70-200 + a 2x TC would be perfect for your situation if money is tight. If you ever wanted to shoot indoors (basketball for example) the f2.8 would be fantastic.

[polarbare]

if you can afford the IS version, get it.

[xn2b8r]

My suggestion is spend the money to rent a 400 f/2.8 or bigger lens for a weekend when he will be playing several games and do nothing but take pictures of him with it. Given that an outfielder will make maybe 5-6 plays a game with most all of them looking the same, you will have all the shots you could ever need in a few games.

Spend the money on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. You will not regret it and can use the lens for so many different things. You also can never have too much aperture opening capability.

Given that you are on a budget and don't have the luxury of buying lots of speciality lenses, I would suggest getting the IS version so you can utilize it for slower shutter speed situations like a family event.

If 90% of your use will be for sports, you don't need IS. If you are in a situation where your 40D and an f/2.8 lens require you to shoot sports at a shutter speed slow enough that the IS matters, you might as well pack up the camera and just watch the game.

Rent to address a specific need. Buy something that will give you the best and most overall use and you will be much happier in the long run.

Seconded! Shoot a few games with the 70-200 to get comfortable shooting baseball. You won't have much reach into the outfield, but when the time comes to rent the 400 f/2.8, you'll be much better prepared and you'll get better shots. I did this with a rented 300 f/2.8 for my son's tournament weekend and came back with some of the best shots I've ever gotten.* Definitely the best $75 I've ever spent, and I plan to do it again next season.

There's one other bonus to shooting a few games prior to showing up with a rented 300 or 400: People will be used to you being there, and you'll feel less self-conscious about carrying around Hubble-sized glass.

* Admission: I liked shooting my son's games with the 300 f/2.8 so much, I went and had another son! So if anyone wants to help me craft an argument that will convince my wife that buying long L glass is going to be more cost-effective than renting, I'd welcome it!

[Big K]

* Admission: I liked shooting my son's games with the 300 f/2.8 so much, I went and had another son! So if anyone wants to help me craft an argument that will convince my wife that buying long L glass is going to be more cost-effective than renting, I'd welcome it!

Don't know if it will fly but give this a shot.

A recent study by a top team of researchers has determined that shooting high school sports with a 70-200 produces an abnormally high level of an unknown radiation that stunts growth and in some cases will turn boys gay. Their findings also concluded that the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 contain a special radiation absorbing filter that totally blocks these harmful rays. All shooters of high school sports are urged to add one of these lenses immediately for the safety of our children.

If she buys it, let me know and I will send her a land and bridge package I have for sale. :-)

A more realistic chance might be to research the current resale value of a 300 f/2.8 and show her how you can buy it, use it then sell it and recover a large amount of your original investment.

[xn2b8r]

A more realistic chance might be to research the current resale value of a 300 f/2.8 and show her how you can buy it, use it then sell it and recover a large amount of your original investment.

Sell it? I'd sooner sell off a kidney.

[Big K]

Sell it? I'd sooner sell off a kidney.

Hahaha!! The key is to make her think selling it is part of the overall plan. Plus, you might need to implement the kidney sale plan to get it in the first place. :-)

[El_Tortuga]

You'll want as much length as you can afford. Having not sold off a kidney, I shoot with the 100-400L.

70-200 f2.8 and the 1.4 tele would be a good choice too. I can't bokeh out the background like I would like with the higher f stops of the 100-400. The 2.8 could open up some lower light options w/o the tele. I still use my 70-200 2.8 Sigma a bunch, but would love to upgrade to 2.8L.

100-400Land 40D example attached. I just missed the ball in flight (you can see its shadow), but the next frame it was already in the glove (even at the full 6.5 fps). Arrgh!!!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d109/El_Tortuga/Misc/Jake-dive_IMG_1143_for-fram.jpg

[pjd196]

So I am just about ready to take the plunge. As I mentioned in my original post money is a factor. I like the idea of renting a 400 for a weekend tournament or two to get those outfield shots. So now my decision comes down to one of the following lenses that I can use for all infield action:

70-200 f/4 non-IS: Cheapest way to go but will I be able to stop a batters swing in motion or a pitchers arm in his delivery?

70-200 f2.8 non-IS: Double the cost of the f/4. I could manage the cost if the answers to my questions about the f/4 are no and no.

Thanks again for the advice.

[Big K]

If you want the best baseball action shots you can get from a 70-200 under the widest range of conditions then get the f/2.8. If cost is a major issue and most of the games are in full daylight then get the f/4.

Please keep in mind that neither lens is cheap. Even the f/4 is more expensive than many camera bodies.

In my opinion if you buy the f/4 you will find many occasions where you will say to yourself I wish I would have bought the f/2.8. It's also my opinion that if you buy the f/2.8 you will never say I should have settled for the f/4.

If you shoot sports, even outdoors, there is really no substitute for the fastest glass possible.

Enjoy whichever you choose.

[DDCSD]

I doubt that 200mm will be nearly long enough.

[L.Morey]

Get the sigma 100-300 f4fantaatic lens

[eigga]

Yes, in most day games f/4 will be enough to get the shutter you would want. You might need to bump the ISO some but not too much.

I agreee that 200mm is not enough. If that is your budget I highly reccomend the 300 f/4IS. The 300 will allow you to fill the frame for batting and infield, be "enough" for outfield and allow for some great close up candids. When I cover games or tournaments I have field access and use the 300 90% of the time. The only position I find the 300 is not the best option for is the pitcher which I use the 70-200 for. I guess the main debate in my mind is do you get a lens that allows you to capture the most images or the one that allows for the best quality. You will miss a few images with the prime but what you capture will be the best quality images.

The 1.4 is great on the 300 2.8 but from my real world results I was not happy with the 1.4 on the 70-200 2.8. It is an option but IMO not the best.

300mm is NOT too much FL for infield or batting.... (examples... keep in mind softball fields are smaller too)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/FOF_1779.jpg


http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/7I3V1215copy-1.jpg

[Strnge]

Rent what you need a couple of times a year for his outfield shots and buy the 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4 teleconverter. If you don't live near a place where you can rent from, here is a link to the best rental company I have used: http://www.borrowlenses.com/welcome

This shot of second base was from the third base side. I was sitting 13 rows up at the San Francisco Giants Stadium. That is really close. This stadium is small. This shot was done with a 300 2.8. It just barely reached for this shot. It would not be enough for an outfielders shot. Get the 400 at least.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2nimfeu.jpg

[daveb99]

Go for the 100-400L, if oyu need the reach, otherwise 70-200 F2.8

[hiker99]

OP, I shoot a lot of college softball from on the field and most of the time I am shooting at 300mm plus. Also, considering how much larger baseball fields are in comparison softball fields I would highly recommend getting a lens that has 400 mm of reach. If I were in your shoes I would pick up a 100-400.

[pjd196]

I have been looking for a used 300mm f/4 to fill my long range needs. Am I assuming that the 1.6 factor I get becasue I use a 40D is going to actually give me a 480mm reach. Is this thinking correct? Shouldn't a 300 give me what I need for most shots around a baseball field?

[hiker99]

pjd, yes you are right in your calculation of 480mm, but I think you are going to find once you get to the field you are going to want a lens longer than 300mm. If the 300 f/4 is what you really want (which by the way is a great lens) then you might want to pick up a 1.4x tc to go along with it. The thing is once you add up the total of those two items you are at about the same price as a 100-400. You might want to take a quick look at B&H. The have instant rebates right now on both the 300 f/4 and the 100-400, and they also have a used 100-400 for sale.

[pjd196]

I was planning on a 1.4TC anyway. I figure I can use it on both the 70-200 and the 300. I was thinking about the 100-400 but I am concerned about IQ. I believe I have read that the lens tends to get soft and needs to be stopped down to f8 for best results. Which will yield better IQ, a 300 with a 1.4 TC or a 100-400?

[hiker99]

I was thinking you could use the shorter end of the 100-400 for when he is batting and running the bases, but you already have that covered with the 70-200. And if you are already getting a 1.4x tc then I think the 300 f/4 is a great choice for you. Have fun taking pictures of your son this summer!

[Big K]

I was planning on a 1.4TC anyway. I figure I can use it on both the 70-200 and the 300. I was thinking about the 100-400 but I am concerned about IQ. I believe I have read that the lens tends to get soft and needs to be stopped down to f8 for best results. Which will yield better IQ, a 300 with a 1.4 TC or a 100-400?

I have had three different 100-400 lenses and none of them were at the sharpness level I wanted. I have only used a 300 on a few occasions but do own a 400. Unless I was just extremely unlucky with my 100-400, your image quality with a 300 and a 1.4 will still be better than a 100-400.

[eigga]

three different 100-400 lenses and none of them were at the sharpness level I wanted.

Same experience with the two I have used. They are good, but in most cases I think if you have used a 300+ prime you can tell the difference fairly easy.

Again, do you want a lens that will get you the most images or the highest quailty. If it was just for my son I would agree and add the 100-400 and be done. That will give you the most chance for good images. If you want the best then stick to primes. You wont see many long FL zooms being used by pros who need the best quality. It's not an easy choice.

[shadowcat]

I used a canon 70-200 f2.8is and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 alone and with a 2x on them the 100-400 is good if you got enough light but your arms will get tired from the push pull zoom and the AF doesn't work with the 2x attached.

[Nordwil57]

I love the 100-400, although I've never tried the longer primes, so I can't compare. All the Red Sox pics in my Flickr account were with the 100-400 (sorry, I'm at work and don't have pics here to upload). We were sitting in the top rows along the 3'rd base side. Granted, I cropped some a bit too much and sacrificed some clarity for the perspective I was looking for, but, on a sunny summer day, the lens was fast enough for me.
Most of the Africa shots were with the same lens, including the Leopard in the tree which actually was with a 2x converter as well (again, sacrificed some quality, but the darn thing was barely visible to the naked eye!)

The other part I like about the zoom is if you ARE wandering around a bit, you don't have to swap out lenses, and I never felt the need to go below 100 very often. This was especially true at Fenway, where we were seated, but worked well at a few Lacrosse matches, where I was a bit more mobile.

Renting is an excellent option, but from what I've seen of the re-sale price of the 100-400 it may be worth a gamble to buy it and sell if it doesn't work out for you? Good luck!