PDA

View Full Version : Looking for new glass for outdoor sports


dman64
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 00:04
Looking for some new glass for softball & baseball.
I use a 40d with a grip.

Aaagogo
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 00:05
How deep is your wallet?

dman64
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 00:07
about 2,500

MJPhotos24
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 00:21
Depends on the field size - the 70-200 2.8 is a good option for a starter lens in sports with the 1.4 for some extra length. I used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 as it was cheap alternative when starting out as well, but it wasn't as good as a Canon obviously.

Big K
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 00:25
Either a used 300 f/2.8 non IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x. I am not a Sigma fan so am suggesting Canon. If you ever plan to use the 70-200 in really low light non-sports type events (Ex. At home, weddings, etc.) I would suggest spending the money on the IS version of the 70-200. If all you plan to do is use it for sports you don't need the IS.

Have fun helping the economy. :-)

mikekelley
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 01:01
If he's going to be outside he won't need the 2.8. Save yourself the coin and get the 70-200f4 if you're going to be outside, and you have plenty left over for another lens, maybe a 100-400 for more reach or a nice prime.

Big K
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 01:35
If he's going to be outside he won't need the 2.8. Save yourself the coin and get the 70-200f4 if you're going to be outside, and you have plenty left over for another lens, maybe a 100-400 for more reach or a nice prime.

I disagree. There are lots of times f/2.8 is useful outdoors and you need it when using a 1.4x otherwise you are stuck a f/5.6 which is a huge disadvantage.

I am also a big believer in only investing in the best glass possible anytime you buy something especially with a good budget like the OP has. I have never known a serious photographer want to downgrade to an f/4 from a f/2.8 because they just didn't need it.

Same goes for the 100-400. You give up way too much being at f/5.6 at 400mm and my personal experience is the lens is too soft even when you do have enough light to shoot.

In the long run you will be happier with higher quality lenses than a higher quantity.

fensterbme
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:02
I'd also suggest getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 1.4x tele-converter... it's a swiss army combo, you can use that lens for all kinds of stuff not just outdoor sports, and not just sport but other stuff as well. Since your on an APS-C 1.6x crop factor camera a 70-200mm with the 1.4x on your already 1.6x crop gives you a darn good bit of reach, gives you IS, and still lets a good bit of light in...

If you can swing the cash that's the way to go hands down... The 300mm non IS is another option but isn't nearly as flexible.

I too believe in buying something right the first time if possible, but I also know that glass retains it's value so if you did buy something slower or less expensive you will be able to get almost all the money back when you go to sell it.

Zivnuska
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 14:48
Either a used 300 f/2.8 non IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x. I am not a Sigma fan so am suggesting Canon. If you ever plan to use the 70-200 in really low light non-sports type events (Ex. At home, weddings, etc.) I would suggest spending the money on the IS version of the 70-200. If all you plan to do is use it for sports you don't need the IS.

Have fun helping the economy. :-)

Do it for your country.

I also like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, plus the 1.4 TC

dman64
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 19:27
Thanks for all the info time to do some home work.

bobbyz
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 22:38
Which lens you currently own?

dman64
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 22:46
200mm 2.8l 70-200f4 non is 85 1.8 18-55 is 50 1.8 1.x4 extender
on a 40D

bobbyz
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 22:59
Then I would sell the 200mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f4 non IS and go for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS.

Other option is sell both of the above and add $2500 and go for the ultimate 300mm f2.8 IS for $3500.

eigga
24th of March 2009 (Tue), 08:53
Save for the 300 2.8

or

sell the 70-200 f/4 and 200 2.8 and add 70-200 2.8, 300 f/4, 85 1.8 and 1.4 tele

LennartW
24th of March 2009 (Tue), 12:19
70-200/2.8 and 300/4 and you are good to go

yokotas13
25th of March 2009 (Wed), 07:58
i ended up with a 300 2.8 non IS, and a 70-200 2.8 non is
is isnt needed for sports. and i have flash for low light stuff. im cool with that.

total cost was around 3,000 said and done. I put the 70-200 on the gripped 40d, and hte 300 w 1.4x if needed on the 1dmk3