New Sports Shooter...300 f2.8 with 5D3?

[facedodge]

Looking to get into sports photography. My Alma Mater High School doesn't have a photographer. It's in a rural area, but it's private and I think the parents will be happy to shell out some cash for good shots. I know the coach and president very well. I played for the coach, was friends with his son, and the president was my home room teacher and wrestling coach.

I already do portrait work on the side and recently purchased the 5D3. I'm astounded at it's auto focus, and 6 fps is plenty fast in my opinion. I think sports could be much more fun than portraits.

My three questions.

1) I think the best lens to purchase considering my circumstances is the 300 f/2.8. Though it may not be industry standard 400mm, I should have enough MP and crispness to crop with my 5D3 if need be. Also, it should be easier for a newbie like myself to follow the action with the 300mm.

2) I don't want to spend 8,000 on a new 300mm. I see these going for 3,500 on Ebay. These appear to be the exact same lenses and the condition appears to be very good. Is there anything I should watch out for? over 50% drop in price seems a bit too good to be true.

3) Should I try and get up front payments, like 20-50 dollars per kid, or should I shoot and sell CD's and/or online prints after the game? My fiance' could help market/take orders for me in the stands with large prints of previous games and iPad images of the first half's shots.

[burnet44]

Id start with a 70-200 2.8
but thats just me
great all around lens

[facedodge]

Originally Posted by burnet44

Id start with a 70-200 2.8
but thats just me
great all around lens

I've used my 135L on a 600D, equivalent 216mm. I found that it was not long enough for Lacrosse. I will have a second body (600D) that I can put a 35L, 50L, 135L, or 90mm 2.8 Tamron on for those sideline shots.

I plan on getting the 70-200 IS II at some point, but feel the 300 2.8 would be better for what I need to get started.

[CMfromIL]

I'd look at the 70-200 F/2.8 If you are concerned about reach you can get an extension (1.4x or 2.0x, that does affect your F/). Not so much a problemduring day games, but could be a problem under lights.

Lens is a bit more flexible, and will get great results.

I'm thinking the 300 would be nearly useless in indoor sports (Volleyball/Basketball) where the action is generally closer. And in MD, I'd imagine that nearly 1/3 of the year is spent with indoor sports.


Just my $.02

[John Godwin]

Originally Posted by facedodge

2) I don't want to spend 8,000 on a new 300mm. I see these going for 3,500 on Ebay. These appear to be the exact same lenses and the condition appears to be very good. Is there anything I should watch out for? over 50% drop in price seems a bit too good to be true.

Know that an older 300mm may not be repairable. Canon no longer supports the older lens (non IS). There are scam artists everywhere, buyer beware.

[burnet44]

good advice

[jra]

The 300 f2.8 is a great sports lens. As far as pricing, there are three variations out there of this lens. The older non IS version (which is no longer supported by Canon) which can often be found at a very nice price. The version I I.S. and the newest version II I.S. The price difference you're seeing is probably because you're looking at a new version II vs. an older version I I.S. lens.
Keep in mind, if you're attempting a business venture, what your return on investment would be and how long it will take you to turn a profit. If you're only shooting at one or two schools, it may take years before you're actually able to turn a profit if you spend big money up front......especially if you're just shooting action photos on speculation. IME, money is made on the T&I shots (which you don't need a new lens to do) and not so much the action shots. Not only that, once you photograph a game (or maybe two), you'll have all of the action shots you need and pretty much anyone that would buy has already bought so photographing additional games becomes a waste of time.....because of this, you may want to consider renting a 300 f2.8 lens for the game action.....but even then I'm guessing you'll have a hard time making the money back that you spent on renting the lens because IME, shooting on spec just doesn't produce a whole lot of sales in most circumstances.

[BodyResults]

What sports are you planning to shoot? 300 f2.8 would be good for most outdoor sports. Indoors the 70-200 2.8 will be much better.

[facedodge]

Originally Posted by BodyResults

What sports are you planning to shoot? 300 f2.8 would be good for most outdoor sports. Indoors the 70-200 2.8 will be much better.

Lacrosse and Soccer mostly. I think this year I will rent, starting with the 300 or 400 2.8.

[ccrunner2011]

Originally Posted by facedodge

I've used my 135L on a 600D, equivalent 216mm. I found that it was not long enough for Lacrosse. I will have a second body (600D) that I can put a 35L, 50L, 135L, or 90mm 2.8 Tamron on for those sideline shots.

I plan on getting the 70-200 IS II at some point, but feel the 300 2.8 would be better for what I need to get started.

You probably an IS lens will not stop motion, never has never will. It only helps with a little camera shake. IMO, go with either a monopod or tripod and you reduce quite a bit of shake for a lot less money. I've been shooting young kids baseball and have done a few track shoots (from sprinters to jumpers to pole vaulters) and I can say that with a large lens like the 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8 your going to want to have a tripod after holding the lens for longer than 20-30 minutes, unless your a gorilla. Are you afraid to walk up and down sidelines?

* The mono-pod has also made it A LOT easier to pan steady when trying to get a left to right series of shots.

I'm not quite understanding why you think you need 300mm to take lacrosse pictures unless your in the stands. I have a feeling with as fast paced as lacrosse is your gonna get stuck on quite a few shots and switching cameras fast is not going to be a fun task and you'll probably end up missing more shots than getting. If you must do that, get a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 TC and you'll keep a decently fast aperture and also a lot more usability, 98-280mm f4 with the converter. And save yourself a few grand. I figure it this way, how much money do you think you'll get from a season of Lacrosse/pictures. Is it worth having a multi-thousand dollar lens that you only use for 1 specific thing?

[facedodge]

Originally Posted by ccrunner2011

You probably an IS lens will not stop motion, never has never will. It only helps with a little camera shake. IMO, go with either a monopod or tripod and you reduce quite a bit of shake for a lot less money. I've been shooting young kids baseball and have done a few track shoots (from sprinters to jumpers to pole vaulters) and I can say that with a large lens like the 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8 your going to want to have a tripod after holding the lens for longer than 20-30 minutes, unless your a gorilla. Are you afraid to walk up and down sidelines?

* The mono-pod has also made it A LOT easier to pan steady when trying to get a left to right series of shots.

I'm not quite understanding why you think you need 300mm to take lacrosse pictures unless your in the stands. I have a feeling with as fast paced as lacrosse is your gonna get stuck on quite a few shots and switching cameras fast is not going to be a fun task and you'll probably end up missing more shots than getting. If you must do that, get a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 TC and you'll keep a decently fast aperture and also a lot more usability, 98-280mm f4 with the converter. And save yourself a few grand. I figure it this way, how much money do you think you'll get from a season of Lacrosse/pictures. Is it worth having a multi-thousand dollar lens that you only use for 1 specific thing?

I would undoubtedly use a monopod with the 300 2.8. I don't think it is too long. Most pro sports shooters use a 400mm 75% of the time for field sports. I know these sports well and can anticipate the action as good as anybody.

I've decided to rent this year and look into buying again before fall next year.

[ccrunner2011]

Originally Posted by facedodge

I would undoubtedly use a monopod with the 300 2.8. I don't think it is too long. Most pro sports shooters use a 400mm 75% of the time for field sports. I know these sports well and can anticipate the action as good as anybody.

I've decided to rent this year and look into buying again before fall next year.

Understandable, especially the renting part. I know I couldn't justify a 7000 camera lens with a car payment, house and a fiance who already deals with my 2 expensive hobbies. If you can... more power to you!

[facedodge]

Originally Posted by ccrunner2011

Understandable, especially the renting part. I know I couldn't justify a 7000 camera lens with a car payment, house and a fiance who already deals with my 2 expensive hobbies. If you can... more power to you!

You can get the first IS version 300 2.8 for about $4500, but you are right. I do make money from family/engagement portraits though. Still in the red on my camera gear, but getting closer to black every month.

[CSMFoto]

Originally Posted by facedodge

You can get the first IS version 300 2.8 for about $4500, but you are right. I do make money from family/engagement portraits though. Still in the red on my camera gear, but getting closer to black every month.

As long as it'll get paid for do it! I hear the 400mm 5.6 is an amazing lens not to mention the 100-400 4.5-5.6. It has IS, amazing quality. only gripe for people is the push/pull. I'd get that lens out on rental as well if I were you! Could save yourself thousands

[facedodge]

Originally Posted by CSMFoto

As long as it'll get paid for do it! I hear the 400mm 5.6 is an amazing lens not to mention the 100-400 4.5-5.6. It has IS, amazing quality. only gripe for people is the push/pull. I'd get that lens out on rental as well if I were you! Could save yourself thousands

It probably won't be paid for, not quickly anyways. At best, I'm semi-pro. I don't market my portrait work and rely on referrals mostly. I doubt I would have an aggressive business plan for sports shooting either.

I'll have a better idea after this season what it's like. Reading the posts about sports shooting on this forum has really lowered my expectations. I'll be happy to make back my rental and other costs, which would be about $180/game.