Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Apr 2014 (Wednesday) 15:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .

 
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:36 |  #31

ddk2001 wrote in post #16807470 (external link)
I think I like the idea of having IS more than not having it.

So . . . let's say I've got these three choices (all available locally to me):

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - asking $1200 (would need tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS - asking $850 (includes tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L - asking $500 (would need tripod collar)

For mostly shooting outdoor sports - what's the best buy?

70-200/4 IS - Sell the tripod collar because its not needed IMO and it will drop your cost more.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Aressem
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 509
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:38 |  #32

Aressem wrote in post #16805187 (external link)
How about the Canon 80-200mm f/2.8 L "MAGIC DRAINPIPE"

Here's one for $575!

What about this, Gonzo? Seems like a steal of a deal to me, no?!


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:44 |  #33

gonzogolf wrote in post #16807490 (external link)
We are back to how much you want to invest. You dont really need a tripod collar for the 70-200 F4. Its light enough to handhold. I love the f4IS its a sharper lens, total optical upgrade over the non IS. And then you gotta ask if the extra cash is worth it for the 70-300. You cant really make a bad choice here as all will provide great images within their range.

I'd like to be under $1,000 - and would only purchase the 300 if I could get it at that price.

The 200 IS is the one I'm tempted to move on.

As for the tripod collar - I usually shoot with a monopod - because I'm usually shooting 2-3 games on a Saturday and like the convenience of being lazy . . . . Are the 200 lenses heavy enough that I can't use the camera tripod mount?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 03, 2014 16:00 |  #34

ddk2001 wrote in post #16807544 (external link)
I'd like to be under $1,000 - and would only purchase the 300 if I could get it at that price.

The 200 IS is the one I'm tempted to move on.

As for the tripod collar - I usually shoot with a monopod - because I'm usually shooting 2-3 games on a Saturday and like the convenience of being lazy . . . . Are the 200 lenses heavy enough that I can't use the camera tripod mount?

I don't like using a monopod for shooting sports because I like moving around and shooting from different heights, but if you really want to use one, then the f4's are light enough where you can just use the mounting screw on the body like you are doing now with the 55-250 (provided your monopod has a decent head).


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgs
Goldmember
Avatar
2,309 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Likes: 909
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
     
Apr 03, 2014 16:04 |  #35

Collars are VERY handy on tripods and monopods. Rotating the camera within the collar is much better than flipping the head over for a vertical. They also stabilize hand holding somewhat. I'd keep it.


Canon 7d MkII, Canon 50D, Pentax 67, Canon 30D, Baker Custom 4x5, Canon EF 24-104mm f4, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC

The Singular Image (external link)Richard Smith Photography (external link)
Richard Smith Real Estate Photography (external link)500PX (external link)
Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,130 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1147
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 03, 2014 16:12 |  #36

Aressem wrote in post #16807529 (external link)
What about this, Gonzo? Seems like a steal of a deal to me, no?!

I've never owned one, they are highly regarded. But they are no longer serviced by canon so you run a risk of having to seek a 3rd party repair or a nice pencil holder if something should fail.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,130 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1147
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 03, 2014 16:14 |  #37

FEChariot wrote in post #16807582 (external link)
I don't like using a monopod for shooting sports because I like moving around and shooting from different heights, but if you really want to use one, then the f4's are light enough where you can just use the mounting screw on the body like you are doing now with the 55-250 (provided your monopod has a decent head).

This. I bought a 3rd party tripod collar and its gathering dust somewhere in the closet. The 2.8 is a lot heavier and the collar would be necessary.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,899 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 629
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 03, 2014 17:36 as a reply to  @ gonzogolf's post |  #38

I have heard that the 70-200 f4 IS is only surpassed by the new f2.8 IS II in terms of sharpness and overall IQ (not considering primes). How does the 70-300L compare in overall IQ to the f4 IS?


Andrew | Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
D750, 24-70, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 70-200 VRII, 300 F2.8 AF
Founder of www.midwestautomotive.​net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rivas8409
Goldmember
Avatar
2,454 posts
Likes: 236
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lemoore, California
     
Apr 03, 2014 17:43 |  #39

FEChariot wrote in post #16807516 (external link)
70-200/4 IS - Sell the tripod collar because its not needed IMO and it will drop your cost more.

Second this one! 70-200 f/4 IS, if you must have IS.


Body: Canon 5DmkII│50D
Glass: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8│Canon 85mm f/1.8│Canon 24-105mm f/4L│Canon 135mm f/2L
Lights: Flashpoint Streaklight 360│Flashpoint Zoom Li-on│AB800
Results: WEBSITE (external link)FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 03, 2014 17:56 |  #40

Myboostedgst wrote in post #16807808 (external link)
I have heard that the 70-200 f4 IS is only surpassed by the new f2.8 IS II in terms of sharpness and overall IQ (not considering primes). How does the 70-300L compare in overall IQ to the f4 IS?

I think it's safe to say they are equal. They trade wins and losses at different lengths/apertures if you pixel peep but nothing you would notice in real life. Although if you try to compare the 70-300 at 300 versus the 70-200 @ 280 with a TC, the 70-300 will be noticably better


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,899 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 629
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 03, 2014 19:34 |  #41

FEChariot wrote in post #16807852 (external link)
I think it's safe to say they are equal. They trade wins and losses at different lengths/apertures if you pixel peep but nothing you would notice in real life. Although if you try to compare the 70-300 at 300 versus the 70-200 @ 280 with a TC, the 70-300 will be noticably better

Interesting, thanks. I just went to the local camera store and held the f4. Best feeling lens I have ever used. Also tried out the Tamron 70-300 VC, 70-200 IS II, and the 100-400. My thought with the f2.8, for the $1,000 more than the f4, wouldn't it be better to move up to a 6d? That would more than make up for any speed increase in aperture since you can crank the ISO (assuming you have a significantly less high ISO capable body).

Also, the Tamron was really loud when focusing. VC worked phenomenal, felt like I could hold it steady at 300mm down to 1/x seconds (although have not looked at the images on the computer and my 5d LCD is terrible. I really want the 70-200, and would only ever consider a lens with IS in that focal range.


Andrew | Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
D750, 24-70, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 70-200 VRII, 300 F2.8 AF
Founder of www.midwestautomotive.​net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sporadic
Senior Member
Avatar
580 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 175
Joined May 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
     
Apr 03, 2014 19:59 |  #42

ddk2001 wrote in post #16804803 (external link)
Hi all - new here.

For a couple of years now - I've been taking pictures of all of my kids sporting events - many times taking them of the entire team (2-300 pictures per game).

What ages and what kind of sports? That'll determine your distance and needs. I'd go fast as possible even if outdoors and shoot wide open. You should be shooting over 1/1000 and shouldn't even need IS. I shoot our girls' soccer teams with a 70-200 2.8 IS II. Always wide open and IS turned off. Wide open because the background is usually very cluttered and you want to lose it in DOF. IS off because you don't need it due to high shutter speeds. For our 10 year old who plays full field, I use a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter as well which pushes me to f/4 and 280mm on the longend. If its overcast and later in the day, I find myself pushing ISO800-1600 at times with this combo to keep shutter speeds up.

I'd lose the monopod as well and get a nice sling strap, like the Optech Utility Sling. For soccer, I position myself near the opposing team's goal and shoot our offensive action coming in. Gives me plenty of rest with the camera hanging off my side if the team is pushing the other way and lets me quickly compose a shot when incoming.

1/2000 f/2.8 ISO400 - The purple blob is a porta-potty :confused:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3721/13613315023_84dc3fbf46_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mJXN​gZ  (external link)

1/1600 f/4.0 ISO800 - Later in the day with the 1.4x tele - Having some issues getting the color right on the synthetic red jerseys but working that in another thread :)
IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3725/13548952304_94fa1ae3df_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mDgV​tW  (external link)

Fuji X-T1 | X-T2 | X-T3 | 35/1.4 | 10-24 | 18-55 | 55-200 | 50-140 | Rokinon 8/2.8II Fisheye | Rokinon 12/2
Fringer EF-FX Pro
7D | 300/4 L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 03, 2014 23:03 |  #43

I've got one in HS (might play baseball again next year). Another at 15 (lacrosse mostly) and my daughter at 12 (plays competitive soccer). Bear with me - This is sort of a new hobby for me . . . Amazing how I notice the color differences when I post them together. Yikes.

Here are some pics I took with my T2i, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. Just in "sport" mode - 'cause I haven't been brave enough to fly solo yet. I haven't done anything to these pictures. Looks like a lot of my pictures are at or greater than 200mm.

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/13615469183_83d406e0c5_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mK9Q​CF  (external link)

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3785/13615422565_fc08b44286_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mK9A​LV  (external link)

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/13615811093_92ca6230b1_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mKbA​gF  (external link)

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7130/13615798594_2cfe2ca3e8_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mKbw​yb  (external link)

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3822/13615430615_6cdc903b89_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mK9D​aH  (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,034 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2234
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Apr 03, 2014 23:21 |  #44

sporadic wrote in post #16808131 (external link)
1/2000 f/2.8 ISO400 - The purple blob is a porta-potty :confused:

I've started to desaturate the really bright background objects that even when blurred can take away some focus from the subject...many times it's a bright porta-potty :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ajfb004
Member
Avatar
42 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2014
     
Apr 03, 2014 23:40 |  #45

Im a newbie here . this is actually my first post. I am football coach and I found myself shooting all the time and then using the pictures for teaching. I cansulted a few people adn ended up upgrading my camera from a T3 to 70D and buying a lens that has been awesome with a 2x converter. I bought the 70-200 f2.8l is. the lens is great for indoor and outdoor and with the 2x its basically a 140-400 f5.6 withj great clarity. Im really just gettig into this but thats what I use and I am really happy with it




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,086 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is feelmat
1030 guests, 294 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.