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 . . .

 
medicdude
Goldmember
1,890 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     
Apr 04, 2014 00:06 |  #46

70-200 f/4 L IS
Or
300 f/4 L IS


Dustin
5D3 : Lenses : Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 344
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 04, 2014 01:36 |  #47

Myboostedgst wrote in post #16808056 (external link)
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).

For you coming from a FF camera already it would, but given the lower pixel per "goalie" compared to newer generation crop cameras, I would be looking more into the 70-300L, 100- 400 or blow it the budget and get the 70-200/2.8 II with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs or the Sigma 120-300 sport.


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
1,902 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 633
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 04, 2014 01:53 |  #48

FEChariot wrote in post #16808710 (external link)
For you coming from a FF camera already it would, but given the lower pixel per "goalie" compared to newer generation crop cameras, I would be looking more into the 70-300L, 100- 400 or blow it the budget and get the 70-200/2.8 II with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs or the Sigma 120-300 sport.

I am about to eat my words. :lol:

I just purchased a used 70-200 f4 (non-is) from the classifieds on here. I wanted to see if F4 is fast enough for me, so this is the cheapest way for me to test it out. Otherwise I was going to buy a new Tamron 70-300. If I find it to be fast enough and long enough for shooting softball (and motorsports), then I will sell it and buy the IS version. If it is fast enough but not long enough, then I will buy a 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600. If it is not fast enough, then I will have to decide what route I am going to go.


Andrew | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cicopo
Goldmember
Avatar
3,483 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Likes: 523
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
     
Apr 04, 2014 06:38 |  #49

From all the user reviews / comments I've read the 70-300 L is sharper & has faster AF than the 100-400 L plus it uses the newer generation of IS. Considering that my 100-400 delivers very sharp images for me & unfortunately I don't have the luxury of using high shutter speeds (I need prop blur) so IS is probably more helpful in my use than for your sports but it would be very helpful for wheel sports.


A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sporadic
Senior Member
Avatar
580 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 177
Joined May 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
     
Apr 04, 2014 07:30 |  #50

ddk2001 wrote in post #16808459 (external link)
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.

Nice captures. Time of day, direction of the sun and synthetic jerseys can all wreak havoc on white balance resulting in color shifts. I had a bad time with this my first year as our team was neon green, ugh! Also, the jerseys and backgrounds can really throw off the metering system which can give you bad exposures in the auto modes. Our background changes from white billboards to a shaded treeline and tosses auto exposures all over the place.

Give this a try for getting consistent exposures. Switch to full manual and set the aperture to f/5.6 with your 55-250 so you have the same aperture throughout your zoom range. Meter off the grass and use shutter speed and ISO to set proper exposure. Keep shutter speed above 1/1000. Take a few test shots and chimp them to make sure no highlights are blown out and that the players faces are properly exposed. Once you get it dialed in, check your meter reading against the grass again and take note of it. If clouds are moving around, light is changing, or you're moving in relation to the sun, point back to the patch of grass and check your meter in the view finder. Adjust shutter speed or ISO to give you the same reading you had before. You'll probably want to chimp again for face exposure if you have harsh sun out and are changing your shooting angles. If you start falling below 1/1000, bump the ISO up.

If you end up going with a 70-200, you'll probably find yourself wanting to go with a teleconverter. I've considered getting a 100-400 myself for full field soccer, but trying to stretch it with my 70-200 for now. I tried a 2x teleconverter last year on my 70-200 but found it too long on the short side when the action gets close. The 1.4x works, but I'd like more reach at times. I think a 100-400 would suite my needs, but just can't justify it yet. Not sure if this added confusion or helped, but hope it was the later! :)


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
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Apr 04, 2014 08:51 |  #51

Myboostedgst wrote in post #16808738 (external link)
I am about to eat my words. :lol:

I just purchased a used 70-200 f4 (non-is) from the classifieds on here. I wanted to see if F4 is fast enough for me, so this is the cheapest way for me to test it out. Otherwise I was going to buy a new Tamron 70-300. If I find it to be fast enough and long enough for shooting softball (and motorsports), then I will sell it and buy the IS version. If it is fast enough but not long enough, then I will buy a 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600. If it is not fast enough, then I will have to decide what route I am going to go.

Congrats on the purchase! If it's not long enough, don't discount the Canon 70-300L, which is a truly outstanding lens if you want something longer, not too bulky, with lightning fast focusing and a killer IS system.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,902 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 633
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 04, 2014 10:38 |  #52

ceegee wrote in post #16809194 (external link)
Congrats on the purchase! If it's not long enough, don't discount the Canon 70-300L, which is a truly outstanding lens if you want something longer, not too bulky, with lightning fast focusing and a killer IS system.

Thanks! The store doesn't carry the 70-300L, so I didn't get a chance to hold one. It love the feel of the small f4, so if it isn't long enough I think I will end up with a prime, either the 300/4 or the 400/5.6.

I'll make sure to report in once I get the lens and chance to shoot some softball and test it out.


Andrew | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 04, 2014 11:24 |  #53

sporadic wrote in post #16809036 (external link)
Nice captures. Time of day, direction of the sun and synthetic jerseys can all wreak havoc on white balance resulting in color shifts. I had a bad time with this my first year as our team was neon green, ugh! Also, the jerseys and backgrounds can really throw off the metering system which can give you bad exposures in the auto modes. Our background changes from white billboards to a shaded treeline and tosses auto exposures all over the place.

Give this a try for getting consistent exposures. Switch to full manual and set the aperture to f/5.6 with your 55-250 so you have the same aperture throughout your zoom range. Meter off the grass and use shutter speed and ISO to set proper exposure. Keep shutter speed above 1/1000. Take a few test shots and chimp them to make sure no highlights are blown out and that the players faces are properly exposed. Once you get it dialed in, check your meter reading against the grass again and take note of it. If clouds are moving around, light is changing, or you're moving in relation to the sun, point back to the patch of grass and check your meter in the view finder. Adjust shutter speed or ISO to give you the same reading you had before. You'll probably want to chimp again for face exposure if you have harsh sun out and are changing your shooting angles. If you start falling below 1/1000, bump the ISO up.

If you end up going with a 70-200, you'll probably find yourself wanting to go with a teleconverter. I've considered getting a 100-400 myself for full field soccer, but trying to stretch it with my 70-200 for now. I tried a 2x teleconverter last year on my 70-200 but found it too long on the short side when the action gets close. The 1.4x works, but I'd like more reach at times. I think a 100-400 would suite my needs, but just can't justify it yet. Not sure if this added confusion or helped, but hope it was the later! :)

I appreciate the suggestions and will give it a go this weekend. I've got a soccer game and two lacrosse games - so I'll be able to figure something out - hopefully.

Feels like I'm leaning more towards the 70-300. Anyone care to give me an idea of what would be a really good price on it used?

Here it is . . .

IMAGE: http://images.craigslist.org/00Y0Y_gwdGwisDILB_600x450.jpg

IMAGE: http://images.craigslist.org/00606_j2LQhbCLqF9_600x450.jpg

[deleted illegit site . . .]

Thanks -



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave3222
Goldmember
Avatar
1,361 posts
Gallery: 164 photos
Likes: 650
Joined Jul 2013
     
Apr 04, 2014 12:55 |  #54

That site overstockdigital doesn't seem legit.
http://www.sitejabber.​com …/www.overstockd​igital.com (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 04, 2014 13:02 |  #55

Dave3222 wrote in post #16809755 (external link)
That site overstockdigital doesn't seem legit.
http://www.sitejabber.​com …/www.overstockd​igital.com (external link)

Ouch. You're right. that's embarrassing . . .

Considering Canon sells it refurbished (when in stock) at $1279 - what's a great deal on one used?

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …-4-56l-is-usm-refurbished (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
12Rock
Senior Member
635 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Feb 2010
     
Apr 04, 2014 13:07 |  #56

been there done this routine , wasted $ buying others lens , bottom line even if it’s a used one 70-200 f 2.8. little one grow to older ones . You will always use it




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Apr 04, 2014 13:35 |  #57

For the 70-300L, they can be found on the used market for about $1000 or just under. They're not common (it's really a very good lens) and they're usually snapped up quite quickly. You have to keep your eyes open. If you find a new one within a couple of hundred dollars of that price, you might want to consider it.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,902 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 633
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 04, 2014 14:16 as a reply to  @ ceegee's post |  #58

I tend to do most of my used lens purchases on Fred Miranda. Might want to check there.


Andrew | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Apr 04, 2014 16:33 |  #59

Myboostedgst wrote in post #16809419 (external link)
Thanks! The store doesn't carry the 70-300L, so I didn't get a chance to hold one. It love the feel of the small f4, so if it isn't long enough I think I will end up with a prime, either the 300/4 or the 400/5.6.

I'll make sure to report in once I get the lens and chance to shoot some softball and test it out.

Are you shooting all positions in softball, or just one? The ask is because the ranges to the players are all over the map. On a FF camera (so divide by 1.6 for FF)....

I love a 70-200 at about 180mm to shoot pitchers from behind home plate through the fence.

But if I am shooting infielders (3B and SS from the 1B side or 1B and 2B from the 3B side) I want something that reaches 300mm. You can get away with a 70-200 on a 1.6X format.

For outfield, 400mm is good and longer is better.

I also like as long as I can get for batters, because I want to go down the line as far as possible.

Put all of this together, and the Canon 100-400L is my personal choice for softball on a FF camera. The 70-300L would probably be just as good on 1.6X.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,902 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 633
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Apr 04, 2014 18:29 |  #60

JeffreyG wrote in post #16810271 (external link)
Are you shooting all positions in softball, or just one? The ask is because the ranges to the players are all over the map. On a FF camera (so divide by 1.6 for FF)....

I love a 70-200 at about 180mm to shoot pitchers from behind home plate through the fence.

But if I am shooting infielders (3B and SS from the 1B side or 1B and 2B from the 3B side) I want something that reaches 300mm. You can get away with a 70-200 on a 1.6X format.

For outfield, 400mm is good and longer is better.

I also like as long as I can get for batters, because I want to go down the line as far as possible.

Put all of this together, and the Canon 100-400L is my personal choice for softball on a FF camera. The 70-300L would probably be just as good on 1.6X.

All positions. I will be using the 70-200 for other things too, and I think that will be my favorite range on a FF. So I foresee myself selling the non IS and buying the 70-200 F4 IS (for my all around lens) and then also buying either the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600. But that won't be this year, maybe next year. This year I will be sticking with the 70-200 non is and seeing what I can do. No additional money for any camera equipment this year. :(


Andrew | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

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

11,581 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 AlexRapp
1188 guests, 271 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.