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 Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 14 Dec 2015 (Monday) 09:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Opinions re: 3 different lenses for sports

 
dsas
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
16 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 14, 2015 09:52 |  #1

I am a recreational photographer (but use all manual settings) with a 6D looking to get a new lens with more reach for photographing my kids' sports. Now that they are a little bigger, my 24-70mm f/2.8L is no longer cutting it on the bigger fields.

My top priority is top image quality action shots during the day in good light. Second priority is nature photos and third is indoor sports. (I understand these three venues are very different and would, ideally, require three different lenses for optimal results. I am obviously willing to accept the limitations in the second two settings in favor of the first, but will appreciate versatility. For this reason I will get IS, understanding it doesn't do much at high shutter speeds.)

Here are the three choices (all Canon):

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

You can only choose one. You want great action photos from the soccer game. Which do you choose?

Thanks!
David




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sfreer
Member
42 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Calgary, AB
     
Dec 14, 2015 09:57 |  #2

I would choose the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and get the 1.4x III extender. You get some length with the extender and 2.8 for indoor sports on a fast focussing lens. I would definitely rent and try first.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zivnuska
Goldmember
Avatar
3,633 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 530
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
     
Dec 14, 2015 10:11 |  #3

dsas wrote in post #17818449 (external link)
Here are the three choices (all Canon):

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

You can only choose one. You want great action photos from the soccer game. Which do you choose?

You choose the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

It will be the best for soccer in daylight. You will not be able to use it for indoor sports but you already own the 24-70mm f/2.8L.


Phil


www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com/blog (external link) = My Blog
Gear List
www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com (external link)

"It's not tight until you see the color of the irides."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsas
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
16 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 14, 2015 10:27 as a reply to  @ sfreer's post |  #4

Thanks! What is the impact of the extender on image quality?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zivnuska
Goldmember
Avatar
3,633 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 530
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
     
Dec 14, 2015 12:43 |  #5

dsas wrote in post #17818489 (external link)
Thanks! What is the impact of the extender on image quality?


It reduces the image quality and slows focus speed. How much? Enough so that it is noticeable. Is it objectionable? That depends on how discerning you are. Some will not notice a difference much less find it bothersome, others will.


www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com/blog (external link) = My Blog
Gear List
www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com (external link)

"It's not tight until you see the color of the irides."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
Avatar
843 posts
Likes: 165
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Oregon
     
Dec 14, 2015 12:48 |  #6

Zivnuska wrote in post #17818637 (external link)
It reduces the image quality and slows focus speed. How much? Enough so that it is noticeable. Is it objectionable? That depends on how discerning you are. Some will not notice a difference much less find it bothersome, others will.

And some won't notice a difference until someone tells them that an extender was involved! :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nukehed
Senior Member
550 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Northern Illinois
Post edited over 3 years ago by Nukehed.
     
Dec 14, 2015 12:55 |  #7

It all depends on the venues and their lighting characteristics. You know these better than any of us. Look through you photos from those venues and note the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (LR will let you sort by these categories, not sure about PS). I shoot a lot of rugby outdoors and most of the time I've got PLENTY of light. (1/1500, 2.8, 320). When I shoot hockey at the AHL game the settings are 1/1000, 3.2, ISO 1000.

Faster lenses ALWAYS give more options and can handle more challenging lighting.

So evaluate your pics...what do you need? Reach? Faster lens? Better IQ?

On a side note, someone here on POTN recently reviewed the Mk II 100-400 and gave it some good reviews.

Many togs on here do their birding/wildlife shots with big ole 500/600/800 mm with 1.4X's attached. They make some pretty awesome photos.

edit; found the post referred to above, POTN Link


"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."- Ed Howdershelt
GEAR LIST
My website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 14, 2015 13:27 |  #8

dsas wrote in post #17818489 (external link)
Thanks! What is the impact of the extender on image quality?

You need to be more specific about which lens, camera, and extender. Going 2x will harm image quality and likely cost you autofocus with most lens camera combos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 3 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Dec 14, 2015 19:37 |  #9

gonzogolf wrote in post #17818682 (external link)
You need to be more specific about which lens, camera, and extender. Going 2x will harm image quality and likely cost you autofocus with most lens camera combos.

Not with the 70-200/2.8. Using the 2X extender makes that into a 140-400/5.6 which will AF on all Canon bodies.

For the OP, my comments would be as follows:

The best option for outdoor, daytime field sports is the 100-400L (The version II if you can afford it). This is also excellent for your nature shots. But it is practically unworkable indoors. So if best at 1 and 2, but zero at 3 is OK, this is your lens.

The 70-200/2.8 IS II is perfect for indoor sports but too short for both of your other interests. You can live with too short by cropping, or better yet get an extender. The 2X extender makes the lens into a fair approximation of the 100-400 in use, but the AF will be slower and the IQ will be degraded. A 1.4X would be a compromise. So this would be the OK for 1 and 2, and great for 3 approach.

There's no point with the 300/4 prime here. It's still too slow for indoors, plus too long, and then when you are outside the 100-400 would have been better anyway.


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
MBB89
Senior Member
256 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Jan 2015
     
Dec 14, 2015 19:41 |  #10

What sports?? The specific sport is a HUGE determinant on what is the ideal lens setup. With that said, a 70-200 f/2.8 or 300 f/2.8 are very rarely a bad choice for sports.

Depending on the sports the 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1.4x or 2x III extender is likely to be the most versatile 1-lens solution.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djr81
Member
102 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 140
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 14, 2015 19:49 |  #11

Don't forget the 70-300.

https://www.canon.com.​au …-300mm-f45-6L-IS-USM-Lens (external link)

But football being football you will need the extra reach of the 100-400 as they progress to larger fields.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsas
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
16 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 14, 2015 19:50 as a reply to  @ MBB89's post |  #12

Soccer and lacrosse, mostly. Rugby, if we ever get a robust youth league here!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nukehed
Senior Member
550 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Northern Illinois
     
Dec 14, 2015 20:30 |  #13

If I may, some more info. As WBB89 said,

With that said, a 70-200 f/2.8 or 300 f/2.8 are very rarely a bad choice for sports.

Especially outdoor sports.

Con - The 300 2.8 is a bear to carry, it comes in at 102 oz (6.375 lbs) [2.98kg]. A Monopod is practically a necessity, hand holding gets tiring FAST.

Pro/Con - The 100-400 Mk I is a push-pull zoom, while the Mk II 100-400 is a twist zoom. It's important to some people.

Pro - The IQ difference (IMHO) is negligible on 70-200 and 300 (I own both and 1.4 II). I have not shot a 100-400 nor used a extender.

On to the sport...
I've shot many seasons for a CARFU Senior Mens Div III team. Thats the lowest division in organized rugby in the USA, a small local team. I shot many of those seasons with the 70-200. What I learned was to cut down the field. I would roam the touchline between the try line and the 22 meter line. I would draw an imaginary line down the center of the field. Anything on the far side was not to be photographed. I would wait until they were on "my" side of the field. Additionally, I would limit the range I shot when they were on "my" side of the field. If they were on "my" side, but 60 or 70 meters away, I would refrain from pics. Did I miss some good shots? Of course. All photographers have stories of the "one that got away".

As I said this is a small team so I had complete access to the field and could go where I wanted when I wanted. Your mileage may vary depending on field access.

Another argument AGAINST shooting across the field. 200mm f/2.8 @ 50 meters gives a total DOF of 6.65meters (21.7 ft). Depending on your sidelines this can make unfortunate sideline clutter. The 300mm f/4 @ 50 meters gives a total DOF of 4.2 meters (13.7 ft). SOURCE (external link)

So to gives my two cents....plus a lot more. sreer said it best.

I would choose the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and get the 1.4x III extender. You get some length with the extender and 2.8 for indoor sports on a fast focussing lens. I would definitely rent and try first.


"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."- Ed Howdershelt
GEAR LIST
My website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 16, 2015 09:14 |  #14

The 100-400L would be the choice given the preference for outdoor field sport coverage. Version 1 is good. Version II is very good.

But is is useless for indoor work. Same with the 300 f/4L

Cost-wise a used 100-400L Mk I plus a used 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS would be about the cost of the 70-200 II and cover all your mentioned points.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
8,635 posts
Likes: 35324
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Jan 11, 2016 08:01 |  #15

This




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

8,936 views & 16 likes for this thread
Opinions re: 3 different lenses for sports
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
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 razorblaydes_jk
780 guests, 353 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.