Shooting Golf - Lens Advise please!

Hi All,

I'm a PGA Pro by trade, and I like to take my love of photography and use it around the club where I can - especially shooting junior golf.

I currently use the Canon 55-250 IS, and I have managed to get a lot of keepers... however, I have the itch to get something new. I've been toying around with getting the 70-200 F4 IS, but I'm wondering if there may be some other options.

I know of the older 35-350L (I believe), and while being right around $1,000, I'm looking for some reviews and thoughts with regards if I'll miss the IS. And if that's the case, would I be just a good off saving $500 and grabbing the 70-200 non-IS? I pretty much shoot in tons of available light, with shutter speed often above ~1/500.

The range of the 35-350 would be very useful to me, as I wouldn't have to change lenses at all (I use the Siggy 30 1.4 for walk-around shots). And I also wouldn't need to grab a 1.4 extender to get the extra reach (I do find myself at the long end of the 250 often).

Please excuse my rambling, and I appreciate your insight!

edit: Two other options have come to mind. Possibly the Tamron 70-300 vc or the Sigma 120-400 OS. Any thoughts of those two lens in comparison?

Thank you!


Some sample shots below:

If you are shooting at 1/500sec, then a 350mm lens without IS will be just past the limit for handheld shooting on a crop body using the 1/focal length rule. So, it will depend on how steady you are when shooting.

You could always add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200 f/4 IS when you need more reach. That will get you to 280mm -- not quite as long as the 35-350, but close. It will not help with your needs at the wide end, though.

If you have seen the Tiger Woods shot headed directly for the photographer I say get a very good lens hood 1st off.

i've always looked at the 70-200 f4 as one of the top values in the Canon lineup. You can't go wrong with it, even if you find you don't like it it's easy to sell and take a big hit.

I just got a 70-200 f/2.8L and the 1.4x III TC. It makes for a nice combination. BTW, I'm a Superintendent. Our course hosted a high school District match which I shot for the local paper. Can't think of a situation you couldn't handle with that setup.

Tim S wrote in post #14689617
I just got a 70-200 f/2.8L and the 1.4x III TC. It makes for a nice combination. BTW, I'm a Superintendent. Our course hosted a high school District match which I shot for the local paper. Can't think of a situation you couldn't handle with that setup.

+1 for the 70-200L and extender! As a pro who can get inside the ropes, you'll never need more distance, and this lens is sharp at 2.8, Stupid-sharp at 5.6!

Regards!
Don

Scott M wrote in post #14687539
If you are shooting at 1/500sec, then a 350mm lens without IS will be just past the limit for handheld shooting on a crop body using the 1/focal length rule. So, it will depend on how steady you are when shooting.

You could always add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200 f/4 IS when you need more reach. That will get you to 280mm -- not quite as long as the 35-350, but close. It will not help with your needs at the wide end, though.

rick_reno wrote in post #14688373
i've always looked at the 70-200 f4 as one of the top values in the Canon lineup. You can't go wrong with it, even if you find you don't like it it's easy to sell and take a big hit.

Tim S wrote in post #14689617
I just got a 70-200 f/2.8L and the 1.4x III TC. It makes for a nice combination. BTW, I'm a Superintendent. Our course hosted a high school District match which I shot for the local paper. Can't think of a situation you couldn't handle with that setup.

Don Madson wrote in post #14689704
+1 for the 70-200L and extender! As a pro who can get inside the ropes, you'll never need more distance, and this lens is sharp at 2.8, Stupid-sharp at 5.6!

Regards!
Don

Thanks guys - I am leaning towards the 70-200 F4 non-IS, and the 1.4.

My take is that the 2.8 is a bit overkill and that I'll be okay w/o IS since I'll be shooting in tons of available light mostly. Thoughts?

I could spend more on either the 2.8 OR the F4 IS (certainly not both!), but it would be nice to safe a few bucks, as I've been thinking about add the Canon 17-40L into my lineup as well!

Also keep in mind, the 35-350 won't work with teleconverter.

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com …xtender-ef-14x-iii-en.pdf

The IS version of the 70-200 f/4 adds more than just image stabilization. It is also a sharper lens than the older, non-IS version. Of course, it is also twice the price.

Scott M wrote in post #14692027
The IS version of the 70-200 f/4 adds more than just image stabilization. It is also a sharper lens than the older, non-IS version. Of course, it is also twice the price.

This. Plus if you add the 1.4 teleconverter for using golf the IS really makes a difference.

If you can swing it (pun intended, sorry about that).... Get the 70-200/4 with IS. You might not need it all the time, but when you do it will be very nice to have stabilization. And, IS is even more important when you put a 1.4X teleconverter on the lens. I haven't used them all, but often see comments that the 70-200/4 IS is the sharpest of the Canon 70-200s, too. The newest and priciest f2.8 IS Mark II might be sharper... but is a lot more expensive, bigger and heavier. It is usable with a 2X teleconverter, though (the f4 lenses would be pretty dim and auto focus would slow way down and fail if used with a 2X.... though there are some workarounds).

Regarding the teleconverter, if you can find the Canon 1.4X Mark II version, that will work just fine with the lens and save some money compared to the recently introduced Mark III. Or look at the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4X, which rivals the Canon for image quality (the Kenko DGX is a newer version that supposedly gives faster focusing than the earlier DG version).

rick_reno wrote in post #14688373
i've always looked at the 70-200 f4 as one of the top values in the Canon lineup. You can't go wrong with it, even if you find you don't like it it's easy to sell and take a big hit.

I agree... There is value in that lens. I sold it for more than I paid for it after owning it for a couple of years.

However, the f/4L IS lens I replaced it with is a far better and more versatile tool. I bought the IS version as soon as it came out and it is one of my favorite lenses.

I use my f/4L IS for all types of shots and the IS capability allows me to use it 4-5x more often than the non-IS version since I am not a slave to bright light. I can hand hold this lens at some pretty slow shutter speeds with great results. This allows me to shoot hand held in some pretty dim conditons.

AND YES... The IS lens is a LOT more expensive than the non IS version but, I keep my equipment for a long-long time and amortized across years of use, the IS version isn't really that more expensive...

Thanks all! I appreciate the insight on the newer F4 IS. Probably not worth saving 500 bucks, especially as I'm using the 55-250 IS now, which does work nicely!

Now I guess it's time to pull the trigger!

I was hired (drafted) to photograph a charity golf outing the last few years.

I used the 24-105 for portraits of the golfers on the course but mostly my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 135 f/2 for action shots.

Depends on how close you are going to be to the golfer(s). Often the 135 f/2 (a lighter and as sharp in my experience as the 70-200s) will suffice. It's lighter, smaller and does not scream professional as much as the 70-200 models. But, yes, all in all, the f/4 version of the 70-200 is great and the extra amount for the IS version of same is a no brainer.

Love your shots, btw.

Not sure which camera you are using, but I presume its an APS-C sensor, given the 55-250 IS.

The 17-40L, 24-105L IS and 70-200L F4 IS will give you a nice angle of view range and reasonable DoF performance, even with the smaller sensor. Then add a 300L F4 IS for longer reach.

IS helps a lot more than one might think, even at higher shutter speeds. Also, remember that the old shutter speed = focal length for steadiness needs to be multiplied by the crop factor. I like to be at twice the focal length, even with a full frame camera when doing golf or other sports. Just because. Also, since a lot of shots are longer focal length even for full figure shots keeping the aperture near full open dictates that the lens should be sharp wide open. That generally means an L lens. Spend some time looking for used lenses, either here or at KEH.

Sigma makes a 100-300 F4 zoom that is sharp if you get a good copy. They also make a 120-300 F2.8 that is highly regarded by sports photographers. Most recent version includes their version of IS.