Which long telephoto lens for young kids?

I've been waiting for the Canon 200-400mm lens but don't see it coming anytime soon. I am going to shoot some eagles at the end of December so I'd like to get a long lens by then.

The main reason for me getting a long lens is to take photos of my kids in sports. The oldest is 3.5 and is in soccer now.

I think the 200-400 would be the most versatile, but I think I'd miss having the speed of 2.8.

For the parents out there and/or photographers who shoot young kids sports, I'm wondering what lens you feel is the most useful. At this time, I'd like to stick to just one super tele although I might end up with two if the 200-400 ever comes out.

My thinking is to get the 300mm for now because of the smaller fields for younger kids. For the times I need a bit more reach (like when I go shoot eagles), I am thinking I can use a 1.4 extender.

On the other hand, I'm thinking the 400mm might better complement the 200-400 (assuming I will one day get it) because it offers 560mm f/4 with the extender.

Thoughts?

You do realize the 200-400 will likely cost $xx,xxx, right?

For the age they are, the 70-200 you already have should be fine. Field sizes are small and the kids don't move that fast. If you want more reach, the 100-400 may be the way to go for outside shooting. I opted instead for upgrading to the 70-200 II, and will use TCs. Another possibility is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, if you need f/2.8. If you want something more in the range of the 200-400 then you might look at the 300 f/2.8 IS also, as its in the same class, size, etc.

Frankly, you might get more benefit from picking up a 7D for you 70-200 vs anything else. It will give you much more speed for action and 1.6 more reach vs your 5D bodies.

convergent wrote in post #15294629
You do realize the 200-400 will likely cost $xx,xxx, right?

For the age they are, the 70-200 you already have should be fine. Field sizes are small and the kids don't move that fast. If you want more reach, the 100-400 may be the way to go for outside shooting. I opted instead for upgrading to the 70-200 II, and will use TCs. Another possibility is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, if you need f/2.8. If you want something more in the range of the 200-400 then you might look at the 300 f/2.8 IS also, as its in the same class, size, etc.

Frankly, you might get more benefit from picking up a 7D for you 70-200 vs anything else. It will give you much more speed for action and 1.6 more reach vs your 5D bodies.

I agree the 200-400 might be the best zoom for your purposes but it's not currently for sale and is likely to be expensive. In the meantime use your 70-200 for kids sports and teleconverter or pick up a 100-400 - awesome quality at (potentially) less price than the 200-400

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
f5.6

I will upgrade 5dmk2/5dc first unless you already have a body for action shooting. Then keep using 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. 300mm f2.8 is better over 200-400L for aperture. With FF, 300 is ideal for young kid sports. If got money for 200-400L I will buy 400mm f2.8.

The cheapest solution might be to try renting a 2xtc III and use it with your 70-200. I know many people who use this combo for sports and wildlife with good results. If you aren't happy with the IQ, but you like the range of 140-400, you could also look into the 100-400.

I expect the 200-400 will come with a $10k or higher price tag. If you're looking in that price range, the 300mm f/2.8 IS would be another lens to consider.

IF you have the money, 400mm f2.8 is ii

I'm going to buy one in the next month or two

You would probably want to team it with a better body I'd say for better AF

I'm sorry, but for a 3.5 year old kid you aren't going to require a 400 2.8 lens to cover soccer. They play on very small fields and tend to be all over the place. For little kids, zooms are good since every kid runs all over the entire field and doesn't really play a position. Parents also usually like to stand close to the action with kids that age.

I picked up more on wanting to shoot eagles

I think the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS would be a good buy for its versatility.

rafster wrote in post #15295405
I picked up more on wanting to shoot eagles

Ah, I missed that. Eagles don't like kids' parents hanging out close to them for sure.

Young kids sports?
70-200L, 2.8 preferable if indoors. You have it already.
Kids soccer fields are very small were I'm.

If you're on a tight budget... (around $1000 US)

- Sigma 120-400 OS
- Sigma 150-500 OS.

Got a bit more to spend? ($1500-2000 US)

- Sigma 50-500 OS
- Canon 100-400 IS
- Canon 300/4 IS with a 1.4X teleconverter (best TCs are the Canon Mk II or III, or Kenko Pro 300 DGX)
- Canon 400/5.6 (note, no IS)

Got a pretty large budget to work with? (Around $3000-3500 US)

- Sigma 120-300/2.8 with a 1.4X teleconverter.
- Canon 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II with Canon 2X Mk III teleconverter

Got a relatively unlimited budget? ($4500 to over $10,000)

- Canon 300/2.8 IS MkI or II with 1.4X and/or 2X teleconverter
- Canon 400/4 DO IS
- Canon 400/2.8 IS MkI or II with 1.4X and/or 2X teleconverter
- Canon 500/4 IS MkI or II with 1.4X TC
- Canon 600/4 IS MkI or II with 1.4X TC
- Canon 800/5.6 IS
- Canon 200-400/4 IS (built in 1.4X teleconverter, not yet available or priced, but likely to cost $10K to $13K)

The 70-200 is almost too long on my 50D at our small U4 soccer fields. It should be perfect when coupled with a 5D.

Zweihaender wrote in post #15297084
I do not have a 400mm f2.8, but I would definitey prefer it over my 300mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.0 for football. I think the focal length depends on the football position. You want your son to look into the lens, therefore:

Striker: 70-200mm (shooting from behind the goal line of the opposition)
Midfielder: 300mm (shooting from any of the four pitch lines)
Defender: 400mm, 500mm (shooting from behind the goal line of the opposition)

You realize he's shooting a 3.5 year old, right? Have you ever watched kids that age play soccer? Its a very small field and more of a herd running around that anything else. I completely agree with your advice if he was about 10 years older.