Which long telephoto lens for young kids?

i'd say you've got a solid 3-4 years before your son outgrows the 70-200mm f2.8 IS...a 300mm f2.8 could easily be too long for much of the action when they're young...we're talking a tiny field here, or at least in California

Thank you all for the excellent feedback.

convergent wrote in post #15294629
You do realize the 200-400 will likely cost $xx,xxx, right?
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 have a contact with knowledge of Canon's intended pricing and I've been told it will land in Canada somewhere between $12K and $14K, so yes, I am aware of the price range. I'm not interested in a crop body to be honest.

watt100 wrote in post #15294963
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

Great shot, but I'm not really interested in the 100-400. The only lenses on my shortlist are the 300, 400 and 200-400. I'm aware of the cost, weight, etc., but I've often regretted underbuying but I've never regretted overbuying. I've never had a chance to try the 100-400, but the speed kind of turns me off.

bobbyz wrote in post #15294993
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.

I'm waiting for the next big megapixel camera. If it takes too long, I might end up with a 1Dx or even a Nikon body and a couple of lenses. I totally agree that my body is a bit of a bottleneck right now given the crappy AF.
So are you saying that if money was no object, you would rather go with a 300 and 400 combination rather than a 200-400 and one of the 300/400 lenses? Can you please elaborate? I'm starting to think I will end up with two of the big telephoto lenses but I'm hoping to just go with one...for starters anyways.

rafster wrote in post #15295120
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

Can you please explain? I'm leaning towards the 300 and the 200-400. The 400 seems somewhat limited because of the fixed length. 400 is likely too long to use for any indoor application but please correct me if you believe otherwise.

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

LOL. Kind of. I definitely want reach for those odd moments, but I have to think it would only be a couple or a few times a year. I'm not a big fan of renting so...

kf095 wrote in post #15295653
Young kids sports?
70-200L, 2.8 preferable if indoors. You have it already.
Kids soccer fields are very small were I'm.

Thank you for the feedback. I believe the 70-200 would be long enough for most soccer shots, but I've found that even in my backyard, 200 is sometimes not long enough.

Zweihaender wrote in post #15297084
300mm f2.8 + 1D3

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)

Excellent information. I don't imagine Canon will replace any of these lenses within 10 years, so I'm happy to spend the money now so that I can at least get some use (planes, birds) as my kids get older.

You should buy both the 500mm and 600mm.

SunTsu wrote in post #15294509
Thoughts?

Will you be able to tell the age of kids? This will help to narrow the choice.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15298941
Will you be able to tell the age of kids? This will help to narrow the choice.

3.5 year old boy
I'm thinking soccer, hockey, etc.

2 year old girl
Gymnastics, theater, maybe soccer, etc.

Eagles
I still want a long lens to use for nature, etc.

There's been a few times where I've just wished I had a longer lens. My back yard, my friend's boat...

I know this is the minority viewpoint here but I suggest that since you are shooting FF, get the 400 f/2.8L IS II or wait for the 200-400 1.4TC lens. 400mm is not too long. There is no finer use for a fast super-telephoto than taking pictures of little kids. The distracting backgrounds disappear, your subjects 'pop', and those little expressive faces win the day. When I shoot t-ball with a 400, some will think I'm crazy until the magnificent images are seen and appreciated. Then they know why the big lens is used. Check my gear list and you will see I have plenty of choices of lenses. My best keepers are with the 400 (I've owned the previous version and the new IS II).

Go long my friend. 400 or more. Heck, the new 500 is easily hand holdable if you can tolerate f/4.0. BTW, the 400 IS II plus a 1.4 TC III is very good way to get to 560 f/4.0 for those eagles.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1064855

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1250806

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1226055

Phil

SunTsu wrote in post #15298444
Great shot, but I'm not really interested in the 100-400. The only lenses on my shortlist are the 300, 400 and 200-400. I'm aware of the cost, weight, etc., but I've often regretted underbuying but I've never regretted overbuying. I've never had a chance to try the 100-400, but the speed kind of turns me off.

Since you didn't reply to any of my comments, I'll make one last one. You clearly have a lot of money to spend and want the absolute best lenses you can possibly own. Anyone talking about buying the 200-400 at $xx,xxx to shoot a 3.5 year old playing sports, has a "money is no object" mentality.

So I would suggest buying the 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 and TC 1.4x III and TC 2x III teleconverters. I had a similar kit to this when shooting sports and found it to be very flexible for shooting all levels of sports and wildlife (albeit a little heavy for some wildlife outings). The 1.4 TC on the 200 gives you the 300 f/2.8 IS, and on the 400 gives you similar to the 600 f/4. I can even show you some great wildlife shots where I stacked the 1.4x and 2x TCs to get ultra long focal lengths.

All of that said, before you spend all this money, why not rent a couple of these lenses to try so you can see what you like. These lenses are a huge commitment, and its not just the lens that you are buying. I found that when I bought my 400 2.8, I spend about $1000 more just on accessories. You will need bigger and better tripods, monopods, ballheads, brackets, plates, gimbal heads, cases, etc.. You will also need to learn new technique to master shooting with the big guns. Some people like these big heavy beasts and some do not. Some people like having everyone at a soccer game staring at you and some don't. If you whip out one of these lenses, anyone in sight of you will suddenly be fixated on what you are doing, and why are you there taking pictures of their kids. And finally, and especially with very young subjects, you will almost certainly want a second body with the 70-200 hanging on your shoulder for when the action comes a lot closer to you.

Good luck with your shopping... there are a lot of choices and everyone will have different opinions.

That's good advice. Be aware that you will want a body that focuses fast and precise to take advantage of any of these long lenses.

Zivnuska wrote in post #15299138
That's good advice. Be aware that you will want a body that focuses fast and precise to take advantage of any of these long lenses.

Yep, forgot about that... his bodies aren't exactly the cat's meow for action shooting.

On the short list should be 1DX, 5D3, used 1D4, or 7D... probably in that order based on willingness to spend $$$$. The middle 2 are where I was at and settled on the 5D3 for better AF. Given his existing 5D affinity, a 5D3 (gripped) is probably a great choice.

Zivnuska wrote in post #15299070
I know this is the minority viewpoint here but I suggest that since you are shooting FF, get the 400 f/2.8L IS II or wait for the 200-400 1.4TC lens. 400mm is not too long. There is no finer use for a fast super-telephoto than taking pictures of little kids. The distracting backgrounds disappear, your subjects 'pop', and those little expressive faces win the day. When I shoot t-ball with a 400, some will think I'm crazy until the magnificent images are seen and appreciated. Then they know why the big lens is used. Check my gear list and you will see I have plenty of choices of lenses. My best keepers are with the 400 (I've owned the previous version and the new IS II).

Go long my friend. 400 or more. Heck, the new 500 is easily hand holdable if you can tolerate f/4.0. BTW, the 400 IS II plus a 1.4 TC III is very good way to get to 560 f/4.0 for those eagles.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1064855

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1250806

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1226055
Phil

Those are amazing shots. The colours in the second set are insane. If I can get shots like the ones in the first set, I would be extremely pleased. After seeing your shots, I'm worried that my expectations will be unrealistic as you're obviously a very experienced (and likely professional) photographer.

May I ask where you were positioned for the first set of T-ball photos? i.e. How close were you to the action to get that framing and were any of those shots cropped?

If I'm just getting one of the three lenses, it sounds like your vote is for the 400mm f/2.8. You might have me convinced.

I'd also love your opinion on the 200-400. If I wait for that, I'm hoping to only have to spend on that one lens. If however, I want a lens now, assuming I will get the 200-400 later, which of the 300/400 do you feel is a better complement?

SunTsu wrote in post #15299226
May I ask where you were positioned for the first set of T-ball photos? i.e. How close were you to the action to get that framing and were any of those shots cropped?

If I'm just getting one of the three lenses, it sounds like your vote is for the 400mm f/2.8. You might have me convinced.

I'd also love your opinion on the 200-400. If I wait for that, I'm hoping to only have to spend on that one lens. If however, I want a lens now, assuming I will get the 200-400 later, which of the 300/400 do you feel is a better complement?

I was perhaps 10 yards beyond first base, sitting on the ground, and using a monopod. Those t-ball shots were with a 1D Mark IV so there is the 1.3 crop factor to consider as well (the football shots were with the 1D X). Convergent is correct to mention that there is an adjustment period when you move to a super-telephoto so you will have to be patient with yourself for a while but don't worry. Suffer through a few games where you have a low keeper rate and the payoff will be worth it. Convergent is also right about the body choices that will keep up with the lens.

As far as the 400 f/2.8 vs the 200-400, there are lots of pros and amateur photogs who are dealing with the same dilemma as you are. I also was considering the 200-400 and just gave up on it. In my case, I had a buyer for my old 400, wanted f/2.8 and needed to make my purchase before the end of the year for tax reasons. That zoom may be terrific and revolutionize sports shooting but I couldn't wait to find out.

Note: Some shots were taken behind home plate through the chain link fence.

Phil

convergent wrote in post #15299093
Since you didn't reply to any of my comments, I'll make one last one. You clearly have a lot of money to spend and want the absolute best lenses you can possibly own. Anyone talking about buying the 200-400 at $xx,xxx to shoot a 3.5 year old playing sports, has a "money is no object" mentality.

So I would suggest buying the 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 and TC 1.4x III and TC 2x III teleconverters. I had a similar kit to this when shooting sports and found it to be very flexible for shooting all levels of sports and wildlife (albeit a little heavy for some wildlife outings). The 1.4 TC on the 200 gives you the 300 f/2.8 IS, and on the 400 gives you similar to the 600 f/4. I can even show you some great wildlife shots where I stacked the 1.4x and 2x TCs to get ultra long focal lengths.

All of that said, before you spend all this money, why not rent a couple of these lenses to try so you can see what you like. These lenses are a huge commitment, and its not just the lens that you are buying. I found that when I bought my 400 2.8, I spend about $1000 more just on accessories. You will need bigger and better tripods, monopods, ballheads, brackets, plates, gimbal heads, cases, etc.. You will also need to learn new technique to master shooting with the big guns. Some people like these big heavy beasts and some do not. Some people like having everyone at a soccer game staring at you and some don't. If you whip out one of these lenses, anyone in sight of you will suddenly be fixated on what you are doing, and why are you there taking pictures of their kids. And finally, and especially with very young subjects, you will almost certainly want a second body with the 70-200 hanging on your shoulder for when the action comes a lot closer to you.

Good luck with your shopping... there are a lot of choices and everyone will have different opinions.

Convergent, thank you for the advice. My lack of reply was in no way a reflection of the value of your feedback.
I wouldn't say money is no object, but the "best lens(es) I can buy" logic is probably accurate. This might not be the right place for this discussion, but I just want to make sure I capture the best images and files (given the constraint on my talent) possible for my kids. I didn't grow up with a whole ton of photos so maybe it's more an issue for me than my kids. I know I'm lucky to have the opportunity to buy the gear, but it's more about making sure I don't leave anything on the table.

<Flame suit on> I hate renting things. It's funny you should mention the required accessories. Over the Black Friday shopping weekend, I bought a whole bunch of accessories for big glass including a Wimberley Head, the F-9 flash arm, a big telephoto bag, a new monopod bag, and a bunch of other stuff. I already have a Gitzo 3 series tripod which I think will be enough.

The technique is certainly one thing I assume will have a steep learning curve for me, but I'm willing to learn.

I definitely do not like the attention of pulling out a big lens at any young sporting event. I've previously posted asking how people manage the comments and stares and as much as I try to ignore it, it makes me very self conscious. It actually "embarrasses" my wife whenever I bring my gear out. My kids current soccer instructor suggested to me a few classes ago to leave my camera at home because he was afraid it made my son self conscious. I don't know for sure about cause-effect, but it seemed to help his attention to the game. Because of some political support I provided to the Parks Group, the instructor is on very good terms with me now so he's been very good to "encourage" the camera and to provide advice on how to be non-obtrusive. Needless to say, I am very self-conscious and aware of the potential obnoxiousness of a big lens but am trying to manage it.

convergent wrote in post #15299161
Yep, forgot about that... his bodies aren't exactly the cat's meow for action shooting.

On the short list should be 1DX, 5D3, used 1D4, or 7D... probably in that order based on willingness to spend $$$$. The middle 2 are where I was at and settled on the 5D3 for better AF. Given his existing 5D affinity, a 5D3 (gripped) is probably a great choice.

LOL. I haven't been one to shy away from complaining about the AF on the 5D and 5D II. The only thing stopping me from getting the 5D III is the resolution and the hope for a pro-bodied high megapixel camera. If the 1Dx had a tiny bit more resolution, it would have been my next camera. This is probably not the right place to get into that, so I'll leave that as is. However, I'm fully in agreement that my body's AF is a bottleneck.

I would say, min 300mmf 2.8. Not sure which fields most folks shoot but realize kids are small and 300mm on FF is not much. So for starters I will say 300mm f2.8 IS. And it is lot more easier to manage than 400mm f2.8 IS. The newer IS II versions of the 300/400mm f2.8 are lighter still but almost twice the money.

Also what is the problem with 22MP? How big you printing? Most sports guys print 16x20 with older 8MP bodies.

Regarding big lens/camera. Forget what other says. For kids soccer, I would take my 500mm f4 for day games and shoot from behind the goal lines. No players notice you. 400mm f2.8 would be my min for soccer on FF.

When I first started shooting sports, it was of my daughter's teams in 7th grade. I was very self-conscious about shooting with the "Huge" 70-200 lens. Now, 6 years later, if I don't have a 300 or 400 with me, people wonder why I didn't bring my camera. Get one tight shot of each kid on the team, give away a 4 x 6 print to each Mom and soon enough they will be asking you to shoot their kid and wondering how they can buy your pictures.

The opportunity to know the friends of your children and spend time with them through the years has been priceless to me. My daughter is now a senior in high school. It will be a very happy/sad day to see these young women graduate.

BTW, if anyone still asks about the lens, I just laugh and say the bigger the toy, the more the guy is compensating! I let them look through the viewfinder to see what that's like. It's all cool. No worries.

Phil

SunTsu wrote in post #15299309
I definitely do not like the attention of pulling out a big lens at any young sporting event. I've previously posted asking how people manage the comments and stares and as much as I try to ignore it, it makes me very self conscious.

Last spring was my first experience shooting youth soccer. I had the only white lens at the game and was definitely "noticed" by everyone in attendance. At the next game I gave a 4X6 print to a parent of each player on our (my great nephew) child's team. This gave me an opportunity to meet the parents and let them know why I was at the games. My photos must have been better than their cell phone shots - they really appreciated them. I am now a regular at the games and there has never been a problem.

Arrive early: My best photos come during practice/training time before the game begins. That is when I can isolate the kids and get something that is better than the "mass confusion" shots during their games.