Lens question

So I recently picked up a used 1d3 to upgrade from my 50d. So far I'm loving it. Awesome upgrade--especially for the price.

Anyway, as you know the 50d is a full crop body and the 1d3 isn't a full crop but isn't a full frame. So I'm losing reach. It is a good thing for shooting basketball as I can now shoot it with my 70-200 just fine. However, shot my first baseball action yesterday. I don't have a long lens (just the 70-200) so I would only shoot the infield (this is kids' baseball) as I had enough reach on the 50d. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with the 1d3. Yes I can just crop the image but I prefer to crop less.

So that leads me to where I've been heading for a while...a longer lens.

I don't have $6k-$7k to drop on a 400mm although I'd love to get one. I just don't make enough money shooting sports to justify spending that much. I've been looking at the 100-400L but I worry about the glass not being fast enough for night games.

So wondering what others have done in my situation--needing longer glass but not having a TON of money to spend on it. I do sell my work so it needs to provide excellent IQ. What other glass is good for sports shooting that won't break the bank?

Oh, I can scrounge up $2kish and I'm not opposed to buying used from reputable people.

Thanks.

I don't shoot sports, but do shoot wildlife and have the same dilemma. Unfortunately, long, fast and cheap do not seem to go together especially in a zoom. The 100-400 is great in good light but as you said, f/5.6 on the long end isn't all that fast. Siggy I believes makes a 120-300 f/2.8 but it's way more than 2k and I have no experience with the lens so can't comment. There are a few f/2.8 long primes but they are gonna cost. The f/4 primes are cheaper but not all that must faster than the 100-400. So, why not just go with the 100-400 and bump the ISO when needed?

If your budget can handle it, get yourself a used 300 f/2.8. It is an extremely versatile lens on a 1.3 FOVCF body. I thought I knew what sharp was until I got the 300. It will handle your infield baseball needs, work well for football, volleyball, and can even work basketball for shots at the opposite end of the court.

If you do decide you need more length, the 300 f/2.8 will handle a 1.4 x TC very well and produce excellent images. Additionally, by purchasing it used, you can expect little to no depreciation in the future should you ever need to sell it to get that 400 you spoke of.

Zivnuska wrote in post #15594133
If your budget can handle it, get yourself a used 300 f/2.8. It is an extremely versatile lens on a 1.3 FOVCF body. I thought I knew what sharp was until I got the 300. It will handle your infield baseball needs, work well for football, volleyball, and can even work basketball for shots at the opposite end of the court.

If you do decide you need more length, the 300 f/2.8 will handle a 1.4 x TC very well and produce excellent images. Additionally, by purchasing it used, you can expect little to no depreciation in the future should you ever need to sell it to get that 400 you spoke of.
2.jpg[/IMG]

This is something I've kicked around but haven't priced on used in a while. What do they (generally) go for used?

I'm going to be trying out the 1.4x TC that a friend of mine has (on my 70-200) as I've been thinking about picking one up for quite some time now to use on the 70-200 anyway. I've heard the 2.0x isn't as sharp? Also, how much light do I lose when using a TC?

gjl711 wrote in post #15593741
I don't shoot sports, but do shoot wildlife and have the same dilemma. Unfortunately, long, fast and cheap do not seem to go together especially in a zoom. The 100-400 is great in good light but as you said, f/5.6 on the long end isn't all that fast. Siggy I believes makes a 120-300 f/2.8 but it's way more than 2k and I have no experience with the lens so can't comment. There are a few f/2.8 long primes but they are gonna cost. The f/4 primes are cheaper but not all that must faster than the 100-400. So, why not just go with the 100-400 and bump the ISO when needed?

If I go the 100-400 route, that's exactly what I'll do. I've been able to shoot at 6400 ISO on the 1d3 with extremely good results. Not sure if that'll be fast enough on a dark baseball field though knowing I could be at f5.6 or smaller.

GadgetRick wrote in post #15594217
This is something I've kicked around but haven't priced on used in a while. What do they (generally) go for used?

About $2500us

Hi. I have a similar dilemma. My decision is work with what I have, shoot the action in the part of the pitch I am in and just concentrate on getting the best pics I can. If it means I need to move periodically during a game then I can. The investment of even more money is not an option.

GadgetRick wrote in post #15594217
This is something I've kicked around but haven't priced on used in a while. What do they (generally) go for used?

I'm going to be trying out the 1.4x TC that a friend of mine has (on my 70-200) as I've been thinking about picking one up for quite some time now to use on the 70-200 anyway. I've heard the 2.0x isn't as sharp? Also, how much light do I lose when using a TC?

As mentioned, about $2,500 for the non IS. Adding a 1.4x TC loses one stop (makes it 420mm f/4.0) with minimal loss of sharpness. Using the 2.0x TC loses two stops (600mm f/5.6) and reduces the sharpness and focus speed a bit.

The newer IS version is closer to $4k. The IS II is much more.

Zivnuska wrote in post #15594840
As mentioned, about $2,500 for the non IS. Adding a 1.4x TC loses one stop (makes it 420mm f/4.0) with minimal loss of sharpness. Using the 2.0x TC loses two stops (600mm f/5.6) and reduces the sharpness and focus speed a bit.

The newer IS version is closer to $4k. The IS II is much more.

Thanks for the info. Very helpful. I have the non-IS 70-200 as I would turn it off when shooting sports anyway. I use the 70-200 for some portrait shoots but I never shoot at a low enough shutter speed for not having IS to be an issue. However, I know the longer I go the more IS can help.

Well, guess I've gotta save my pennies...

Rick....I just bought a 300mm f/2.8 (non is) a couple of months ago for $2800. I probably paid a little extra for it, but it's in excellent shape and I bought it through a well-known internet-based dealer of used camera gear. I haven't used it too much yet, but....so far so good. It's a great lens, and I think you'll like it.

I bought a 400mm 2.8 non-IS from KEH and it was awesome. Take a look and see what they have to offer.

Yeah, just saving my pennies and I'll probably go with a 300mm. If I can swing a 400mm that's what I'd prefer. We'll see how finances go. Depends on what kind of spring I have.

GadgetRick wrote in post #15593679
So I recently picked up a used 1d3 to upgrade from my 50d. So far I'm loving it. Awesome upgrade--especially for the price.

Anyway, as you know the 50d is a full crop body and the 1d3 isn't a full crop but isn't a full frame. So I'm losing reach. It is a good thing for shooting basketball as I can now shoot it with my 70-200 just fine. However, shot my first baseball action yesterday. I don't have a long lens (just the 70-200) so I would only shoot the infield (this is kids' baseball) as I had enough reach on the 50d. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with the 1d3. Yes I can just crop the image but I prefer to crop less.

So that leads me to where I've been heading for a while...a longer lens.

I don't have $6k-$7k to drop on a 400mm although I'd love to get one. I just don't make enough money shooting sports to justify spending that much. I've been looking at the 100-400L but I worry about the glass not being fast enough for night games.

So wondering what others have done in my situation--needing longer glass but not having a TON of money to spend on it. I do sell my work so it needs to provide excellent IQ. What other glass is good for sports shooting that won't break the bank?

Oh, I can scrounge up $2kish and I'm not opposed to buying used from reputable people.Thanks.

Sports images from a Tamron 70-300mm optical stabilizer lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Canon=Nike lol

DC Fan wrote in post #15596230
The Tamron lens is the least expensive 70-300mm stabilized lens. In actual use at real events, it's been proven to be very useful in capturing sports action, as shown above.


Now, if you're really interested in night action, you'll need to spend far more. The industry standard Canon 400 mm f/2.8 IS lens costs over US $11,000.

I know I'll need something faster for evening shooting. The Tamron doesn't look sharp enough for what I'm doing. The only non-Canon long lenses I've seen which even come close enough are some of the Sigmas. I'll be saving for Canon glass even though it's more expensive. I've just found it's very much worth it for the times I've compared.