Decent Lacrosse lens

Any recommendations? My stepson made the Lacrosse team. I have an older Canon 80-200 with a Kenko 1.4 but I'm not sure if that is going to get me close enough to get decent 8.5 by 11 prints. The IQ on the lens is pretty good by itself but when I couple it to the 1.4 it gets soft after about 180 mm and the IQ suffers. Got the OK to go to about $1400 from the accountant.

Probably either the 100-400L or 70-300L? I shot some Lacrosse last weekend with my Tamron 70-300 and was ok shooting from behind one of the goals. I've been thinking of getting a Kenko 1.4 with that to pair and also a 135L for indoor or outdoor with the 1.4 depending on the sport. The Tamron's ok in really bright light to 200 (the Canon's are much sharper) and not terrific after 200. Having shot with it for a couple of years I probably (and still probably will) upgrade to the Canon 70-300L version. The extra 100 though with the 100-400 will probably be really useful though!

Are you using one of these with a 1.4x extender?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Jay B wrote in post #15668108
Any recommendations? My stepson made the Lacrosse team. I have an older Canon 80-200 with a Kenko 1.4 but I'm not sure if that is going to get me close enough to get decent 8.5 by 11 prints. The IQ on the lens is pretty good by itself but when I couple it to the 1.4 it gets soft after about 180 mm and the IQ suffers. Got the OK to go to about $1400 from the accountant.

The 55-250IS will get you some good LAX shots, try using that lens.
the Canon 100-400 is better.

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
250mm f6.3 1/1600

Now that Sigma's 100-300/4 is discontinued, the problem here is that any zoom that reaches 300mm is either a slow 5.6 variety or well beyond your budget such as the new 200-400/4 L or the Sigma 120-300/2.8. It would be nice if Sigma brought back the 100-300/4 with OS. In outdoor sports, the 5.6 is probably fast enough, but still gives too much DOF and not enough blur unless you are really framing tight.

Until then, seeing that you already have a 1.4 TC, I would get one of the 70-200/2.8 options. This would keep you at f4 with the extender. I am thinking either the Canon 70-200/2.8 non IS or maybe the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS.

If 280-300 is still too short, then the 100-400 is your huckleberry.

tkbslc wrote in post #15668631
Are you using one of these with a 1.4x extender?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Just trying to figure out what we are comparing to.

If that is the case, why aren't you using your 55-250?

Yes I'm using it on one of those.
I bought the extender to use with my 55-250 and didn't know that the extender I bought would not work with EF-S lenses. I bought it through AAFES and to return it to the company that actually sent it was a royal pain so I kept it as a just in case it works on something I bought later.

For under $1000 you can get the Sigma 120-400 OS. Or, for just over $1000, the Sigma 150-500 OS. Those two would be near the top of my shopping list, if it were me.

Assuming most lacrosse is played during daytime, with reasonably good light, these would be fine on your 50D. They don't work well with teleconverters, but you will have long enough focal length in the lens alone that a TC shouldn't be needed.

The Canon 100-400 IS is another lens that would work well, but normally sells for a bit more than your authorized budget. It is currently on sale for $1450, though... so wouldn't stretch your wallet too much. This is unique in that it's a push/pull zoom, which some people love, others of us really don't like. It's fast operating, but personally I always found it more difficult to get a steady shot with a push/pull zoom. The IS offered with this lens might help with that, though. The Canon 100-400 is an older design now... both the Sigmas above are much newer and supposedly have better stabilization. As to image quality, IMO the Sigmas are a little lower contrast and give slightly lower color saturation... but both of those are adjustable in post processing. The Canon is a little more compact than the Sigmas.

The Canon 400/5.6 is within your budget, and would likely be the sharpest possible choice, but doesn't have IS, so you might want a tripod or at least a monopod. To be fair, you might want one anyway since most of these lenses can get pretty heavy after a while. Even on a tripod or monopod, and shooting sports where you may want to use higher shutter speeds to freeze the action, IS can be very nice to have. It will definitely make possible some shots you might not get otherwise (note: Sigma's OS is essentially the same as Canon's IS). Perhaps more importantly, this prime lens only gives you a single focal length to work with, doesn't have near the versatility of a zoom, which can be very handy when tracking subjects at various distances around a playing field.

For handheld shooting I use a Canon 300/4 IS with and without a Canon 1.4X II. This gives me two very usable focal lengths. Bought new, the lens along is a bit more than your budget, but if you considered used you can find one for considerably less (I paid $900 for mine, used but "like new"). The teleconverter adds another $250 or so cost. I've recently seen info about the new Kenko MC4 1.4X DGX that makes that TC, at $150, appear to be a very good alternative. Lenses might not focus as quickly with a third party TC, though. I haven't tried it, so can't say for certain.

The Canon EF-S 55-250 IS which you already have is - as I'm sure you know - quite inexpensive, compact, gives darned good image quality for the money and has IS, but doesn't have fast/accurate USM focus that can be important tracking and shooting sports/action and really doesn't increase your reach very much over the 80-200 you already have.

There are several Canon 70-300mm models. I don't use any of these, but would suggest at least the latest version with IS and USM that sells for about $650 (not the cheaper 75-300 without USM). There is also a 70-300 IS USM DO, a very compact lens... I know one sports photographer using one but haven't used it myself. The DO costs close to your budget.

It's a lot larger, but quite good optically, the Canon 75-300mm "L" IS USM is currently on sale for right at your budget: $1400. There are some sports photographers using it, too. Normally it's a $1600 lens.

A more recent 70-200/4 IS plus a 1.4X teleconverter also might be within your budget (the lens is currently on sale). Great lens, a real workhorse. But this combo only gets you to an effective 280mm, so isn't a very big improvement over your current setup.

Pretty much any of the above is going to give you better IQ than you are seeing with your 80-200 and 1.4X combo. I suspect most of them will give you faster and more accurate focus, too. The only zooms Canon recommends using with a teleconverter are their 70-200s.

In order to use a 2X teleconverter with any 70-200mm, to get to an effective 400mm, you basically would need to go to an f2.8 lens which are bigger, heavier and more expensive. With most combos the hit to image quality is too great to make them worthwhile. The Canon 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark II" and the Canon 2X "Mark III" do work together a lot better than most. But the cost for this particular lens and teleconverter combo is way, way more than your budget.

You will need something in the 300mm+ range for large-field sports such as lacrosse.

200mm is going to really limit what you can capture even on a 1.4 sensor.

I use the 100-400L for daytime field sports. It's hard to beat for versatility and reach.

Jay B wrote in post #15668837
Yes I'm using it on one of those.
I bought the extender to use with my 55-250 and didn't know that the extender I bought would not work with EF-S lenses. I bought it through AAFES and to return it to the company that actually sent it was a royal pain so I kept it as a just in case it works on something I bought later.

Well have you compared it with the 55-250 alone? 200mm with an f1.4 is just giving you 280mm f8 anyway (and killing AF performance since 50D was designed for max of f5.6 lens) so 250mm f5.6 is likely going to be MUCH better in terms of AF speed, accuracy and sharpness (and only a hair shorter.)

100-400L is probably the best answer, but I'd hate to see you spend money before you've at least given the 55-250 a run at Lacrosse to see if it will work.

Ampoto1 and everyone else. Thanks for the information. I think I have made my choice.

tkbslc....What do you mean the 50D was designed for a max of 5.6 lens?

Jay B wrote in post #15671545
tkbslc....What do you mean the 50D was designed for a max of 5.6 lens?

The AF system in all Canon bodies (except the 1D series) was designed to work with a minimum aperture of f5.6. It is expecting at least that much light to work properly. When you add a TC to a f5.6 lens, the maximum aperture becomes f8, which is letting in less light than the AF sensor expects.

This doesn't mean you can't AF if you are using Av mode with f11 on an f5.6 lens, because the lens opens up to max aperture to focus and then closes back just to take the picture.

Also, TCs make lenses softer, as you've discovered.