Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Apr 2014 (Wednesday) 15:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .

 
phantelope
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NorCal
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:26 |  #16

I'd go with the f4 or the Tamron. I'm not into sports (and luckily my kids aren't either) but I shoot a lot at school and never needed f2.8, I'm usually somewhere between f5 and 11. You'll save money and won't show up with a huge and very heavy lens that won't really fit well into any bag with the rest of what you might have


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:33 as a reply to  @ phantelope's post |  #17

Warning sidebar:

What ever happened to the Tokina 70-200/4 they announced over a year ago?

http://www.dpreview.co​m …4mm-f4-dx-lenses-at-cp%2B (external link)


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cicopo
Goldmember
Avatar
3,485 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Likes: 525
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:33 |  #18

No one seems to have mentioned that certain lenses (most of which are Canon L's) have a focus limiting switch which when used speeds up the AF process. When a lens looses focus it hunts through it's full range (close to far & back again). With the limiter switch you change the close point out a ways so the cycle is reduced. It's a desirable feature for action work.


A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgs
Goldmember
Avatar
2,328 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Likes: 992
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
     
Apr 02, 2014 21:29 |  #19

I have the Tamron 70-300 and like it very much. That said. I would not go from the 55-250 to the 70-300. You would gain only 50mm on the long end (insignificant) and a slight increase in optical and build quality.

If you want to go 70-300 (more than enough reach for kids sports), I would get the Canon L 70-300. It's the only 70-300 that is better than the Tamy and about the same size - it's very compact for a 300mm lens and smaller than the 70-200s and (obviously) the 100-400. And only a little over your $1000 mark - buy a refurb or used.


Canon 7d MkII, Canon 50D, Pentax 67, Canon 30D, Baker Custom 4x5, Canon EF 24-104mm f4, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC

The Singular Image (external link)Richard Smith Photography (external link)
Richard Smith Real Estate Photography (external link)500PX (external link)
Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Apr 03, 2014 07:46 |  #20

How about a Sigma 100-300/4 (with or without 1,4x TC) on a monopod?


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TJays
Goldmember
Avatar
1,310 posts
Likes: 118
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles USA
     
Apr 03, 2014 08:04 |  #21

Don't underestimate the older Canon 35-350mm L in outdoor lighting. I still enjoy the results I get with mine. They can be had for $1000. and under, just another choice to consider, there are a lot of good lens for your price range used.
Good luck with your choice.


Regards
Terri Jean

5D4 Gripped-EOS 1DX Markll -600mm/4.0 II L-35-350mm/3.5 L-70-200/2.8 L-24-70mm/2.8 L-85mm/1.2 II L-50mm/1.2 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Asroma
Member
121 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Singapore
     
Apr 03, 2014 08:23 |  #22

35-350mm or 28-300mm is a heavy but good L lens


Gear list| Canon 5d mk ii, Canon 40D 17-40 F4 L, 35 1.4 L, 85 1.8, 100 macro 2.8, 135 F2 L, 70-200 F4, 580 EX II
My Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/​photos/56983240@N03/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Adharr
Senior Member
Avatar
324 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2014
Location: Arizona, United States
     
Apr 03, 2014 08:43 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

I think you have lots of good options here. You asked earlier what you give up with f/2.8 and f/4. It's really just shutter speed. You want to keep your ISO around 3200 or below, depending on your camera, (I was selling prints taken with the 1D X that were ISO 25600, so obviously 3200 is an approximation) and your shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster. Only go below 1/1000 if you are trying to do something cool like blur a pitcher's hand, or pan with a running back so the running back is in focus but all the scene is motion blurred around him. The f/2.8 makes all that a lot easier to pull off, as well as giving a nice bokeh separation of the subject from the background.


My Homepage (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cicopo
Goldmember
Avatar
3,485 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Likes: 525
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
     
Apr 03, 2014 08:49 |  #24

I own both the 35-350 & the 28-300 and the 28-300 is heavy but the 35-350 is very close in weight to the 100-400 or a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.


A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnandbentley
Senior Member
Avatar
934 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 180
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 03, 2014 12:57 |  #25

Talley wrote in post #16804838 (external link)
Just pick you up a new/refurb/used 70-200 F4 non IS. This will cost you around 500-650. This lens will completely out perform your 55-250.

If you use the lens in outdoor good light MOSTLY then you could consider something longer. Nothing wrong with the Sigma 50-500 either if your in good light.

Lots of options you don't need to go for the best.

I second the 70-200 F4 non IS as a $500 cost and a huge upgrade to what you are currently using. PLus very lightweight.


6D, Sigma 24mm f1.4 art, sigma 85 f1.4 art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,087 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 03, 2014 13:27 |  #26

johnandbentley wrote in post #16807123 (external link)
I second the 70-200 F4 non IS as a $500 cost and a huge upgrade to what you are currently using. PLus very lightweight.

And the reasoning is saying he'd like to keep it well under his budget. Looking at his gear now I don't see any reason to justify spending $1,000 right now. He'll be more than happy once he sees the images from the 70-200 F4 non IS. I know I was.

Only reason I have a 2.8 w/ IS is the fact that I do 60% of my work indoor natural light so it's much needed. If I was 75%+ outdoor good light it would not even be a question. 70-200 F4 nonIS.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:02 |  #27

All very good information and it is ALL very much appreciated. Sounds like 2.8 is not necessary. I don't do enough low-light photography - and the weight sounds like it might be an issue. The 400 might just be a bit too big and too heavy.

So - I'll look for a 70-200 f/4 - maybe a 70-300 f/4-5.6?

I found a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens locally - asking $1200.

I'd hate to buy a non-IS lens and regret it later . . .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,235 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1510
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:05 |  #28

ddk2001 wrote in post #16807429 (external link)
All very good information and it is ALL very much appreciated. Sounds like 2.8 is not necessary. I don't do enough low-light photography - and the weight sounds like it might be an issue. The 400 might just be a bit too big and too heavy.

So - I'll look for a 70-200 f/4 - maybe a 70-300 f/4-5.6?

I found a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens locally - asking $1200.

I'd hate to buy a non-IS lens and regret it later . . .

Thats not a bad option. For sports IS wont matter as shutter speeds fast enough to freeze a moving athlete generally negate the need for IS. But its a great thing to have in any longer lens and 300 is better than 200 for baseball.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:18 |  #29

I think I like the idea of having IS more than not having it.

So . . . let's say I've got these three choices (all available locally to me):

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - asking $1200 (would need tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS - asking $850 (includes tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L - asking $500 (would need tripod collar)

For mostly shooting outdoor sports - what's the best buy?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,235 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1510
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 03, 2014 15:27 |  #30

ddk2001 wrote in post #16807470 (external link)
I think I like the idea of having IS more than not having it.

So . . . let's say I've got these three choices (all available locally to me):

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - asking $1200 (would need tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS - asking $850 (includes tripod collar)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L - asking $500 (would need tripod collar)

For mostly shooting outdoor sports - what's the best buy?

We are back to how much you want to invest. You dont really need a tripod collar for the 70-200 F4. Its light enough to handhold. I love the f4IS its a sharper lens, total optical upgrade over the non IS. And then you gotta ask if the extra cash is worth it for the 70-300. You cant really make a bad choice here as all will provide great images within their range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,684 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Naturographers
1076 guests, 335 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.