another long zoom lens query

Hi folks...

i have been kicking around the idea of a tamron 150-600 for use during my son's soccer games (shooting from the stands)
today I tried out my 7d+ 70-200 and while many the focal length was ok, there were times that I was too short.

So of course, the tamron 150-600 could solve that.
the sigma 150-600 could also (though at almost double the price)
and then I was thinking of the 120-300 f2.8 Sport with and without ETs.

agreed that this is a different price point....Just buying the 1.4X and the 2.0X ETs alone would almost be 2/3 the price of the tamron....
but would I get a [much much] better output?
I would love to be able to use the lens on my 5d3...but will "settle" for my 7d.

budget: I have enough for the tamron currently, soon will have enough for the sigma 150-600, and will take about a year or so for the 120-300....

any ideas/feedback (constructive) welcome.

If you want a long lens, get a long lens. Dont mess about with Teleconverters. They sre fine for occasionsl use and 1.4x pairs nicely with some quality lenses. But if your goal is to shoot long often you are better off starting there. I won't advise you which lens, but dont discount the 100-400L as an option to consider.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17219737
If you want a long lens, get a long lens. Dont mess about with Teleconverters. They sre fine for occasionsl use and 1.4x pairs nicely with some quality lenses. But if your goal is to shoot long often tou are better off starting there. I won't advise you which lens, but dont discount the 100-400L as an option to consider.

+1. I've never liked TC's, even on some pretty good lenses. They tammy should be fine for daylight, as would the 100-400.

Get closer?

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17219698
Hi folks...

i have been kicking around the idea of a tamron 150-600 for use during my son's soccer games (shooting from the stands)
today I tried out my 7d+ 70-200 and while many the focal length was ok, there were times that I was too short.

So of course, the tamron 150-600 could solve that.
the sigma 150-600 could also (though at almost double the price)
and then I was thinking of the 120-300 f2.8 Sport with and without ETs.

agreed that this is a different price point....Just buying the 1.4X and the 2.0X ETs alone would almost be 2/3 the price of the tamron....
but would I get a [much much] better output?
I would love to be able to use the lens on my 5d3...but will "settle" for my 7d.

budget: I have enough for the tamron currently, soon will have enough for the sigma 150-600, and will take about a year or so for the 120-300....

any ideas/feedback (constructive) welcome.

Do a search in the photo section sharing here on POTN and on FM for soccer threads and the lens used
Most are not satisfied with teleconverters / extenders for action or sports pix

Out of those lens I would pick the 120-300 f2.8 but of course it cost a lot more
(maybe worth saving for!)

I use the Canon 100-400 for soccer -
( in daytime !)


60D
100-400
f5.6
iso 1600
200mm

gonzogolf wrote in post #17219737
If you want a long lens, get a long lens. Dont mess about with Teleconverters. They sre fine for occasionsl use and 1.4x pairs nicely with some quality lenses. But if your goal is to shoot long often you are better off starting there. I won't advise you which lens, but dont discount the 100-400L as an option to consider.

thanks for the response. a good point. In reagrds to TCs - maybe I just got star-struck with what Gabe was able to produce in the 120-300 sample thread. He often uses the TCs for wildlife including BIF.

And, yes, I kind of forgot about the 100-400. I liked it when I played with it in the store. So, let me revise my original list and add the 100-400. The biggest benefit that I can think is the push-pull and that it is the lightest of the bunch and of course it has excellent IQ for what it is.

timbop wrote in post #17219752
+1. I've never liked TC's, even on some pretty good lenses. They tammy should be fine for daylight, as would the 100-400.

thanks for the response. added the 100-400 for consideration. Though if I buy it...I wonder how long until the v2 comes out?!

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17219766
Get closer?

I think the opposing team might get a bit annoyed at a fanatic father hovering around the edges of the field.

watt100 wrote in post #17219771
Do a search in the photo section sharing here on POTN and on FM for soccer threads and the lens used
Most are not satisfied with teleconverters / extenders for action or sports pix

Out of those lens I would pick the 120-300 f2.8 but of course it cost a lot more
(maybe worth saving for!)

I use the Canon 100-400 for soccer -
( in daytime !)


60D
100-400
f5.6
iso 1600
200mm

thanks for the example and the personal experience. How far were you from the field when you took this? was the action on the far side or the close side of the field?
The stands in our home "stadium" are about 20 feet from the sidelines - so not so bad. About 6 feet above ground level - so it gives a decent perspective. I was just finding the limitation on mid field and further. Thanks!!

The 100-400L II will cost $2,300. (blind prediction) Still want to wait?

The 120-300 f2.8 costs more than that.
I honestly don't know which of the 4-5 lenses listed above would be the best for my stated uses.

I will look at other's soccer shots too.

I've been shooting my daughter's soccer games for a couple seasons now. 300mm gets it done for me. At that range, there are too many players in the way to get a clear shot anyway. If you have stands to sit in, longer reach may be helpful.

I shoot a lot of sports with a pair of 7Ds, usually 70-200mm on one, 300mm on the other. On rare occasion, I'll use a 1.4X on the 300mm. Can't imagine needing longer than that. More often, I'm using a shorter lens such as 24-70 or 28-135. I shoot from the sidelines. Shooting down from above in the bleachers or stands usually makes for a poor angle.

For portability, I mostly use the Canon 300/4 IS, which is about the same size and weight as a 70-200/2.8. For night games under the lights, an f2.8 lens might be necessary.... but it means putting it on a tripod, or at least a monopod. I can handhold my 300/2.8 for a few minutes, but not for a 2 or 3 hour game or full day at the races or an equestrian event. I haven't used the Sigma 120-300/2.8... but I think it's bigger and heavier than the Canon 300/2.8. It's also a great way to attract attention, carrying around a lens with a 6 inch diameter front element and a lens hood the size of a coffee can!

i think the 120-300mm even with teleconverters will serve you better than the tamron...at least from what i've seen

i don't think you'd need the TC really for soccer...unless you can't get that close to the fields

i'm intrigued by the sigma 150-600mm...i bet it'll be a good one

now that y'all bring up the possibility that 300 most likely is enough, then that brings up the possibility also of the 70-300 L IS f4
though I am not sure I want to pay that much for "just" 100mm

I don't see myself using the 300 mm prime and not even two cameras in parallel - since as one mentioned above - you kind of stand out.

the idea of the 100-400 is also starting to grow on me again.
I mean - the idea of something smaller is always welcome.
so now maybe my realistic choice is between the 100-400 and the tamron 150-600

or to forgo it all and go for the mpe! (just a small amount of humor)

Octocopter and the 5D3

I wouldn't worry too much about 'standing out'...bottom line is with any lens bigger than the 55-250mm you'll get somewhat noticed...they won't notice much of a difference between one big lens, or another

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17219944
thanks for the example and the personal experience. How far were you from the field when you took this? was the action on the far side or the close side of the field?
The stands in our home "stadium" are about 20 feet from the sidelines - so not so bad. About 6 feet above ground level - so it gives a decent perspective. I was just finding the limitation on mid field and further. Thanks!!

I was close to the sidelines but outside the ropes. To get the best shots you will need to get off the stands and get as close to the action as possible. (towards the goals)

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17220973
the idea of the 100-400 is also starting to grow on me again.
I mean - the idea of something smaller is always welcome.
so now maybe my realistic choice is between the 100-400 and the tamron 150-600
r)

Did you do a soccer search in the photo sharing section?

There are differences in "IQ", AF focusing speed, focal range, etc. and it's helpful to see what others are using. you really won't need longer than 300mm for kids sports but with larger apertures you get better background blur.

Will you use this lens for wildlife, birds, and other things ?
Will you be shooting any games at night ?

sometimes getting close and low is better than sitting in the stands


60D
Canon 100-400
f5
190mm