Apr 04, 2015 10:06 | #1 I currently have a 70-200L II, but I'm looking for something with a bit more reach for baseball. Sure, I can crop the images of the 5D3 down to get the zoom I want, but I'd prefer not to. EOS R, RF50L , RF28-70L, 5D Mark IV, 16-35LII, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L II, 100-400L II, 600ex-RT
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 04, 2015 10:54 | #3 Also a 1.4 TC or a 300/4 IS I guess 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 |
Apr 04, 2015 11:05 | #4  Permanent ban7D. WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 04, 2015 13:03 | #5 How about 70-300L? Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 04, 2015 13:30 | #6 SCMedic wrote in post #17504181  I currently have a 70-200L II, but I'm looking for something with a bit more reach for baseball. Sure, I can crop the images of the 5D3 down to get the zoom I want, but I'd prefer not to. Suggestions? Thinking 100-400L II, but I'd love something cheaper. Open to other suggestions as well. Thanks! Actual baseball images from EF-mount zoom lenses.  on photobucketThen a Tamron 70-300mm VC lens. With each lens, if the photographer has the action properly framed, good results will follow.  on photobucket
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 04, 2015 15:37 | #7 The 70-300 is an option, but it very closely resembles the superior 70-200 2.8L II. EOS R, RF50L , RF28-70L, 5D Mark IV, 16-35LII, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L II, 100-400L II, 600ex-RT
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cicopo Goldmember  More info | Apr 04, 2015 21:23 | #8 Downside is adjusting to the push / pull. I shoot radio control flying events with one & have for years. Not switching to ver 2. A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 05, 2015 08:46 | #9 cicopo wrote in post #17504725 Downside is adjusting to the push / pull. I shoot radio control flying events with one & have for years. Not switching to ver 2. Good to know. Didn't know, aside from the zoom on the V2, if there was any other huge upside to the extra $1200 bucks! EOS R, RF50L , RF28-70L, 5D Mark IV, 16-35LII, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L II, 100-400L II, 600ex-RT
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ScottM Goldmember More info | Apr 05, 2015 09:21 | #10 SCMedic wrote in post #17505061 Good to know. Didn't know, aside from the zoom on the V2, if there was any other huge upside to the extra $1200 bucks!  The mk II has improved image quality, a huge improvement in image stabilization, and improved auto focus performance. That being said, the original version is quite a bargain at the current used prices. I actually preferred the push/pull zoom of the original version, too.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MBB89 Senior Member 257 posts Likes: 49 Joined Jan 2015 More info | Apr 07, 2015 12:29 | #11 I typically shoot sports with 1D Mark IV + 70-200 II. If I needed reach I would go for the 1.4TC first rather than a new lens. 70-200 II + 1.4TC = 118-280 f/4 -- not too different from any other zoom in this range.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I picked up a mint 100-400 to give it a shot (Dad joke). I'll likely grab a TC too, since I love the 70-200. EOS R, RF50L , RF28-70L, 5D Mark IV, 16-35LII, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L II, 100-400L II, 600ex-RT
LOG IN TO REPLY |
King22 Member 60 posts Likes: 6 Joined Dec 2013 Location: San Diego More info | Apr 08, 2015 05:10 | #13 Was able to get a press/field pass for a professional soccer game in mexico last week. Bought a tamron 70-300 VC its sharp and the AF is very fast. The only focusing issues I had were my lack of experience with my camera's AF system as well as it was my first time shooting a soccer game which can be tricky. You can probably find one on CL for about $275-375, but I think its worth the new price tag. 7D| Σ 50mm f/1.4 | 24-105 L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MikeG2012 Senior Member More info | Apr 09, 2015 18:48 | #14 If you shoot in low light, then I highly suggest the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport. I used one and it was fantastic! You can always throw on a TC and still have a lower aperture than the 100-400 while attaining the reach. I used one with the Canon 1.4 and 2.0 TCs and was floored by the performance. Mike Glatzer Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MalVeauX "Looks rough and well used"  More info | Apr 09, 2015 19:07 | #15 SCMedic wrote in post #17504181 I currently have a 70-200L II, but I'm looking for something with a bit more reach for baseball. Sure, I can crop the images of the 5D3 down to get the zoom I want, but I'd prefer not to. Suggestions? Thinking 100-400L II, but I'd love something cheaper. Open to other suggestions as well. Thanks! Heya,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is AlainPre 1722 guests, 144 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
