Seeking advice from sports shooters

I have been using a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for football so far this season and it's doing ok as long as the action is fairly close. I am wanting more reach and have been thinking about trading for a 300mm f/4 IS, and using my 550ex with it at night. Or just getting a TC for the 70-200. What do you fellow sports shooters recommend I do?

I dont like the TC on my 70-200

Is the Sigma 100-300 an option?

Otherwise the 300 f/4 will work fine with flash. Just be prepared to get the flash off camera...either underneath or above on a bracket

Forget the TC on that lens, no matter how you use it the shots will be unacceptably soft. For an emergency it can help capture a shot, but other than that it really does not work well. And only the 1.4 will attach.

My suggestion is that you save your pennies and get a used 300 2.8L. Yes I know that they are expensive, BUT you get for what you give will drastically inprove your lowlight capabilities and it is razor sharp. You don't need IS, but if you can afford it get it.

You can use the 1.4 and 2x with the 300 hundred with very little loss of IQ. Forget about the Sigma /Tamron route too. They do not focus as fast, do not resell or hold their cash value as well as a used L lens

Contact Dan Lahav / voodoo 1694. I bought my 400 from him, he a straight up good guy to do business with and often has gear for sale.

eigga wrote in post #8637670
I dont like the TC on my 70-200

Is the Sigma 100-300 an option?

Otherwise the 300 f/4 will work fine with flash. Just be prepared to get the flash off camera...either underneath or above on a bracket

I don't mess with Sigma lenses anymore (Had some issues a while back and said never again) I have been looking at the the mono pod mounted flash setups and that seems to be the way to go judging by the great pics several have posted using it. Does the TC degrade image quality on the long end that much?

LBaldwin wrote in post #8637680
Forget the TC on that lens, no matter how you use it the shots will be unacceptably soft. For an emergency it can help capture a shot, but other than that it really does not work well. And only the 1.4 will attach.

My suggestion is that you save your pennies and get a used 300 2.8L. Yes I know that they are expensive, BUT you get for what you give will drastically inprove your lowlight capabilities and it is razor sharp. You don't need IS, but if you can afford it get it.

You can use the 1.4 and 2x with the 300 hundred with very little loss of IQ. Forget about the Sigma /Tamron route too. They do not focus as fast, do not resell or hold their cash value as well as a used L lens

Contact Dan Lahav / voodoo 1694. I bought my 400 from him, he a straight up good guy to do business with and often has gear for sale.

Yes, I would love to have that lens. I won't have enough pennies this season for it and I would really like the reach for the remainder of the year.

10megapixel wrote in post #8637726
Yes, I would love to have that lens. I won't have enough pennies this season for it and I would really like the reach for the remainder of the year.

I know exactly how you feel, it took me a real long time to get my glass. it still hurts everymonth to make that payment BUT, the images I get are off the hook and just got po'd with anything less than the best I could afford.

Like I said out a few feelers out, get a 2nd job flipping burgers, babysittin whatever it takes. You won't be sorry once you see the shot it creates.

The next jump in glass is very expensive. I have been struggling with your dilemma for the past two weeks.

1) Know the limits of your equipment. Be great with what you have. Last year I took shots (I was very happy) with my 70-200 4.0 (day) and my sigma 70-200 2.8 (night) - a seldom used my 300 f4.0. I realized that there was no need to fight to get shots the lens could not snap onto. I still tried, but would throw out 49 out of 50.

2) At the game I shot yesterday, a pro-photo had a (what looked like a) 2x on his 70-200 f2.8. I went to his site today and the shots looked like they were shot with a 100-400 f5.6 at night, despite being a day game.

3) I have been using 70-200 f2.8 and a 300 f2.8. I agree with LBaldwin - and that is exactly what i am doing. I was supposed to buy a 300 2.8 used from my mentor. He let me borrow this weekend for a test. He decided not to sell and I decided I cannot live without it. I am moving, managing and finding money any way I can to get that baby ASAP!

Whats the budget? And I know you said you wont mess with Sigma, but have you ever used any of Sigma's higher end stuff? I own a 120-300 2.8 and honestly because of that lens for football I hardly touch my 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 anymore.

And yes I do this for a living. Quick grab from Friday's game, shot with the 120-300 2.8

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I owned a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro for a while and although it was a sharp lens, the AF was inferior to the Canon in low light. I also developed communication issues with it and canon bodies, I sent it off to Sigma but still had problems. Your results with the 120-300mm speak for themselves and I honestly disregarded it as an option mainly because ofnegative reviews regarding the AF. What does that lens go for used?

I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?

liam5100 wrote in post #8638172
Whats the budget? And I know you said you wont mess with Sigma, but have you ever used any of Sigma's higher end stuff? I own a 120-300 2.8 and honestly because of that lens for football I hardly touch my 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 anymore.

And yes I do this for a living. Quick grab from Friday's game, shot with the 120-300 2.8

You choose the 120-300 Siggy over the Canon glass? So, the auto-focus is not an issue with your lens shooting sports at all?

I think I would definitely need to get my hands on one and use it at a game, but it has me curious now. I see here on POTN they sell used $1300-$1800.

Renting is always an option

http://www.lensrentals​.com …mm-f2.8-apo-hsm/for-canon

eigga wrote in post #8638279
I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?

I am also interested in this lens for hockey, my son's games.
Does the DG make any difference over the non DG?
THanks

10megapixel wrote in post #8638314
You choose the 120-300 Siggy over the Canon glass? So, the auto-focus is not an issue with your lens shooting sports at all?

Yeah, often for football I do choose it, the versatility with the zoom, to me, is worth the trade off. I dont even carry my traditional 2nd camera with the 70-200 anymore.

Autofocus, honestly I cant tell the difference. I've used the 120-300 for volleyball and football mostly, some soccer. Soccer I tend to use the 400 just for the reach, same with baseball. Although I did shoot quite a bit of high school baseball last year with the sigma.

Color and autofocus I cant tell much difference between the Canon's and the Sigma. The only difference I can really tell is just a touch of sharpness loss, but then again its a zoom. What zoom is ever going to match the 300 or 400 primes?

Keep in mind too, I shoot with the end product in mind. 90% of the time I'm being paid by some magazine or newspaper where the final prints really arent going to be the best quality anyway and any difference in that lost sharpness isnt even noticable to me.