Canon Sports Togs - Extra Reach or Faster Glass ?

[monkeyleader]

Howdy,

So I'm considering my options for 2011 and wanted to ask your opinion ...

Today most of my sports stuff is with the 70-200 f/2.8 (sometimes coupled with the 1.4X) Although I have a 400mm (f/5.6) it's just not fast enough for sports stuff.

The ground I shoot at right now (mostly) is pretty small and you can get close to the touchline meaning that 200mm covers quite a lot of action. I know however that if I ever manage to take a step up this may have me missing a lot of the action.

So something like the 500mm f/4 or the 300mm f/2.8 ...

Either would be coupled with the 7D (or potentially in the future) a 1D Mk IV (if i can rob enough banks)

I'm also very keen on nature photography which has me edging towards the 500mm .. but I'm starting to really appreciate the speed of the 70-200 under floodlit conditions ..

cheers,

Nige

 

[senu]

Ask Tobers...
Seriously though he would know

 

[Tobers]

Howdy - a 500 is likely to be too long. The lens selection of choice for most sports togs is a 70-200 coupled with a 400 2.8. You can put a 1.4x on the 400 to get a 560 f4 if you need more reach.

A second hand 400 2.8 can be had for £2500 or thereabouts. If you can't stretch to that, a 300 2.8 is an excellent option which is 420 f4 with an extender. Cracking quality too (though the 400 edges it quality wise).

Check Aperture Photographic in London for an excellent selection of used lenses. You won't lose much money either as you can sell them on again for pretty much the same money as you buy for.

 

[RobDickinson]

Nother option is to wait and see how the sigma 120-300f2.8OS comes in like.

 

[Ian_S]

Weight will be the issue I think here.

For sports the 400mm will be THE lens. However, it's over twice the weight of the 300mm, and 1.5Kg heavier than the 500mm.

The 500mm is very good for wildlife, and although not compact, it's a good compromise. I'm not sure it's a football lens though.

The new 400mm f/2.8 is much lighter, coming in at the same weight as the 500, but it won't be around for a few months and I expect will be hugely expensive. It could however mean that a fair few current 400mm's will come onto the 2nd hand market as I'm sure the pro agencies will snap them up. Losing 1.5Kg of weight will be good news I'm sure for a lot of sports shooters. So if you can cope with the weight, waiting may be a good idea for now on the 400.

WRT the 300, for nature it will depend what you want to target. For birds 300 even with a TC could be a stretch, unless you can maybe get on with the new 2x mk III converter. For larger wildlife the 300 + TC should be fine. Will certainly be much more easy to handle than the 400. Again there is a new 300mm due soon, and I've had a brief go on one and thought the improved IS was superb. Absolutely rock solid in the viewfinder. Slightly lighter, you do notice when holding old + new, but again, it's going to be expensive for a while.

Obviously though, if you can lug the 400 about, it'll be the lens for football, and plenty of reach with TC's for wildlife.

Perhaps you should rent one for a week to see just how you get on with it. Then keep an eye out for a good 2nd hand one once the new 400 arrives.

 

[senu]

Obviously though, if you can lug the 400 about, it'll be the lens for football, and plenty of reach with TC's for wildlife.

Perhaps you should rent one for a week to see just how you get on with it. Then keep an eye out for a good 2nd hand one once the new 400 arrives.

Very sound advice , I would concur
It would seem that sports and wildlife requirements are not identical

 

[monkeyleader]

A second hand 400 2.8 can be had for £2500 or thereabouts. If you can't stretch to that, a 300 2.8 is an excellent option which is 420 f4 with an extender. Cracking quality too (though the 400 edges it quality wise).

I think £2500 for 2nd hand is a little low tbh .. everywhere at the moment either in stock or waiting on stock quotes around £4k ..

Oh why does everything you want need to be so expensive .. *ponders how much he can get his a few body parts*

 

[monkeyleader]

Perhaps you should rent one for a week to see just how you get on with it. Then keep an eye out for a good 2nd hand one once the new 400 arrives.

I was thinking that but at £250 for a 7 day rental it's not cheap - of course cheaper than spending thousands only to realise it's not the lens for you ..

Right now I'm happy to wait - I currently own a 400mm f5.6 and I'm going to use it more with the 1.4X extender - I know the PQ won't be as good etc, but it will give me a much better feeling of reach etc ...

Still amazed how much the 400mm f5.6 goes for 2nd hand

 

[Ian_S]

No AF on a 7D on the 400 f/5.6... And only centre point AF on a 1D series at f/8.0. Could be a challenge for sports. Of course you could become very good at manual focus

 

[monkeyleader]

No AF on a 7D on the 400 f/5.6... And only centre point AF on a 1D series at f/8.0. Could be a challenge for sports. Of course you could become very good at manual focus

Correct - but I won't be using these as keepers .. most to ensure that the reach is suitable for both sports (which I already know it is) and more importantly wildlife ...

 

[HMHB]

I'll buy you a 400 lens if you get everyone on this forum to stop using that "Tog" word !!

Have you tried the 100-400L? Or are you just interested in primes?

 

[monkeyleader]

I'll buy you a 400 lens if you get everyone on this forum to stop using that "Tog" word !!

Have you tried the 100-400L? Or are you just interested in primes?

Want a prime and also fast

 

[HMHB]

Want a prime and also fast

Yes I know what you mean. I'd like a 100-400 for walking around the woods and lakes but even that would feel inadequate when in RSPB hides. A bloke at one of them let me have a play with his 500mm f/4.0L (with a 1.4 converter) and it was a massive heavy beast even on it's tripod. You also get the problem of finding your target because you move it slightly and it's as if you've moved it miles away from what you were looking at.

 

[Ian_S]

The 100-400 is great as a walk around wildlife lens, as it's quite compact. I have plenty of wildlife shots taken with it. It's not so great though once the light starts going. Not sure how useful it would be for football in poor conditions.

Birds from public hides are always fun, and yes a 700mm lens helps, but there's always room for more mm when it comes to birds. However at these lengths you can even see the shutter move the lens!!

I would be tempted to also look at the 300 f/4.0 IS, which with a 1.4x TC gives you a bit more flexibility without the huge outlay. Otherwise you are pretty much locked into expensive big glass for reach AND speed. Not sure if I'd consider the 400mm f/4.0 DO or not. It is definitely lighter, and hand-holdable, but I don't know if Canon's DO experiment was a success or not. However, it's not very cheap either, at those prices you kind of think in for a penny in for a pound and look at the 2.8.

Sigma options are non-existent for the 400mm range. Again you're looking at a big 500mm f/4.5 which is starting to not be fast, or the somewhat huge 200-500mm f/2.8, but if you could afford that you would probably have the 400 f/2.8 Canon by now anyway.

As I said previously, for wildlife weight will matter. The 400 f/5.6 you already have should be a pretty good lens for it, bar the lack of IS. Trading it for the 300 f/4 will give you a slightly longer 420mm (with TC), but also 300 where needed, plus IS. Then get the 400 2.8 for sports, and once you're used to it, you might fancy it for wildlife, but I suspect only if you're in a hide with a tripod and good head unit.

 

[shotokan101]

What about advertising for a lens in the AVF/TP Classifieds and asking for a weeks "hire/loan" for £250 with the proviso that you'lll either return the lens or pay the balance after a week ?

Jim

 

[HMHB]

I've been reading some Canon lens reviews and they seem to be saying that if you need 400mm the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300L F4 with a 1.4 TC

 

[monkeyleader]

I've been reading some Canon lens reviews and they seem to be saying that if you need 400mm the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300L F4 with a 1.4 TC

I still think it would be too slow for what I need it for - I think I just need to accept that if sports photography (Especially) is what I want to do then 2.8 is needed ...

 

[HMHB]

I still think it would be too slow for what I need it for - I think I just need to accept that if sports photography (Especially) is what I want to do then 2.8 is needed ...

Yes I think you're right there. They do say that this lens performs really well with the extenders as well, better than the f4 version. They say it is hand holdable but you can soon get tired doing this

Is there 2 versions of the 2.8 lens? Looking on Camera Price buster one is double the price of the other at over £7K

 

[Ian_S]

Yes, there is a new one due in the Spring next year that is a substantial 1.5Kg lighter than it's predecessor.

 

[Dr O]

I still think it would be too slow for what I need it for - I think I just need to accept that if sports photography (Especially) is what I want to do then 2.8 is needed ...

I've shot an SPL game as a favour so my football resume isn't exactly impressive but I do know that 2.8 is a must and like has been said, you need 2 bodies- one with a 400mm f2.8 and the other with a 70-200m f2.8 if you are really serious about it- there's no two ways about it, sport photogrpahy is expensive and extremely competitive with a lot of pressure to get the shot and get it sent off pretty much as soon as you have it.

I'd rather deal with cars, bikes, landscapes and divas so my hats off to you!

Good luck