Beginner Longer reach advice

Sporty_Tog

Sporty_Tog

Messages
78
Edit My Images
Yes
Happy 2015 folks.

I won't take up too much of your time. I have to stress that in the grand scheme of things I am very much a beginner with only 7 games to my name.

There could be a wee change in the gear soon in the next couple of months, and I think I have an idea of what I want, however, I think it might be a good idea to get some thumbs up before I take the plunge. I have a 5D3 and 70-200 f4L IS. That lens is getting swapped for a 2.8 asap. I need a second body and longer reach lens for capturing the action further away at the football. I feel that as soon as the players go beyond the halfway line I tend to not have a lot to do.

I'm almost decided on on a Canon 1D MarkIV, having owned the 1D3 I always felt that I should have got the 1DIV. I have my eye on a Canon 300 2.8L IS MKI too as I've been advised to stay away from the non-IS one. I started to think that is there going to be much of a reach difference with a 300 on a 1DIV? Granted the smaller sensor will yeild a smaller field of view which in turn can mean a cleaner crop over the 5d3 at 200mm. At the moment I can get about a 60-70% crop on the 5D3 images and come away with a decent image if it's pin sharp. Higher ISO's 6400-10000 tend to be a bit rubbish at cropping naturally.

I could also add the 1.4TC to the mix, however, complicatiing difficult lit grounds with f4 is something I'm trying to stay away from. Alloa being a particularly bad one of late.

I was thinking about the 7D2 with the 300 2.8 but from the images I've seen so far from that camera, I'm not enterily sure about it, however, with the way the button placement is, it's a no brainer for 5D3 users for functionality and speed of access to changing settings. I just don't think it's been out long enough to earn it's stripes so to speak. The 1DIV is a tried and tested winner for me. ( I think)

A MkI 400 2.8 is about the same price as a 300 2.8 IS and on the bigger stadia like Ibrox and the like I see that lens more and more. Smaller grounds like Dumbarton it's more the 300 I see about. It's a tough one.

To add another point linked to insurance and older lenses. If I bought an older 300/400 2.8 non IS and something did happen to it, and it wasn't repairable, would that come under an insurance replacement?

Thanks for the advice.
 
When I covered professional football I started with a 300 f2.8 then moved up to the 400 as everyone else who using the 400. Yes the reach was better but one thing I did miss was not getting the full goal in view when at the other end. After a few years I sold the 400 and bought another 300 as at some stadium I preferred to sit on the side and some stadia were smaller too. 70-200f2.8 is a no brainer and I also also went through the 1D range until I got to the mk4 which I still use and really happy with them.

Two year ago I bought a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for using with indoor sport and found it ok for outdoor too, so much I no longer used the 300 and have just sold it. So pleased with the Sigma (very handy if using a single body) I'm now selling and buying the latest sport version. I've heard more & more sports shooters using the Sigma as the quality has improved so much since the earlier versions. My advice to you is dont buy what everyone else uses, buy what suits you best.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I have considered the Sigma 120-300 2.8S in the equation. I wouldn't qualify for CPS right enough. Some may reckon it's not worth having, I don't know.

I like the IQ of prime lenses. I had the 400 5.6L for wildlife and it was hard to beat. I suppose I could rent them, after all it's worth doing with the amount we're talking about for the lenses.
 
Renting is false economy, dont go there unless its for a very good reason. Buy what you can afford and upgrade to what you need when you can. Covering sport is not cheap especially if you are doing it on spec.
 
if it was down to me paul (to many clues LOL) i would go for the 1D4 ,my lad has the 7d2 and we did a a/f test today using himself as a moving target and testing the a/f against the 70d with the same settings and lens .the consistent hit rate with the 70d was around 85% and with the 7d2 around 55% saying that most of the missed shots were marginal but still to soft for effective use .
as you well know the 1d4 has a proven track record but still retains a 1.3 crop sensor so you don't lose that much over a full frame /aps.c sensor the 7d2 from what i have seen is also still a bit to noisy for my liking .the only other way to get the reach is a 500 prime the new sigma 150-600 fits the bill in all but aperture .big choices to make and expensive
 
I'd go for a 7D2. Yes it produces a bit more noise than a 1DIV, but you're shooting for newsprint which washes that out anyway.

As for focus, it's good. Very good. If you are getting a 55% keeper rate, then that is very much user error.
 
gibtheo said:
Have to agree re focusing on 7D2. I found it very good, maybe you hadn't set it up for the situation you were testing it in?
Click to expand...
yes we had
 
DemiLion said:
I'd go for a 7D2. Yes it produces a bit more noise than a 1DIV, but you're shooting for newsprint which washes that out anyway.

As for focus, it's good. Very good. If you are getting a 55% keeper rate, then that is very much user error.
Click to expand...

oh it must be user error only been using a slr/dslr for around 50 years so i might need some practise ,as for focus problems on the 7d2 perhaps the subscribers to the 92 page thread on POTN ALL HAVE USER ERROR PROBLEMS TO .really can't be doing with fan boy advice
 
gibtheo said:
How many years is it before a user no longer makes any errors? Can't wait for that day! :p
Click to expand...
yeah we all make errors mine was giving a mate some advise publicly rather than by p.m :banghead:
 
the black fox said:
oh it must be user error only been using a slr/dslr for around 50 years so i might need some practise ,as for focus problems on the 7d2 perhaps the subscribers to the 92 page thread on POTN ALL HAVE USER ERROR PROBLEMS TO .really can't be doing with fan boy advice
Click to expand...


Fanboi? Are you bloody serious?

The focus system on the 7D2 can be very complex but its a very good camera. If you are only getting a 55% keeper rate, then yup, I would suggest that it's more than likely user error.

I'm basing my recommendations on

a) being a working sports photographer
b) owning a 1DIV
c) owning a 5DIII
d) owning a 7D2

This is exactly what happened when the 7D came out originally. Massive threads on the dark recesses of the photography Internet like DPR and POTN about how the camera was rubbish.
In 99% of the cases it was user error.
 
I could never get on with the original 7D. It wasn't until I got the 1D3 that I realised that I was likely not using it correctly. Would I buy another 7D again? Nope!

I used to buy and sell equipment every other month and I want to stay away from that. The 7D2 might be a stellar camera in the right hands. How do you find the 7D2 against the 1DIV Mark?
 
I prefer the AF system of the 7D2. The IQ on the 1DIV has the edge but that's irrelevant for what I'm shooting for.
 
I have a mate who bought a 7D2 as soon as it came out. Uses it with a 300/2.8 at plenty of Prem games and loves the combo.
 
There's a few 1DIV's going for between £1000 and £1500 with less than half shutter life. I have my eye on a couple of 300 2.8's online so we'll see how today goes. I'll find out if my budget is a reality or not. I need to be sensible with my purchases, amongst the two main things I need others too.

Monopod, faster 1000x cards over the current 400x, a good peli style case to cart it all around in, an upgrade to my current 70-200 f4 IS and a decent card reader.
 
One of my mk4's shutter has now exceeded 300k and still going :)

Just sold my Peli case to someone on here.

I wouldnt worry too much about the speed of your cards but I would about the 70-200f4 :(
 
Appreciate that guys. That reader looks mean. :) Yeah the F4 is my first priority over everything else.
 
I haven't shot much sport but the little I tried to do with my 200-400 and 7d2 was interesting :) I had the Sigma 120-300mm S for a short while and I kinda wished I'd had it for the sports stuff :) 200-400mm would be a lot better on a FF but it's a bit long for a lot of shots when on the edge of a field and you'd definitely need 2 bodies to get anything vaguely close. The 120-300 wouldn't get everything either but it would get a lot more imo :)
 
If your shooting professional sport or any sport under lights then you'll need f2.8 lens. I know of a lot that shoot at f2.8 in daylight too just for the shallow DOF. The 120-300 can be a little tight with the action close by but I found it good from penalty area to penalty area and ideal if sitting on the side. A couple of times I even use it with a 24-70 on my other body.
 
Interesting variations. I have a 24-105L but I really don't rate it at all. Been working out all my advices and finances and it looks like I could get what I need within budget. I need to choose what 70-200 2.8 to get because the f4 IS is a sharp lens rivalled only it seems with he MKII version. I have that last year aswell. Kicking myself now.
 
Personally if I was starting out now, I'd get the two bodies first then look at what cash was left for the lenses. There are times you'll need something like a 24-70 f2.8 as well so really your looking at a min of three lenses. So budget permitting if your looking at buying a cheaper make such as Sigma then its something you can build from but at least you'll have the range. 120-300 would cover two lenses and with a 24-70 you have a setup to get you going. That would allow you time to sell your f4 lenses and raise some more cash. Just an idea :)
 
Well I have the green light on funds, 4k is the official budget. I already have a 5D3 which, I'm slowly becoming more appreciative of, as time goes on.
 
Another vote here for the 7D2 and Sigma 120-300S. I use that combo and love it.

I've had No focus issues with the 7D2 and find the AF to be as good as my 1DX.
 
Cheers for the input.

New 7D2 is £1599 and that Sigma 120-300 S is £2799 new. I don't really like buying new gear, but there's nowt many of those flying about used. With the 1.6x crop and that 120-300 range, it would certainly make for an intersting coverage at loads of venues.
 
snapzz said:
If your shooting professional sport or any sport under lights then you'll need f2.8 lens. I know of a lot that shoot at f2.8 in daylight too just for the shallow DOF. The 120-300 can be a little tight with the action close by but I found it good from penalty area to penalty area and ideal if sitting on the side. A couple of times I even use it with a 24-70 on my other body.
Click to expand...
Would have to slightly disagree Graham, a lot depends on the camera, i was happy to shoot with 2 X D3S's, a 400mm f/2/8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 but even under floodlights i used 1.4 X TC's on both probably 95% of the time so effictivley shooting F/4 unless i went to some of those candle lit grounds, certainally the last 18 month before i quit everything was shot at F/4 and up to ISO 12,800 after i found some tricks to use in the cameras settings http://gcsports.zenfolio.com/
 
Sporty_Tog said:
Cheers for the input.

New 7D2 is £1599 and that Sigma 120-300 S is £2799 new. I don't really like buying new gear, but there's nowt many of those flying about used. With the 1.6x crop and that 120-300 range, it would certainly make for an intersting coverage at loads of venues.
Click to expand...
Panamoz
 
The 7D2 is still over £1500 with Panamoz and they don't sell the Sigma lens. I used to use Digital Rev for all my gear years ago but after a tricky situ with customs and them wrongly pricing a lens I stopped using them.

Good shots on the site there Gary. Interesting point about the in camera settings. I dare not go above ISO10,000 cause it's mince. Hence the reasoning on the 2.8. Probably going to suffer that ill fate with the 1DIV too as the 5D3 is better in low light I believe.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Would have to slightly disagree Graham, a lot depends on the camera, i was happy to shoot with 2 X D3S's, a 400mm f/2/8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 but even under floodlights i used 1.4 X TC's on both probably 95% of the time so effictivley shooting F/4 unless i went to some of those candle lit grounds, certainally the last 18 month before i quit everything was shot at F/4 and up to ISO 12,800 after i found some tricks to use in the cameras settings http://gcsports.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...

Yes true Gary, I also have at times dropped to f4 but only if the camera could handle the higher ISO and as with most the top setting is not a true one. In saying that newspapers dont give a sh*t about that. You only need go back a few years when the top ISO was really only 3200 with the camera setting upto 6400 which was really crap. Also knowing the stadiums you regularly work at helps as does your client base so knowing what is acceptable to send them. And of course camera/lens combination is also a factor.
 
Managed to pick myself up a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM Mk1 for £599 from LCE this morning. Bargain :) Few scuffs on it but that doesn't bother me.
 
I've been looking at a few of those lately, I've seen higher than that for the non IS model. Sounds like a good price.
 
I was so surprised by that price. As you say the non IS model floats around that point. The more difficult task no wis to find a 300 2.8 and 1DIV for a budget of £3100 lol *cracks fingers*
 
Now sporting a 1DIV and 300 2.8 IS. Got the 1D with 97k clicks for £1230 and the lens for £1440 from Calumet. Good prices. Lens is not bad for being a rental. Had more hits than the beatles but it's still a great lens.

Bought the beefy Calumet monopod to support it. All change so we'll see this weekend if it's been the right decision.
 
Yeah it popped up on Ffordes website. I snapped it right away. It's been great so far. No complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top