Which Telephoto Lens?

Paulmack

Paulmack

Messages
1,742
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm waiting on getting the nod to cover some pro rugby games through a local press pass, as sports and fashion is where I want to focus, but the question is which telephoto lens is an absolute must for pitch side, be it football or rugby?

My longest lens is a 70 - 300L but I'm willing to sacrifice it to fund something a bit more suitable, and I'm thinking a 300mm 2.8 IS will do for now, but will it? If I were to buy one and get a regular gig at sport's would I quickly want a 400mm or will the 300 do?

Next query is, if I don't get a new lens in time for the game, will my 70-200 2.8IS II cut it if I had a 1.4 converter on my 1DX and a 24-105 on the 5D MKIII?

Last question, any 1DX users have any particular custom settings for AF etc when shooting sports they are willing to share?

Cheers
 
Aside from the slight loss of detail using a 2x converter over a 1.4x of which I have never found to be anywhere near a problem.
Ergo I have only a 2x converter which I couple with my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8
Another reason why I use the 2x & not a 1.4x is the slight gain in focal length versus the reasonable gain with the 2x.
With my 120-300 & a 1.4 it becomes 168-420, yes you keep some speed with the f stop but not loads compared to the focal trade off.
2x being 240-600 & still f/5.6 which certainly at the 600mm end is still very fast.

So yes going away from Canon 'L' glass which maybe a big no no, however, it depends on your budget of course.
Compared to the new 'Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 sport' which in my opinion for a sports lens has great focal range without the need of an extender
but is pretty slow given its best is f/5.0 & at the short end!

So which ever brand/make you go for I would consider the (?)-300mm f/2.8 plus a 2x extender, for my money a good two lens (in a way) set up.
 
I've covered about a dozen rugby matches in the past year and the majority of shots are with my 600/4. The pitch extends so far behind the try line that 300mm will only get you to the last 1/4 of the pitch unless you opt for being on the side.

Bob
 
Thanks everyone so far. I'm not a Canon snob, so I would consider a sigma lens but I've never really used one so would have to be convinced it was better than the 300 L. Also the ones quoted are relatively slow, so not sure they would cut the mustard.

With regards to the job, there is no payment as such as its freelance so depends on the images sold/used, but it's a job that gets me access and a press pass which is the first hurdle.

Bob, it's a super league ground, so pretty much pitch side, but you think a 600 is needed? Most sports togs I've spoken to so far say a 400 is enough, so you have got me thinking I may be well short?
 
You can certainly do it with 400mm but here's the maths and you can decide yourself......

It's approx. 50m from the try line to the halfway line. There's an additional 10m (minimum) behind the try line to the dead ball line so the halfway line is 60+m from you if you want shots of the action heading towards you. A 600mm lens will frame 4m x 2.5m at a little over 60m distance so anything in the opposite half will require a fair crop if you've only got 400mm. Of course, your idea of framing may be very different to mine and that will give some latitude. There are 12 galleries in this link and I'd estimate that >80% of the shots are using 600mm.....you might get an idea whether you'd frame less tightly and get away with a shorter lens.

I use the 600/4 and 200/2 for rugby and for football I use 300/2.8 (a 400/2.8 would be preferable) and 200/2.

Bob
 
What about the custom settings on the 1DX, anyone got any secrets?
 
While I understand that a prime 600mm f/4 is faster than a 300mm f/2.8 with 2x making it a 600mm f/5.6
Given you can increase ISO to compensate for the speed my question is this as I have not used a 600mm
other than via my 2x on the 300 f/2.8.
Does the maths not add up in a real world situation?
Does a 300mm plus 2x giving f/5.6 not act the same as a 600mm at f/5.6?
This is a genuine question & not a sarcastic reply, I'm intrigued by daugirdas comment 'The AF will slow down quite a bit with TCs. This could be an issue. If the job is paying well why not rent the bazooka lenses for a start.'
I'm not familiar with the bazooka lenses, is anything over 300mm classified as a bazooka lens?
Or does it also need to be f/2.8 as in the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 ?
Cheers...
 
Paul, i shot Super League professionally for several years, ignore talk of a 600mm or of a 2x extender,i shot at every single pro ground including Wembley and theres nothing you cant get with a 400mm and a 1.4x if required, spending money on a 600mm f/4 is wasted the very first time you shoot under floodlights at most Super League grounds, some you will struggle at f/2.8 let alone f/4.

Take a look at http://gcsports.zenfolio.com/

Everything shot with a Nikon D3S and 400mm f/2.8 plus a 1.4x and a D3S and 70-200mm f/2.8 plus a 1.4x, the D3S is only 12mp where as the 1DX is 16mp so theres an even bigger advantage for cropping with your rig
 
Gary that's spot on mate, just what I wanted to hear.
How effective do you think a 300mm would be to begin with as I'm not sure I can push the budget for a 400mm right now?
I'm looking at about £2.5k as a budget at a push at the min as I've spent big this last year since deciding to make a go of going pro.
 
Should add that if youre only ever going to get images used in the papers then a 300mm is plenty long enough to cover end to end of any Super League field, papers print at 72dpi so a 6x4inch photo in any newspaper only needs to be a measly 430x290 pixels in size, anything else will be wasted, they can and do use MASSIVE CROPS
 
Last edited:
So what lens combo were you on for your shot, the 400 and 1.4tc?
 
In fact Gary can I peck your head with a few more questions by PM so as not to send this thread off onto a tangent? Could do with bending the ear of someone in the know on a few more points!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top