Apologies, but I have a dilemma and need advice

yoby

yoby

Messages
1,254
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies, because I know it's been covered a zillion times before but there's some new kit around and the search results tend to cancel themselves out with the conflicting recommendations.

I currently have a 30D, which I was planning on upgrading next year (was thinking of the 7D or a straight upgrade to the 50D but that's another story).

Lens wise, I've got a rather nice Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which I love to bits, a Nifty Fifty and a budget Telephoto (namely the Tamron 70-300 Telemacro f4-5.6) which performs admirably, but is let down by the speed of the autofocus and f5.6 being the widest aperture at the long end.

My eldest is now playing in a Sunday league as part of a newly formed under 11 team, and (like all proud dads) I want to get some photo's of him playing.

Avoiding the wormy can that is taking photos at football matches completely, I took (far too many) pictures at their friendly match on Sunday, and was generally pleased with the 100 or so keepers I retained, but it was a bright day and it was easy to maintain a high shutterspeed (quite pleased that I shot the whole morning in manual too). Looking forward to the coming months, I feel the Tamron will struggle quite a bit with the gloomier afternoons. So.......

For football which lens would I need - Can't really afford to spend more than £1000 (in fact that might be pushing it a bit as well).


  • Would I see a siginificant improvement with say a Canon 70-200 and converter?
  • Is the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM worth considering because of the longer reach and the Image stabilisation?
  • If it is, what additional lens would be a good fit for the 70-120mm Gap I'll create in my zoom capabilities.
  • Should I stick with the Tamron and save my cash?

Also worth mentioning that the coach was impressed with the ones I sent him for the website, and is more than happy for me to be the Team's unofficial (and unpaid) official tog. for all the match reports and website photos. Some of the other poarents have also expressed an interest in paying for prints/cd's of the match photos as well. Not looking to make money or treat this as a business venture, but would like to have the right equipment for this particular job, so I can get the best possible photographs.

Now my incoherent ramble is finished, has anyone got any suggestions?

Thanks
Dave
 
I have a 30D, 40D, 50D and 1D3, as well as a 70-200/2.8 IS lens. I don't shoot football or anything like it, but based on what I know of photography I'd go with the 70-200/2.8 lens. IS is unlikely to help because your shutter speeds need to be high enough that IS will not be necessary. On the other hand, f/2.8 will do wonders for your AF performance and IQ if/when the light is poor. You can make up for the absence of IS with a monopod, if you feel you need a little extra stabilisation, or simply to take the weight off your hands/arms/shoulders.

As for bodies, I'd actually suggest you consider a 40D rather than a 50D, if football is your priority. The AF performance is the same; the FPS speed is the same; the 40D has cleaner (less noisey) pixels than the 50D and will probably deliver more readily useable results if/when shooting at 400 ISO and above. It will also save you some card space and HDD space, and speed up your post processing. Of course, it is highly likely that the new 7D will smash the 40D or 50D for AF performance, so if you've got the budget that might be the camera to aim for, but I'd seriously think about placing the 40D ahead of the 50D in your upgrade plans.

Regarding the gap in focal length, if you go 70-200 then you won't have a gap worth worrying about. I do not think you should be looking at creaky old f/4.5-5.6 zooms as an "upgrade" from where you are now.
 
i think the 70-200 2.8L with a 2x converter is a very expensive way to go. how about the 100-400 F4 L, a couple went on here 2nd hand for around 600-700. If you cranked up your ISO to compensate for the slower shutter, I think your results would decent. Also the extra 200mm would allow you to frame your son nicely.
 
The 100-400 isn't very fast in terms of aperture and whilst optically good, there is no substitute for getting as much light as possible into the camera - especially for autofocus accuracy.

Kipax shoots football, PM him or alert him to the thread.
 
I'd love to say that what you REALLY need is the 300 IS that I'm selling but it couldn't be worse. :lol:

What I'd be looking for in your situation is the best compromise of good zoom range and fast aperture. Generally, if it moves then IS is no use at all and you know you're going to have some very dull days to shoot on.

Given that you can be pitch side a really long lens is not the be all and end all of getting good shots. I think I'm talking myself towards something like 70-200 or 50-150 f2.8
 
andrewc said:
I think after a while you'll start wanting f2.8 glass, especially in gloomier conditions. Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS may be too short, 300mm f2.8 is expensive! Secondhand Sigma 120-300 f2.8?
Click to expand...

Even a 2nd hand 120-300mm f2.8 is over £1000. The 1.4x TC on a 70-200mm will slow down your focus speeds by 50% and I wouldn't advise fitting a 2x TC at all, the 70-200mm is a really nice lens, but it depends how close you get to the action, what about the sigma 100-300mm f4. The f4 should be ok because shutter speeds aren't too high, sharp throughout the range.

As for full frame or cropped sensor, depends what you photograph, both have their advantages and disadvantages, but if you go full frame, you only be able to use EF lenses, not the EF-S or 3rd party equivalents.

Peter
 
Thanks for all the replies everyone, certainly threw a few I hadn't considered into the mix. I agree with the coveting of f2.8, but I'm not sure that a 200mm max would really work without me running about like a loony (for the football at least). I hadn't previously considered the 100-300 f4, which (if it focuses quicker than the Tamron) gives me an extra stop at the heavy end, and quicker focussing.

I'd love to find a 120-300 f2.8 for under a grand - Best I can find after a quick search was £1500 !! whereas the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG HSM is (or at least appears to be) available at Jessops for £599. Click - I say appears to be because it's listed as no longer available for home delivery, and there doesn't appear to be any in any of the local stores either.

Think it's a toss up now between the Canon 70-200 2.8 (with or without 1.4x TC) and the 120-300 Sigma, unless there's any others to consider.
 
yoby said:
Thanks for all the replies everyone, certainly threw a few I hadn't considered into the mix. I agree with the coveting of f2.8, but I'm not sure that a 200mm max would really work without me running about like a loony (for the football at least). I hadn't previously considered the 100-300 f4, which (if it focuses quicker than the Tamron) gives me an extra stop at the heavy end, and quicker focussing.

I'd love to find a 120-300 f2.8 for under a grand - Best I can find after a quick search was £1500 !! whereas the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG HSM is (or at least appears to be) available at Jessops for £599. Click - I say appears to be because it's listed as no longer available for home delivery, and there doesn't appear to be any in any of the local stores either.

Think it's a toss up now between the Canon 70-200 2.8 (with or without 1.4x TC) and the 120-300 Sigma, unless there's any others to consider.
Click to expand...

70-200mm f/2.8 would be good for everyday shots. It is miles better than f/4 and I already want to upgrade... For football 200mm is slightly short, but if you want any longer at f2.8 the price will go up disproportionally. It may be best to position yourself wisely and crop a bit in post
 
Just to make things worse I just noticed that Paul (grumpybadger) is selling his 200mm f/2.8L II....... I know it's prime, but it is f2.8 - Strategically, if I go for the Aperture over length (don't mind cropping shots if they're sharp enough) this might work for the football (hell I need the excercise too), but wouldn't be as versatile for other stuff.
 
yoby said:
Thanks for all the replies everyone, certainly threw a few I hadn't considered into the mix. I agree with the coveting of f2.8, but I'm not sure that a 200mm max would really work without me running about like a loony (for the football at least). I hadn't previously considered the 100-300 f4, which (if it focuses quicker than the Tamron) gives me an extra stop at the heavy end, and quicker focussing.

I'd love to find a 120-300 f2.8 for under a grand - Best I can find after a quick search was £1500 !! whereas the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG HSM is (or at least appears to be) available at Jessops for £599. Click - I say appears to be because it's listed as no longer available for home delivery, and there doesn't appear to be any in any of the local stores either.

Think it's a toss up now between the Canon 70-200 2.8 (with or without 1.4x TC) and the 120-300 Sigma, unless there's any others to consider.
Click to expand...

Sigma 100-300mm 10x better than Tamron its a £1150 lens for a start, jessop just getting rid of sigma lenses, the 120-300mm is quite heavy as well, 2.5kg's so weight training is needed, you could look to see what stocks are left at jessops think they were going for about £1450 new, pickup from shop, but still a massive saving on the current £2250 price tag, and even 2nd hand 70-200mm f2.8 IS's are going well above £1000. You could consider the non IS version of the 70-200mm that will take a few ££'s off
 
yoby said:
Just to make things worse I just noticed that Paul (grumpybadger) is selling his 200mm f/2.8L II....... I know it's prime, but it is f2.8 - Strategically, if I go for the Aperture over length (don't mind cropping shots if they're sharp enough) this might work for the football (hell I need the excercise too), but wouldn't be as versatile for other stuff.
Click to expand...

I suspect that grumpybadger also uses this lens with a 1.4 tc
A 1.4 tc with this lens would take it to 280, ?f/4? might really be worth considering that combination? Kinda a zoom with only two settings :)

edit:
heh, must be getting good at this, that is apparently how grumpybadger has been using it. Looking at the pics he has put up there, I am tempted myself (but just got the 100-400 L second hand, so had best not, SWMBO and all that)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top