Canon Zoom

cornishboy

cornishboy

Messages
578
Edit My Images
Yes
Good afternoon after a bit of advice from sports shooters
Have readjusted my bodies for this season down to a 1d mk ii and an R6
Longest lens I have at present is the 70-200mm and am in the market for a longer lens
I can see the RF 100-400, the Ef 100-400 mk 1 and a 300 or 400 prime in my price range £500 ish
Would anyone be able to offer suggestions as to which may be best?
Mainly shoot rugby, but would be keen to get back into football and other sports

Cheers
 
which version of the 70-200 do you have? if one of the latest 2,8s then I would suggest a Canon Extender
 
welshwizard645 said:
which version of the 70-200 do you have? if one of the latest 2,8s then I would suggest a Canon Extender
Click to expand...

Neither RF 70 - 200 F2.8 or F4 allow the use of an extender. I believe it is as a consequence of the reduced size of both RF lenses. Pity really as I would snap one up.
 
trevjm said:
Neither RF 70 - 200 F2.8 or F4 allow the use of an extender. I believe it is as a consequence of the reduced size of both RF lenses. Pity really as I would snap one up.
Click to expand...

Very short sighted of Canon, you would've thought that they'd at least have a compatible extender for the f2.8 version.
 
I'm not a sports shooter but personally, I'd go for EF 100-400, it's nice lens (even being the MK1) and overall, more versatile than the others you mention and you can adapt it to your R6 too, which I presume you already do with your current glass.

I have a MK1, it might not be the best lens nowadays but just because it's getting on now, doesn't make it a bad lens. (y)
 
Last edited:
the glass is hard up at the back of the lens on the RF 70-200

If the OP is using a 1Dx then it needs to be EF glass

and in that case I would steer clear of the mk1 100-400 and go for one of the primes for the best IQ

the 300 has a wider max aperture, the 400 goes longer

depends how close to the action he gets

and whether or not he intends to use the R6 predominantly

in which case I'd go for the RF 100-400 and add the extender as and when funds allow (there's a bargain one in the classifieds right now)

Dave
 
Be very careful with the RF extenders they are only compatible with a very small number of lenses - even then not over the whole range.

The RF 100-500 for example both the 1.4 & 2x are only able to be mated to the lens above 300mm (so 300-500mm becoming 420-700/600-1000)

This kind of mirrors what happened with the EF teleconverters at the outset - Canon ones only worked with a subset of lenses. Eventually aftermarket manufacturers (Kenko-Tokina notably) brought more widely compatible teleconverters to market.

I'm sure eventually another manufacturer will break cover with a more widely compatible TC...
 
I’m surprised you say that when all the reviews note significant loss of quality and winter rugby is difficult as it is with low light
 
toohuge said:
If you're going to encounter low light sports photography, then 2.8 apertures are a must. I'd recommend a 70-200 2.8 and wait for the action to come towards you - providing you shoot fro the ends - slower lenses in low light are going to hard work as the iso's climb
Click to expand...
Seconding this - the only lenses that are going to get you low light capability and longer reach are a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 prime which are significantly above budget. MPB look to have a mk1 300mm f2.8 but it’s twice your budget.
 
Thanks, but if anyone has used any of the lenses in the original post a viewpoint would be great
 
cornishboy said:
Thanks, but if anyone has used any of the lenses in the original post a viewpoint would be great
Click to expand...
But you didn’t actually specify which lenses ;)
cornishboy said:
I can see the RF 100-400, the Ef 100-400 mk 1 and a 300 or 400 prime in my price range £500 ish
Click to expand...
I’d guess you’re looking at the slow RF100-400 (too slow for pro sports shooting), but god knows which primes you’ve found under £500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top