Lenses 300mm+

M

motoroller

Messages
239
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to get something with a bit more reach, for some sports, wildlife and astro. Ideally it should be wide aperture (f/2.8 or f/4), but this isn't critical.

I've been thinking of:
Canon 400mm f/5.6L (no IS means this is less attractive)
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3

Then there are larger-aperture lenses like Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX and the new 120-300mm.

Which other recommendations would there be before I spend ~£1000 on a lens? My budget can stretch a bit higher if I sell the spare body...
 
I would always go for a prime lens, IMHO and from my experience, but many will disagree because of the very nature of some on this forum, so "toss a coin"
 
Joeturner11 said:
You could get the 300mm f/4 IS Canon and use it with the 1.4x converter also
Click to expand...

this or 400mm prime. I am playing with the idea of doing some telephoto work and main contender is 400/5.6L... or nothing. It is razor sharp and is very robust and reliable design.
 
IQ is really important (for many, some or nobody - chose which as this is a TP forum)
 
motoroller said:
Weight is also a consideration, I've been packing the 135L instead of the 70-200 2.8 for hiking. The attraction of the Sigma and Tamron is a) image stabilization, and b) bit more reach at similar apertures
Click to expand...

Some reviews highlight 400mm prime as a more detailed at 600mm (interpolated) as Tamron. Canon 100-400 is smeared mess at 400mm from experience, and then it isn't quite full 400mm, more like 360-370... Same with Sigma and Tamron.
 
Canon 400mm 5.6.
Don't worry about IS for your intended use. The zooms are all similar in weight to your 70 200 2.8 or heavier.
 
The zoom lenses are good if you're not always glued at 400mm+ so it depends on what you plan on shooting with it. The zooms are definitely more versatile but if you want birds and non-captive wildlife then a prime will let you crop better later as it's going to be sharper.
 
motoroller said:
Prime it is. I'm just choosing between 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 now, or perhaps the Sigma 300 f/2.8...
Click to expand...

Sigma 300mm f/2.8 is a good quality lens but focus is poor, I recommend you stay with canon lenses, If you want the furthest and best reach then get the 400mm f/5.6, if so want something a little shorter that can go to 400mm with a converter then get the 300mm f/4, but personally if I was you I would go with the 400mm f/5.6
 
tripod or not most of the time?

once you get it you will look towards something longer

IMHO ……… so maybe chose the lens that will fit between what you have and what you will get next, (after the one you are discussing)

I'd go for a 300mm f4 with TC's thinking that I would like a 500mm or 600mm next
 
I still regret selling my 400mm F5.6 as it became my walkabout lenses!! Fantastically sharp and fast to focus but you need to consider the relatively long minimum focus distance (12 or 13ft I recall) as that may impact your use.

I would probably go 300mm with IS plus a Canon TC if I was in the market. I had the 100-400 too but didn't get on as well with that as the 400mm F5.6.
 
I would go with Bill. You'll get a 300 and want more, so you'll get TCs. Then you'll still want more and start trying out how to get a 5/600.

With that in mind I'd go with the 300 and a 1.4x, you won't always want/need the full 400mm. With the quality of the modern 1.4x converters you will barely notice any difference also. I use my 300 with and with out the 1.4x in about 30/70 ratio I'd say so the option of both is always nice.

I find VR (or IS on a canon) useful even if I don't need it for shutter speed but then I am captain shaky hands.
 
What Bill says makes sense- though it sounds like you're not going to want anything bigger and heavier?
I have a 300 f4 and the Tamron 150-600. Until I got the Tamron I used the 1.4x on the 300 all the time. As Chris says IQ doesn't take a big hit- but it certainly impacts on the AF.
 
motoroller said:
I'm looking to get something with a bit more reach, for some sports, wildlife and astro. Ideally it should be wide aperture (f/2.8 or f/4), but this isn't critical.
Click to expand...

Your on the right track for sport wiht 300+
motoroller said:
I've been thinking of:
Canon 400mm f/5.6L (no IS means this is less attractive)
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3
Click to expand...

If I was looking at a list for useless sports lens.. the above would be it.. Maybe ok for cricket on a nice day.. but an field sports these would be next to usless for most of the season due to poor light.. and even more usless for floodlight or evening games..



motoroller said:
Which other recommendations would there be before I spend ~£1000 on a lens? My budget can stretch a bit higher if I sell the spare body...
Click to expand...

sigma 120-300 f2.8 at that price for a used older version which is still a fantastic lens..
 
BillN_33 said:
I would always go for a prime lens, IMHO and from my experience, but many will disagree because of the very nature of some on this forum, so "toss a coin"
Click to expand...
Why would people disagree "because of the very nature of some of this forum"? They might disagree with you because they simply don't agree.
 
KIPAX said:
Your on the right track for sport wiht 300+


If I was looking at a list for useless sports lens.. the above would be it.. Maybe ok for cricket on a nice day.. but an field sports these would be next to usless for most of the season due to poor light.. and even more usless for floodlight or evening games..





sigma 120-300 f2.8 at that price for a used older version which is still a fantastic lens..
Click to expand...
The Sigma and Tamron would be fine for outdoor sports. I've shot loads if motorsports with a long f/5.6 lens with great results.
 
odd jim said:
The Sigma and Tamron would be fine for outdoor sports. I've shot loads if motorsports with a long f/5.6 lens with great results.
Click to expand...


OK then.. ignore me.. f5.6 is OK for sports in winter months when the lights faded.. and floodlight sports eh.....
 
Last edited:
Depends what sports / what body.

I use a 300mm F4 IS with a x1.3 and a x1.6mm body and although I have both x1.4 and x2.0 teleconverters, both of which are not regularly used. For motorsport 400mm would be handy at times. For some of the athletics work I do, 300mm is too long. I have a 70-200 for that.
 
odd jim said:
The Sigma and Tamron would be fine for outdoor sports. I've shot loads if motorsports with a long f/5.6 lens with great results.
Click to expand...

f/5.6 is no good for sports, f/4 lenses can be manageable with a high ISO performing body but will struggle in the worst of situations, f/2.8 is the idea for sports. Listen to what @KIPAX is saying he has years of experience of sports photography so he knows his stuff (y)
 
F5.6 useless for sports seems to be overstating it a touch though? It might not be an ideal aperture for sports but I'd say it's far from useless... if you can't afford a 400mm F2.8L or even a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 S then the options are limited!
 
Double post
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
OK then.. ignore me.. f5.6 is OK for sports in winter months when the lights faded.. and floodlight sports eh.....
Click to expand...
What I meant was, I think it depends on the sport.

For example, I wouldn't dream of shooting indoor dressage or show jumping with anything less than an f/2.8, and preferably an even faster prime.

But even on a winter afternoon, I'd happily use an f/5.6 long lens shooting touring cars at Silverstone.

I don't think you can compartmentalise all sports into one photographic category that's all.

For my next few F1 races, I'll have a 500mm f/5.6 with me.
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
f/5.6 is no good for sports, f/4 lenses can be manageable with a high ISO performing body but will struggle in the worst of situations, f/2.8 is the idea for sports. Listen to what @KIPAX is saying he has years of experience of sports photography so he knows his stuff (y)
Click to expand...
Really?? No ones experience matters except his? I'm guessing all the Canon 70-200 f/4 sport shooters, of which there are many, are doing something wrong then?!

Like I said, I've shot F1 for years with long f/5.6 lenses (amongst others). I'm quite happy to go along with my own experiences thanks. I wouldn't shoot F1 or other sports at f/2.8 unless conditions absolutely demand it. Have you tried shooting an F1 race at f/2.8, in the middle of a bright Asian summer?!?

Or tried an effective panning shot at f/2.8. It doesn't happen.

To say f/5.6 is useless for sport is ridiculous.

I have f/2.8 lenses for sport as well, I'm saying you don't always need them and slower lenses are perfectly adequate on today's bodies, generally speaking, for a lot of sports.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Really?? No ones experience matters except his? I'm guessing all the Canon 70-200 f/4 sport shooters, of which there are many, are doing something wrong then?!
Click to expand...

Tell me when you see the pro toggers at a major sporting event how many use a 70-200mm f/4 or any 400mm f/5.6's?

can't be arsed to discuss this in more detail so if your happy with your lens then thats fine :)
 
Joeturner11 said:
can't be arsed to discuss this in more detail so if your happy with your lens then thats fine :)
Click to expand...

Oh so this is all about the looks of the beast...

You can shoot with f/2.8 lens all the sport and these guys incidentally own one because they need it for something... They are pretty sharp and have state of the art IS. These are the two reasons why you see what you see. However there is no reason why f/5.6 is no good for motorsport, or maybe golf...
 
Joeturner11 said:
Tell me when you see the pro toggers at a major sporting event how many use a 70-200mm f/4 or any 400mm f/5.6's?

can't be arsed to discuss this in more detail so if your happy with your lens then thats fine :)
Click to expand...
Is the OP a pro??

But anyway, you're not reading my posts properly.

I've got f/2.8 long lenses, but they're not always the best lens for the job.

By the way, a popular "pro" Motorsport lens is the Canon 600mm f/4L. You'll see these a lot on the F1 circuits of the world. Just so you know.

And here she is -

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto/EF_600mm_f4L_IS_II_USM/

Are we now saying Canon themselves, as well as the many pro F1 photographers are wrong "The EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM is a high-magnification, super-telephoto lens featuring integrated Image Stabilizer technology and a fast f/4 maximum aperture. Perfect for wildlife, nature and ****sports photographers working in the field***"

Amen.

I can also vouch that this lens shoots just as well at f/5.6.

But I guess even this won't open your eyes to anything other than your perceived photographic rules?

Out of interest, how much Motorsport (circuits) have you photographed?
 
Last edited:
I shoot circuit motorsports with a 300mm f/4 and a 70-200 f/4. I've got extenders if I need them. Unlike some sports which require a high shutter speed to freeze the action, motorsport and other wheeled sports generally use a slower shutter speed to give wheel blur. As most circuit motorsport happens between 9am and 6pm and mostly from March to late October, the light is normally more than adequate to get the shots you want without needing anything close to f/4.

Of course there are exceptions - terrible weather, racing which goes from daylight thru dusk, night and dawn, and other forms of the sport which takes place in less than ideal photographic conditions - e.g. rallying which often has forest stages.

Whilst you may see lots of f/2.8 lenses at major sporting events, it doesn't necessarily mean they're the overall best tool for that job. They're being used because the photographer needs them for possibly more demanding purposes for their varied photography work, and use them for other jobs as well.
 
Also, a lot of Motorsport would simply look odd at f/2.8!
 
odd jim said:
Is the OP a pro??

But anyway, you're not reading my posts properly.

I've got f/2.8 long lenses, but they're not always the best lens for the job.

By the way, a popular "pro" Motorsport lens is the Canon 600mm f/4L. You'll see these a lot on the F1 circuits of the world. Just so you know.

And here she is -

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto/EF_600mm_f4L_IS_II_USM/

Are we now saying Canon themselves, as well as the many pro F1 photographers are wrong "The EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM is a high-magnification, super-telephoto lens featuring integrated Image Stabilizer technology and a fast f/4 maximum aperture. Perfect for wildlife, nature and ****sports photographers working in the field***"

Amen.

I can also vouch that this lens shoots just as well at f/5.6.

But I guess even this won't open your eyes to anything other than your perceived photographic rule

Out of interest, how much Motorsport (circuits) have you photographed?
Click to expand...

You're extremely patronising.

You'd think from reading your posts that you are gods gift to the sporting photographic community. Perhaps in your eyes you are.

Well a 400 2.8 is better than a 5.6. Period. And if they made 500 & 600 2.8s then they'd be using those not f4s.
 
How is that patronising? It's certainly not meant to be.

I'm addressing mis information for the benefit of the OP with a few facts and a bit of common sense.

And Canon (for example) do make 600mm f/2.8 lenses.

Have you not read and considered my posts? You wouldn't want to use f/2.8 for Motorsport unless it was for a very specific shot.
 
Last edited:
It's patronising because of your tone and the fact that you're reinforcing your argument with links to a lens with the implication that the rest of us need to know what an F1 suitable lens looks like.

Well we don't and you'd be better served by presenting your argument in a manner that will get others considering what you have to say rather than thinking that you're talking down to others who have plenty of photographic experience to draw on themselves. :p
 
I'm not an expert but I do have a couple of the lenses being mentioned.

I have both a canon 300mm f4 and sigma 300mm f2.8. Both cost circa £850 and both produce great results. The F4 has IS, the sigma doesn't. I can't say I have found that to be an issue with the sigma to date. It was mentioned earlier that the sigma is a slow to focus, that doesn't feel like it's the case on mine.

At some point I will carry out a proper test between the two of them with a view to moving one of them on. I have a feeling the sigma will win. It's old, it's big, it's heavy, but for the money it does a very nice job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top