one for the sports toggers....

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I am looking into getting a new lens, canon 70-200 f.2.8 IS

I have never really done the sports pics before etc, I was wondering if this range is good for the following sports.

football
rugby
swimming
motor sports
athletics
horses/dogs

sure you get the kinds I mean.

Is this range too short? I was tempted to get the canon x2 converter for this as well.

any advice welcome as this is total new ground to me.

Thanks
 
I looked at this option with a converter too trying to get say two lens for the price of one if you know what I mean, but got advised against it here as the picture quaulity will not be as good with the converter on it, I bought the 100 400 and to be honest it is a very good lens and gives youy that extra reach with no problems.

spike
 
For the sports you listed, Id go for the 100-400 purely for the extra reach. Sure its a slower lens, but the sports you listed are all played outdoors, where getting a workable shutter speed shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't personally go with the 2x converter if I had any other option.
 
Does the converter really make that much difference to the quality?
 
A 70-200mm is a great all-round lens for general photography, portraits and indoor sports. It's fine with a 1.4x TC, still very sharp and still tracks subjects with ease, AF takes a bit longer to 'grip' though some the HSM/USM/Silent Wave motors work well here because you can nudge them forwards/backwards as required.

The 2x TC actually works quite well for motorsport photography on a bright day because you often stop down to around f/11ish to get the right shutter speed, however on an overcast day, sharpness drops off too much when wide-open. For football and rubgy I'd stick with the bare-lens and 1.4x TC.

Try a 70-200mm and 1.4x. If you only need the extra reach at tracks give the 2x a go. If your still not happy keep the 70-200mm and save for a 300/400mm prime (300mm f/2.8 probably best 'Bang for Buck'). That would work superbly well for almost any sports shooting. If your only shooting moving things that move, consider the Canon 70-200mm non-IS or Sigma 70-200mm. It'll save you a bit of money and you can put that towards a prime in the future.

Or if you only want a single lens set-up you could opt for the 100-300mm f/4. Personally I wouldn't go for a 100-400mm, but thats because I don't like slow lenses!!
 
JEmerson said:
A 70-200mm is a great all-round lens for general photography, portraits and indoor sports. It's fine with a 1.4x TC, still very sharp and still tracks subjects with ease, AF takes a bit longer to 'grip' though some the HSM/USM/Silent Wave motors work well here because you can nudge them forwards/backwards as required.

The 2x TC actually works quite well for motorsport photography on a bright day because you often stop down to around f/11ish to get the right shutter speed, however on an overcast day, sharpness drops off too much when wide-open. For football and rubgy I'd stick with the bare-lens and 1.4x TC.

Try a 70-200mm and 1.4x. If you only need the extra reach at tracks give the 2x a go. If your still not happy keep the 70-200mm and save for a 300/400mm prime (300mm f/2.8 probably best 'Bang for Buck'). That would work superbly well for almost any sports shooting. If your only shooting moving things that move, consider the Canon 70-200mm non-IS or Sigma 70-200mm. It'll save you a bit of money and you can put that towards a prime in the future.

Or if you only want a single lens set-up you could opt for the 100-300mm f/4. Personally I wouldn't go for a 100-400mm, but thats because I don't like slow lenses!!
Click to expand...

hmmm.... ad rather have the faster lens and lose a bit of focal length.

but at the same time I like having the option to change focal length e.g. the 70-200.. over a prime 300.

Will give the sigmas a look see what I can find, really fancying the 70-200 2.8 at the minute.

does the x1.4 knock the F. down at all as I read the x2 would take the F.2.8 down to F.5.6
 
Robbo said:
hmmm.... ad rather have the faster lens and lose a bit of focal length.

but at the same time I like having the option to change focal length e.g. the 70-200.. over a prime 300.

Will give the sigmas a look see what I can find, really fancying the 70-200 2.8 at the minute.

does the x1.4 knock the F. down at all as I read the x2 would take the F.2.8 down to F.5.6
Click to expand...

A 1.4x TC loses one stop of light. So a 70-200mm becomes a 98-280mm f/4 zoom lens and with a 2x TC it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6.

I was in the same position an I've gone for a Sigma 70-200mm (if you find a good one it'll equal a good copy of the canon lens, in almost every area except perhaps AF grip speed) and then I'll add a 300mm f/2.8 later in the year when I can afford one.

Go for it...

...if you buy secondhand you won't lose any money and you can try ut what works best for you.

Personally, I'd try a 70-200mm for a few weeks, decide if the TC's are the way forward or if you need a longer lens. In which case save for a prime. That's just my personal opinion of course...
 
JEmerson said:
A 1.4x TC loses one stop of light. So a 70-200mm becomes a 98-280mm f/4 zoom lens and with a 2x TC it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6.

I was in the same position an I've gone for a Sigma 70-200mm (if you find a good one it'll equal a good copy of the canon lens, in almost every area except perhaps AF grip speed) and then I'll add a 300mm f/2.8 later in the year when I can afford one.

Go for it...

...if you buy secondhand you won't lose any money and you can try ut what works best for you.

Personally, I'd try a 70-200mm for a few weeks, decide if the TC's are the way forward or if you need a longer lens. In which case save for a prime. That's just my personal opinion of course...
Click to expand...

I have a 70-300mm at the min just a cheap tamron, which isnt really working for me quality wise, however, I suppose I could test the focal lengths with that first and see which I seem to use the most....
 
Exactly why Im not a fan of the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders. Not only do you lose image quality, significantly more than you would using a 100-400, it also becomes just as slow as a 100-400 (which isnt even that slow, especially for daylight sports). I just cant see the benefit in those things to be honest.

100-400 is a fine lens for outdoor sports and sublime for wildlife. I personally dont rate primes for sports like football and rugby. That will probably annoy a lot of sports shooters, but I dont like how restricted they are, how you have a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of the field, and if they are too close or too far away, you have no room for adjustment. That's just me though. I know there are many sublime sports photographers who swear by long reaching primes. They just aren't for me.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Exactly why Im not a fan of the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders. Not only do you lose image quality, significantly more than you would using a 100-400, it also becomes just as slow as a 100-400 (which isnt even that slow, especially for daylight sports). I just cant see the benefit in those things to be honest.

100-400 is a fine lens for outdoor sports and sublime for wildlife. I personally dont rate primes for sports like football and rugby. That will probably annoy a lot of sports shooters, but I dont like how restricted they are, how you have a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of the field, and if they are too close or too far away, you have no room for adjustment. That's just me though. I know there are many sublime sports photographers who swear by long reaching primes. They just aren't for me.
Click to expand...

thanks for that info

Would you say IS is advantageous in sport/wildlife pictures? or would the panning technique etc near enough make the IS not needed?
 
Robbo said:
thanks for that info

Would you say IS is advantageous in sport/wildlife pictures? or would the panning technique etc near enough make the IS not needed?
Click to expand...


If you would need a shutter speed of say 1/400 to shoot something, with IS on you should be able to shoot at say 1/100, approximately 4 times slower, with image stabilization turned on. When shooting moving subjects and panning, its useful, especially in low light situations where you need a slower shutter speed. Or if you have a heavy/long lens, like the 100-400. I recommend the 100-400 hugely.
 
From the user reports on the US websites the 70-200 L IS II is MUCH better than version I when using the 2x TC.
'tis a bit expensive still.
 
I find the 100-400 is a fabulous lens but it is a lot of fuss if you're walking around and teleconverters don't work with autofocus on it.

100-400 is awesome if you need the reach and you are settled in a nest somewhere. Stick it on a monopod with a grip-release ball head, set it to the focal length you want to use and it is amazing....but if you're walking around it is heavy (very heavy), fiddly (with half rings for friction grip on the zoom so it doesn't clunk down when you go to review), wide open aperture changes as you zoom (so awkward in manual) as does the centre of gravity (because the zoom is a long push-pull arrangement that some people think is the cause of much sensor dust).

70-200 is fabulous for walk around gigs and perfect for portraits (though a little too sharp to be flattering at times, so photoshop glow required). Autofocus works with the teleconverters and zoom is operated with a twist grip. The lens does not get longer with zoom and the front element does not rotate with focus.

I love both lenses, but the 100-400 is such a drama a rarely walk around with it - but for long reach work, the 100-400 delivers awesome results.

Steve
 
I shoot football and rugby regularly (but badly). I don't think the 70-200 would be long enough for good quality shots - you would end up cropping a lot to get in tight on the action. I think the 100-400 would be too slow for winter shooting of these sports too. Personally I found the 300/4 to be the best compromise. I usually used it with the 1.4 tc attached and on a 1DmkII - on a 450 you might not need the teleconverter which would make it fast enough and long enough, just not very flexible.

I sold my 2x TC as it degraded the quality too much.

I haven't shot the other sports you mention but a long focal length would be handy for athletics I would have thought. Cricket needs 300mm+

Having said all that, the 70-200/2.8 is such a good lens and covers such a useful range for people shots it must be the most popular telezoom made. If you are buying just for sports I'd go longer, but if you want it to cover other types of photography too then maybe give it a go.
 
There is also the Canon 70-300 DO IS lens which is the most compact 300mm around. :thumbs: It is actually shorter than my Canon 28-70 2.8L :shrug:
 
I would go for the 120-300 over a 100-400 just for the 2.8, although its not always essential ive shot netball and basketball in some bloody horrible sports centres and im still needing to crank the iso to get a useable speed
 
I went to Brands Hatch yesterday with my Dad and was using a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro and found the focal lenght really good.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
For the sports you listed, Id go for the 100-400 purely for the extra reach. Sure its a slower lens, but the sports you listed are all played outdoors, where getting a workable shutter speed shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't personally go with the 2x converter if I had any other option.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's a slower lens but then the 70-200 with the x2 on it becomes a 140-400 f/5.6 lens if I am correct anyway.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
If you would need a shutter speed of say 1/400 to shoot something, with IS on you should be able to shoot at say 1/100, approximately 4 times slower,
Click to expand...

That would depend on how effective the IS on the lens though, the 100-400 is only a one stop stabiliser i believe. The Mk1 70-200 2.8 is around 3 stops.
 
Robbo said:
thanks for that will give it a look up :-)
Click to expand...

I have a 120-300mm for sale if you are interested.

All the International Soccer and Rugby on my flickr was taken with it. I've used it with a 1.4x (Munster v Treviso) also and it's excellent.

I can send you pics etc. of the lens if you want.
 
f5.6 is too slow for winter rugby, you can cope with not much reach and cropping on modern high mp bodies. I shot a fair bit last year of rugby and football (outside) and indoor netball/basketball on an 80-200 which is a pain of a lens to focus edit all that was shot on a 450d/50d

on a crop body I'd go for a 70-200/2.8L either non IS, IS or ISII depending on budget

120-300/2.8 is worth considering but its a bit long at the short end for indoor sports
 
Sorry but got to agree with Malla the Sigma 120-300 would be the best bet as on the 1.6 crop factor it will give you more than enough range, just dont forget about the weight of carrying it around a track for a day as its 2.6kg which is twice the weight of the 100-400 and the front lens element is 105mm.

With a 1.4x converter you have 420mm@f4 rather than the 100-400 which is i think f5.6 from 280mm up which will be much better if you do get into sports photography as some events you might want to shoot may be in sports halls etc with poor light.

A 300 prime would be great if you had a 70-200 f2.8 in your bag and needed that extra reach but from a cost effective point of view the Sigma will give you the best range for now and then at a later date you could get a 70-200 as i am sure now the Canon 70-200 f2.8MKII has arrived the price of the earlier non is lenses will drop.

Have a look at reviews and pictures taken with the Sigma then find a camera shop near by and go and pick one up and have a play as they are bigger than you might expect.

Good luck and let us know what you get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top