I know this has probably been discussed before, infact I know it has having searched and read a few of the threads but not so much geared towards cricket, found a few wildlife related posts. I will also use it for football, other sports in general including motorsport....
My camera is a 550d...
I need a tele zoom lens, gave my kit one away, 70-300 and need to replace it. I found that 300 wasn't quite enough for cricket to not need lots of cropping due to the boundary distance from the wicket so....
I've been thinking on getting the Canon 100-400 lens but am put off by the push/pull zoom mechanism and the somewhat slow f4.5 - 5.6.
The only other options I would consider are a 70-200 2.8 IS or 70-300 4.5 - 5.6 IS with either a x1.4 or x2.0 tc. Down sides are the slower apertures with a teleconvertor and I've read a fair bit about AF slowing right up and loss of image quality. Plus the extra cost obviously of going down the lens + tc route, especially seeing as the 70-200 is a fair bit dearer to begin with.....
General consensus so far seems to have come up with going for the 100-400?...
Oh, and apologies for another one of 'these' threads! I would class myself as the lower end of amateur with the ability to confidently use full manual settings.
My camera is a 550d...
I need a tele zoom lens, gave my kit one away, 70-300 and need to replace it. I found that 300 wasn't quite enough for cricket to not need lots of cropping due to the boundary distance from the wicket so....
I've been thinking on getting the Canon 100-400 lens but am put off by the push/pull zoom mechanism and the somewhat slow f4.5 - 5.6.
The only other options I would consider are a 70-200 2.8 IS or 70-300 4.5 - 5.6 IS with either a x1.4 or x2.0 tc. Down sides are the slower apertures with a teleconvertor and I've read a fair bit about AF slowing right up and loss of image quality. Plus the extra cost obviously of going down the lens + tc route, especially seeing as the 70-200 is a fair bit dearer to begin with.....
General consensus so far seems to have come up with going for the 100-400?...
Oh, and apologies for another one of 'these' threads! I would class myself as the lower end of amateur with the ability to confidently use full manual settings.