These lenses good combo for sport?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not a sports shooter, but I do have both of those lenses. I have used the 70-200 for indoor basketball, but even at f/2.8 and 6400 ISO I could only get 1/250 for my shutter speed, so I'd say that f/2.8 may not cut it for shooting sports indoors. The MK I version, which I have, is also not razor sharp when used wide open. If you want to shoot indoors then you might need to look at lenses such as the 200/2L, 135/2L and 85/1.8, or you may need to set up off camera strobes.
Outdoors I find my 100-400 to be pretty good for motorsport, where as often as not I am trying to slow the shutter and really do not need fast apertures. I also use it for shooting BIF, with some success, but the AF is not the fastest and overall I don't think you'll find a pro shooter using a lens like the 100-400 for any fast action sports, or sports full stop.
More typically I think you'll find the pros will be using lenses such as the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4, and perhaps have a brace of teleconverters to round out their range. Such lenses will give them the focusing speed, shutter speeds, IQ and weatherproofing that they need to shoot in all conditions. A leaky, slow zoom like the 100-400 is not going to deliver the goods when shooting under floodlights on a rainy November night.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that to do the job well your proposed lenses will probably not deliver results a pro would be proud of. Whether they would be good enough for your needs I do not know. If you can be more specific about the types of sport, whether indoors or out and what sort of weather and lighting you anticipate then people may be able to provide more helpful answers.
Outdoors I find my 100-400 to be pretty good for motorsport, where as often as not I am trying to slow the shutter and really do not need fast apertures. I also use it for shooting BIF, with some success, but the AF is not the fastest and overall I don't think you'll find a pro shooter using a lens like the 100-400 for any fast action sports, or sports full stop.
More typically I think you'll find the pros will be using lenses such as the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4, and perhaps have a brace of teleconverters to round out their range. Such lenses will give them the focusing speed, shutter speeds, IQ and weatherproofing that they need to shoot in all conditions. A leaky, slow zoom like the 100-400 is not going to deliver the goods when shooting under floodlights on a rainy November night.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that to do the job well your proposed lenses will probably not deliver results a pro would be proud of. Whether they would be good enough for your needs I do not know. If you can be more specific about the types of sport, whether indoors or out and what sort of weather and lighting you anticipate then people may be able to provide more helpful answers.
OP
- Messages
- 3,962
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This would be for outside sports, not to bothered about weather seal as I can waterproof my kit other ways etc
would the 70-200 with 2.0x lose too much IQ?
The prime lenses would be great but at the moment a lil out my reach, so I need a happy medium that I can get the shots with but provide decent shots
would the 70-200 with 2.0x lose too much IQ?
The prime lenses would be great but at the moment a lil out my reach, so I need a happy medium that I can get the shots with but provide decent shots
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
p.s. if your enquiry about "range" is purely regarding focal length then the answer also depends on what body you are planning on using. When I was shooting the basketball, using my 7D, I often found that 70mm wasn't wide enough to get me the composition I wanted. On a 1D3 it might have been OK, but on the 7D, really too snug.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think I have ever heard a recommendation for the 70-200/2.8 to be used with a 2X teleconverter. Everything I've read says the IQ is just not there and the 100-400 is without doubt a better choice to get you to 400mm. Given that my 70-200 is soft when wide open (that's not due to focus error or a filter either) I don't see that adding magnification to an already soft image will help much. Unfortunately I don't have a 2X teleconverter with which to make a comparison.
Have a look at the resolution charts for the bare 70-200 and 70-200 + 2X here....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0
Not impressive at all.
Now have a look at how the 100-400 compares at 400mm....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=7&API=0
Have a look at the resolution charts for the bare 70-200 and 70-200 + 2X here....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0
Not impressive at all.
Now have a look at how the 100-400 compares at 400mm....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=7&API=0
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't know how much of a crop you've got going on there but I would not be happy with that. For 1/1000 at 100 ISO I'm not impressed.
Even at 1/250 and 6400 ISO these look sharper to me....
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've used a Sigma 70-2002.8 for rugby on a 500D, 7D and now 1D mk III. It's not the Canon but I think it's comparable, and I've found it pretty good.
I haven't had the need for anything longer as yet but for sports I'd be thinking on a 300mm prime.
edit: Under floodlights:
I haven't had the need for anything longer as yet but for sports I'd be thinking on a 300mm prime.
edit: Under floodlights:
