From 70-200 and 100-400 to 300

[TonyUSA]

Hello,

Would it be a huge difference in IQ from Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II IS / 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II to 300mm f/2.8 II for shooting sports.

Thank you,

 

[Derrel]

A 300/2.8 is a big, heavy lens, but it produces VERY nice background defocus, and very strong seapration of the subject from the background, at typical "sports distances". All of Canon's 300/2.8 lenses have had TOP-grade optics. The issue though is heaviness, and the fact that much of the time, it leads to cliche type shots: when a player is close to you, you MUST cut off their lower body parts...there's just no other thing you can do. Which leads to cliche sports photos, the kind we see so much becasue so many are shot with a 300/2.8. You know....legless running back bursting through the line...etc, running with no hips,no legs,no feet, just the top part of their body... Seemingly though, pro sports shooters seem to ignore that their work has become pretty cliche'd, as they keep cranking out these half-body and third-body, context-free photos day in and day out.

The TECHNICAL image quality of photos made with a 300/2.8 is high. Buuuuut....indoors at a volleyball match or a basketball game, or in many situations where you have no place to be except in designated press spots and you are stuck in one, small location, you have to have some OTHER lens in order to get a lot of shots you really want to come back with, meaning you need to have a wider-angle option with you, on a second body, ready to make a lot of closer-distance shots. Sometimes though, a 300 is exactly what you want!

You ask if it is a "huge difference in IQ". Well, not huge quality leaps, but a very different "look" to the photos. The 300/2.8 is a PITA to carry unless you use it a lot, and are fit, and it works great. But new 70-200/2.8 lenses are now, very,very good optically. And they allow you to zoom-back when needed, and to show different types of things, whereas the 300mm prime is more of a one-trick pony.

100-400 f/4.5~5.6, apparently the NEW one is better than the old trombone model, but it is still "slow" in f/stop, so it's going to create different-looking photos. You've been asking a lot about gear options, so you might really like to rent the 300/2.8 before committing to it. And consider the 300mm f/4 as a viable option, now that Higher-ISO Canons are everywhere. I sold my 300/2.8 AFS-II this past summer, and kept my 300/4 AF-S. it's lighter, and easier to carry than the 2.8 model.

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts:

1) As Derrel says the 300mm is a prime and thus, especially indoors; with sports (or any activity) you might well find that when the subject swings closer to you, you have to cut bits off to get the shot because you won't be able to move back (most times shooting sports you are either stuck where you are or you've got movement to the side - you will rarely have back and forward options - plus trying to backpeddle whilst taking a photo with a heavy camera is a recipe to fall head over heels backwards over something (probably your camera bag or someone else).

You can counter this by having two cameras and two lenses - a 300mm on one and a 70-200mm on another (esp for indoors). You'll want a good tripod on the 300mm and you can let the 70-200 hang on something like a Black Rapid strap so you can swap over quickly - or if you're strong both on a harness on you (might be fatigue inducing though come mid to end of a sports event - and crippling if its an all day event).

2) The 300mm primes are fantastic and will beat the 100-400mm MII at that range, especially for its background rendering and the smoothness of its out of focus regions. You also get more light gathering which is important for sports, especially (again) if your indoors; but also in morning, evening and overcast times. In general f2.8 is what you ideally want.

3) You can get around the limits above with one other option which is the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - it is heavier than the 300mm prime so you'll ideally want a monopod under it. It won't focus as fast, it won't be as sharp as the prime, but its certainly no slouch and more than capable of achieving what you want with good quality whilst offering you the bonus of a zoom. On a fullframe body I think it would be ideal even indoors (I have found with equine photography indoors the 120mm end on a crop body is limiting - however doing those events my 70-200mm does best - whilst outside the 120-300mm tends to have the edge in reach).

4) I would say that a combo of the 70-200mm and 300mm would be a good one to trial - the only limit is that you lose the 400mm end of the 100-400mm - however you can always put a 1.4TC on the 300mm for a negligible drop in image quality and still get a respectable f4 aperture. Of course then you're fixed to 420mm at f4; but its an option to consider.

5) Most people I know who regularly shoot with big super telephotos consider the 300mm f2.8 handholdable and of a weight that regular use can be grown into by the average person in good fitness. Even if you don't a monopod can take a lot of the strain out of shooting.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you very much for value info. I just received 100-400mm II this week but haven't try it yet because of the weather. I am still debating between doing portraits or sports but I guess I will start doing sport first since my kids are in sports. I am very interested on 300mm f/2.8 because of background blur, and very strong separation between focus and background. Not sure if it worth it to spend $6,000 just to get the picture that I really like. But for sure I will rent it as Derrel suggested before I have to sell my kidney to purchase this lens.

 

[Derrel]

Sports is a very broad field. For sports like outdoor soccer the 100-400 mm lens will be very handy and give you plenty of range. Indoors in sports like gymnastics, the 70-200 mm lens would be preferred over either the 300 or the 100-400 zoom. For outdoor portraits the 100-400 mm Zoom will give you a huge amount of range, and it is a great lens for things like trips to the beach. In years past I had used the 100 to 400 Canon trombone zoom; the new model is redesigned has better Optics and is probably a much better lens for today's higher megapixel sensors. I think you'll find the 100 to 400 is a good outdoor lens in decent light, and will be good for getting close in zoomed in shots of your kids in Sports and Outdoor settings. Indoors in most buildings an 85mm f/1.8 lens can handle a huge amount of lower light Sports and activity photos such as school plays,basketball games, volleyball and so on. The 85mm lens is very sharp, easy to shoot, and with today's high MP cameras you can easily crop in and get tight shots. The f/1.8 aperture allows you to close down a tiny bit to f/2 or f/2.2 or 2.5 and get an extremely crisp image.

 

[Overread]

As Derrel says sports is very rough and if you're mostly shooting family events or varied events then the 100-400mm might well be the best choice; esp when coupled with the 70-200mm. You've got options with a zoom and you've got two fantastic zoom lenses there for their respective ranges.

It sounds like what you need to do is more just get out and shoot and find out how your system actually works for YOU in the field before really committing to another purchase. Otherwise you can run the risk that you've got so many options that you don't really know which to choose - which can lead to a lot of frustration; or can lead to a very expensive lens being little more than a paperweight because you have such a limited need for it in reality.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you very much.

 

[astroNikon]

As mentioned, sports is very demanding. Let me briefly give you what I've learned over the years. I've learned that your lens and camera selection is ever evolving for a particular type of event and age group.

The Age group defines certain characteristics. usually a smaller "field" (don't need as long a lens) if a field event and the participants move slower (slower minimum shutter speed). This lets you get away with a Kit lens fairly well.

But as you move up in age (and their speed), and field size, and indoor/outdoor, everything moves up the range fairly quickly.

When I first started just shooting soccer it was kids 4-5 age groups. I got by just fine with a D7000 and the kit 18-105 lens. Some cropping and all is fine. I think my shutter speeds back then was 1/320 and all was fine. Slow moving bunches of kids.

Move up to U6, and add in evening games and the whole equation changes. I moved up to a 80-200/2.8. Shutter speeds went up to 1/400+. The f/2.8 was needed for lower light. I even started noticing my ISOs more on bright days but when heavy clouds moved in and out. My ISO would vary and I learned about AUTO ISO with MAX ISO settings (maxxed at 1600).

U8, faster shutter speed. Doing U14 now I'm at minimum 1/800 to 1/1000 to prevent blurring. Along the way I tried a 300/4 lens, 70-300 VRii and a few others. The 300 was a Nice lens but very "fixed". I had 2 camera bodies but didn't want to use 2 cameras/lenses with me.

Now add indoor. the lighting is just plain horrible. I may get a high ISOs from 640 to 10,000 at f/2.8 depending where I'm pointing on the field. This shows the indoor field, which is worse in the evening:


For outdoor soccer on a full size field I use a 150-600/8 lens. My cameras support this well with a higher ISO for the aperture which is sharp at f/8.

You'll inevitably have a collection of lenses and know which to use at which events.

I'm also a coach and a ref. Concidentally this allows me access to places that the public cannot get to. On Indoor soccer only players and coaches are allowed on the open side. The parent side is blocked off by high glass and nets. This of course is a safety concern and I stay away from the very edge of the field, and any time the ball comes my way I put the camera down for safety reasons. And at any moment I may actually have to assist to an injury on the field, or coaching matter (we have 3 coaches for our teams, so I can at times take photographs).

So if you get more involved to support sports you can move around and get better positioning for photos if allowed to.

Equipment also matters. There are times I'll quickly aim at a player(s) on the sidelines and take a upper body "portrait" of excitement, anguish, etc. This requires a quick eye, and a quick camera. Considering I'm at f/2.8 and 1/1000 and a high ISO I'd probably have a DOF issue. With a 2 wheel camera I can quickly rotate my aperture dial to f/5.6+ and bring shutter way down to balance out a lower ISO to support the aperture and "portrait", and then BACK to the field within seconds at my sport setting.

You image size, ISO and cropping affect the final processed image, thus positioning for photos can become critical for nice images.

The "speed" of press button to actually take the shot also matters. I don't have to spray and pray I wait until the action reaches a certain point and take the shots. just kicking the ball, a flail of the hair which shows excessive movement, teammates screaming after a goal (taking pics of the goal, then quickly the bench, and back again) is really the camera body's capabilities.

I've also learned on my D600 on AF-C and 80/200 AF-D lens that, for some reason my keeper rate drops after 3 continuous shots of fast action. So I "reset" the system by lifting my finger and reinitiating the camera body, many times as the action moves. And my keeper rate goes way up. this is probably because the AF-D lenses may not be super fast compared to the more modern AF-S lenses. I also do this with my 150-600 (which is AF-S) and have a much higher keeper rate too. In research, I've found that the internal body motor "power/torque" varies on cameras. The higher end cameras the better. Of course the AF-D lenses cost far less than the AF-S lenses, which afford me to be able to get better bodies - Just check the price of a 80/200 compared to a 70-200.

I've helped some parent photographers on their cameras. D3100, and I've put on my 50/1.4 in order to show you can get some photos but that camera I just could not get to be fast from press of a button to taking the image - you miss the action that you want to get and get the action after what you want to get (unless you spray it). Another parent/coach with a a6000 just takes portraits using a 50mm @ 1.8 lens as his regular lens just doesn't work on indoor in any auto mode.

As you become more critical of what you do and Don't get in shots you'll come across these issues after you've pushed yourself first, then the camera secondly. and Plenty of practice.

FYI, I now shoot with a d750 and d500.
I'm not a pro, but it certainly is fun and enjoyable.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you very much.

 

[spiralout462]

For my children's sporting events a 300 f4 is a little too long at times. I pretty much have all access since I help coach all of them!, so I'm usually better off mounting an 85 f1.8 and getting down on the sidelines.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[greybeard]

I have no working knowledge of this camera/lens combinations. I do have pretty good instincts as to what work and where. A friend of mine, who happens to own one of the last camera shops on earth, shoots mostly sports and uses 2 bodies with a 300 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. He mounts the 300 on a monopod and slings the 70-200 around his neck.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[Gary A.]

I used to be a news photographer. Sports was a weekly fare. Baseball requires longer lenses than basketball ... et cetera. If I were to have a "kit" setup for all sports, it would be a 300mm f/2.8 and a 70/200 F/2.8, affixed to two cameras.

Shooting location is vitally important. For basketball you can get awesome shots under the net with a 20mm/28mm. An 85mm to 135mm for the free throw perimeter, 200mm for beyond the free throw line. Sports, like many other genres, you can use any lens in your arsenal. But the longer and wider you go, the less shooting opportunities will present themselves, but the stuff you get should be unique. Zooms are amazingly useful for sports.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.