100-400 or 70-300 for ice hockey

[sec]

I'm going to be in Ottawa in a couple of weeks for the womens world championships and want to take some good pics.
At the same event last year I shot with a Canon T3i and the 75-300 IS USM. I found it slow to focus and several pics were either out of focus or the camera wouldn't focus and take the picture at all.


Despite the fact that they're both out of my budget, I've about decided to break down and get either the 70-300 L or the 100-400 L. I just can't decide which one. I've gone back and forth for the last week. First guestion, is the 70-300 L really that much better than the 75-300 I have? I use it as my standard lense. Second, will the 100-400 provide sigificantly more close up shots of players than the 70-300? I will be limited to shooting from my seat except maybe during warm up.


Don't have the opportunity to shoot sports regularly, maybe once a year or two, but like to shoot close ups of my favorite players as well as wider game action.

Other than that, I primarily take landscape, wildlife, and general travel photos.


Any suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

is the 70-300 L really that much better than the 75-300 I have? I use it as my standard lense.

Yes. It's incredibly sharp at 300 and the focus is fast. Faster than the 100-400. That is important because you'll be spending a lot of time there. I've shot with the 100-400 too, it's great as well. I travel a lot and have no regrets buying the 70-300. The 100-400 is just too big. The crop sensor will give you an advantage on the long end and with 18MP you still have some room to crop the image. 70mm is a bit more useable on the short end than 100mm. Also, the 70-300 will give you f4 between 70-100mm.

With ice hockey, you might have a problem with available light. Your T3i can produce a very good image shooting in RAW up to saaaay, ISO1600. The L glass will help a bit with the IQ, provided you expose correctly. With the higher noise, tight cropping could become an issue. There is some good software out there that can tame noise fairly well. Those two lenses mentioned above are still rather poor in low light. You have IS on both, but that won't do you any good for stopping subject movement. You'll be at f5.6 on the long end. Anything 300 or longer at f4 or lower is going to run some big $$$$.

 

[jakubsisak]

Another option might be the 400mm prime (also an L series) I don't have this lens but it is said to be sharper then the zooms albeit no IS. However, none of these might be fast enough to shoot hockey but it very much depends on how well lit the arena is. I have the 70-200mm L f4 no IS and shooting my boy's games is a challenge. It's simply not fast enough. This was using the 60D - I have the 6D FF now which is better in low light but now the reach at 200mm (no longer cropped) is not sufficient. Newer arenas have better lighting which makes a world of difference.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

Keep in mind that focus speed is also a function of the camera body. There is a reason that pro sports photographers use very expensive, high end camera bodies. So with that in mind, technique will be very important. You may not be able to follow the action and keep up...so you may have to anticipate and maybe shoot when the action is more static.

You might also consider renting one or even two of the lenses in question. That will let you play with them before you commit to buying anything. And if you don't do this sort of thing often, maybe renting each time is a better option anyway.

Lastly, are you doing this in any sort of professional capacity? Do you have media credentials etc? I'm just asking because if you walk in there and pull out a huge lens, you are likely to get questioned by security etc. Just about any large arena has their own rules about photography...usually they say 'no photography' but really they will only stop someone if the 'look' like they are professional....if they have a big white lens, for example.

 

[sec]

Thanks for your responses. I finally ordered the 70-300 L today. Can't wait for it to get here so I can try it out. I decided to go with it since it is basically a much better version of a lense I am familiar with and use regularly. I just figured I would get more use out of it than the 100-400. I would still love to have the 100-400 but just couldn't justify spending that much money on a lense I might use once a year.

So I'm going to have to do the best I can with the 70-300 as far as hockey goes. The pics I took last year were tolerable for the most part, so hopefully with the better lense they will be better this year. Half the games will be in Ottawa's NHL arena so I'm hoping for the best when it comes to lighting. The others are in some local arena so lighting there will be a crap shoot. I'm not expecting much there. I have grudgingly accepted the fact that these are never going to be pro quality photos.

Mike, definitely not professional in any way and unfortunately never will be. Sometimes though I think if my paycheck depended on my photos I might not enjoy it near as much. As for security, I didn't have any problem last year but I shot everything from my seat except warm up. I wasn't trying to stand against the glass at the end to shoot game action like a few people were. Security was a small part of my decision to go with the slightly smaller and less noticable 70-300, though I think any white lense is going to draw its share of attention.

 

[table1349]

While I am aware that you already ordered the 70-300L f4-5.6 I am going to advise you that you are going to still have a difficult time getting good shots. As Big Mike mentioned sports gear is expensive for a reason. While an ice hockey rink may look bright to your eyes it is dark to the camera. I shoot sports and do not own a lens slower that f2.8. You may find that you would have been better served with the 70-200 f2.8 than the 70-300.