Canon Lens...

[BuS_RiDeR]

I think this lens would do the Job... But I want your opinions... I'm still learning about these things...

Is the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM a good lens for sports photography? (Hockey, baseball, football and so on...). Is it fast enough?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Yeah this is pretty much the end-all-be-all of field sports lenses. You've got to have some kind of support system, it's much too heavy to hand-hold for long periods of time.

That said, if you want REALLY tight shots you might want to look at a 600 or longer lens-- this is about as tight as you'll get for most football play.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Would the Slik Able 300 Tripod be ok with this lens? or will I need something bigger?

 

[icassell]

For this lens, you want a solid tripod with a Wimberly Gimbal mount (or equivalent). Don't go cheap -- the lens is very expensive and it's heavy and you'd hate to see it hit dirt.

Wimberley (since this article was written, there are competitors to Wimberly)

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm

I agree -- this is THE outdoor sports photographer's lens. It ain't cheap!

 

[tsaraleksi]

For sports, I'm hesitant to suggest a tripod-- you'd be really locked down and it'd be a pain to move, especially in a hurry (think running back bearing down on you). A good monopod is probably a better idea for this specific application. For something else, like wildlife shooting, a tripod might be better.

 

[table1349]

Yes that lens is fast enough. It is what I and most of the sports photographers I shoot with use on one body for most field sports. It is an incredible lens for sports shooting, and can make a fantastic portrait lens if you need that kind of working distance. The bokah is amazing.

The tripod you posted will get you nothing but a $7000.00 + pile of busted up lens and body. The 400 f2.8L weighs in at 11 lbs alone. This was my choice of tripod for wildlife shooting. With that lens or any long lens you need a lot of support to provide stability.

For sports shooting leave the tripod at home. I shoot from the sidelines/field at events. The NCAA would never let me or anyone else on the sidelines with a tripod. There is no way to quickly move with a tripod if the action comes your way out of bounds.

If you are shooting from the stands a tripod is going to be in the way of the crowd. You need a good monopod to support the lens. Manfrotto or Gitzo make good monopods with a high maximum weight rating. This would be a good choice for under $60.00. I use this monopod. Much more expensive but the 6 sections lets me get very close to the ground quickly when needed.

One suggestion I might make. If you have never shot that lens you might want to consider renting it for a week before you do. It does have a bit of a learning curve and at that price, it is not one of those things you want to buy only to find out you don't like using it.

 

[bigtwinky]

I'll agree with the above that its a great lens for sport shooting.

I did my first pro soccer game last week and I had a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and a 300 f/4 IS L. The 300 was nice, but I really didn't like the f/4.

With the 70-200, I was shooting (at night, 8pm game start) f/2.8, ISO 800 and 1/400. Put on the 300 and I'm down to 1/200, which is way too slow for fast moving games like soccer. I could of upped the ISO to 1600 to compensate, but I always prefer as low as possible.

The 400 f2.8 would of been great. Twice the lenght of my 70-200 and still 2.8. I saw the Reuters and AP guys using a 400, and they were both on monopods. I also used a monopod as even the 70-200 can get heavy after a while, so why not. But with a 400, I would definately use a monopod.

If you can, bring a second body with a 70-200 or similar lens for the closer shots if you are shooting from the sidelines

I have a Manfrotto 680B monopod, holds up to 21 lbs or so.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Yes it's worth noting that the 400 can often be *too tight* so that you lose shots as your subjects get to close, so I'll second the idea of having a 70-200 on a second body.

Twinky I've used a 70-200 & 300/4 combo for the last couple of years, and I agree that the f/4 is a bit annoying when the sun goes down. It's fine for daytime sports, though the 400 really outclasses it (as well it should given the $6,000 premium).

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Thanks for the input. I will add the mono-pod to my wish list... And a 70-200 f2.8L...

Now to dig up the money.

 

[icassell]

Thanks for the input. I will add the mono-pod to my wish list... And a 70-200 f2.8L...

Now to dig up the money.

When you find the place to dig, call me! I'll bring my own shovel

 

[Montana]

Let us know if/when you get the 400! I want one..............really bad.

 

[Hardrock]

Thanks for the input. I will add the mono-pod to my wish list... And a 70-200 f2.8L...

Now to dig up the money.

When you find the place to dig, call me! I'll bring my own shovel

Forget the shovel Ill bring a backhoe!!!

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

lol.... It will likely be a while... I just wanted to be sure that what I was looking at wasn't totally down the wrong path.

I will get one. I just can't say when.

 

[table1349]

Thanks for the input. I will add the mono-pod to my wish list... And a 70-200 f2.8L...

Now to dig up the money.

I have owned my own copy for a little less than a year. Before that I spent 18 months doing odd jobs in my free time and eating a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. In the end it was worth it. I prefer shooting my own glass. I have hundreds of recipes for peanut butter and jelly if you are interested. :lmao:

I would agree, you need a 70-200 f2.8 to compliment the 400 on a second body. When I am shooting football I generally carry three bodies. One on the 400, one with the 70-200 and one with a 24-70 f2.8 attached for before and after game shots as well as sideline shots.

I noticed someone mentioned the Manfrotto 680 monopod. My only word of caution with that pod would be to buy one suited for your height. I'm 6'3" tall and the 680 was about 2 inches too short. I was always stooping over. The 681 is i believe 4 or 6 inches taller and suits my height perfectly.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

buy one suited for your height

Well I'm only 5'5" on a good day... So I don't think that will be a problem.