Lacrosse / Sports * Canon 400 / Tamron 150-600 / Sigma 150-600

[keithshocker]

Hello all.....New to the boards, and of course, my dilemma is trying to get the most lens for my $$$. I am looking for the best lens to go with my Canon 6D, mostly for shooting outdoor sports like lacrosse, and wildlife. Not concerned with weight or size, and all three can fit my budget, but obviously, if the best alternative is cheaper than that $2200 Sigma, more toys for me! I currently use a Canon 70-200 2.8, and with the Kenko 1.4X it's adequate, but I need more reach. My initial move to the L series 400 5.6 was immediate, but then wanted to stop being ignorant about the Sigma and Tamron offerings and try being less of a lens snob. Any thoughts? Thanks

 

[fjrabon]

If you can stretch your budget, the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 sport edition is to me, the best sports lens going. A 2X teleconverter turns it into a 240-600 f/5.6. A 1.4X tele converter turns it into a 170-420 f/4.

It's fast, can be extra long with teleconverters, it can be focus fine tuned for both accuracy and focus speed and it's as sharp as many telephoto primes.

 

[Derrel]

In that price range....I watched Tony Northrup's comparison of the Sigma SPort 150-600, Tamron 150-600, Canon 400/5.6, and the new Canon 100-400 Mk II. In double-blind testing, the best performing lens for sharpness and "reach" was Canon's100-400 zoom....with its imaged up-sized to match those of the two zooms at 600mm it was optically a bit better than the two zooms. Not too surprising, really, what with diffraction and all on the two zooms probably being the difference-maker. But, actually all of those lenses, the two zooms, the 100-400L and the 400/5.6 prime were "close".

Most Bang For Buck can be tough to evaluate...depends on how often and "how" you actually plan on using a lens. The bigger lenses like the 120-300/2.8 Sigma or a 300/2.8 require an entirely different level of dedication than the much smaller, more hand-holdable lenses do. $2200 or $1100 pretty much eliminates lenses like the 120-300/2.8 from consideration.

 

[keithshocker]

As far as budget, $2200 is definitely stretched, my original budget was closer to $1500, but saw room for major improvement with a few hundred more. As far as usage, it will be my predominant lens for most of summer and fall, as I mentioned, shooting lacrosse. I do have a back of my head idea to maybe start a part time business selling some photos of the tournaments, etc, but I am nowhere near the quality of photographer I need to be to do that, but would like lenses that might support that effort in the future. While I do have my sights set on the 300 2.8, it's out of my league for the upcoming season, for sure. I guess really, it comes down to the two Canons, which were my initial thoughts anyway. The 100-400 is great, but I find that I am almost always at max reach with the 200 with 1.4, so my thoughts really are that the 400 5.6 prime truly fits my needs best, but with little room for growth.....Oh, to hit the lottery (not even BIG) and be able to just drop the cash for the 400 2.8

I appreciate the feedback, I know all lenses are open to interpretation and talent level, I just like to hear from experienced folks. Google, and reviews sometimes muddy the waters more, in my case.....

 

[BillM]

When I started shooting sports I found an old Tamron 300 MM f/2.8 on Adorama for $1200. It did a great job for me and allowed me to shoot night games at much lower ISO. I could even shoot hockey with it

 

[Derrel]

Another option would be the Canon 300mm f/4 IS, with the 1.4x added for an effective 420mm f/5.6, when more length is needed. When shooting soccer or lacrosse with the any fixed focal length lens, close-in action might call for a second body. On stuff that is even remotely close to the camera position, the 400mm prime will be very "tight".

 

[beagle100]

Hello all.....New to the boards, and of course, my dilemma is trying to get the most lens for my $$$. I am looking for the best lens to go with my Canon 6D, mostly for shooting outdoor sports like lacrosse, and wildlife. Not concerned with weight or size, and all three can fit my budget, but obviously, if the best alternative is cheaper than that $2200 Sigma, more toys for me! I currently use a Canon 70-200 2.8, and with the Kenko 1.4X it's adequate, but I need more reach. My initial move to the L series 400 5.6 was immediate, but then wanted to stop being ignorant about the Sigma and Tamron offerings and try being less of a lens snob. Any thoughts? Thanks

a fixed 400mm would really limit you for field sports but if you had two bodies with a 70-200 on the other it could work. A zoom like the 120-300 or 100-400 is more versatile. I use the Canon 100-400 (original V1) for college lacrosse and other field sports like soccer, track and field hockey but only during the day.

sports pics with the 100-400 V1 on a 60D
c w Flickr - Photo Sharing

 

[davholla]

As Canon 100-400 Mk II is out of my price range what would be best the Tamron 150-600 or Sigma C 150-600

 

[beagle100]

As Canon 100-400 Mk II is out of my price range what would be best the Tamron 150-600 or Sigma C 150-600

the original 100-400 is around $800 used, The non-Canon longer telephoto lens are usually not as fast focusing as Canon but do a search, someone has used one of those lens for field sports.

CNU Christopher Newport Univ. Captains Frostburg State Bobcats Maryland Lacrosse NCAA women's sports by c w, on Flickr

 

[BillM]

Is the Sigma out yet ? Or still pre order ? And i'm sure they would be fine for day time sports but for night work you'd have to be a talented photographer to do a good job with one, or have extremely good lighting.

 

[davholla]

Hello all.....New to the boards, and of course, my dilemma is trying to get the most lens for my $$$. I am looking for the best lens to go with my Canon 6D, mostly for shooting outdoor sports like lacrosse, and wildlife. Not concerned with weight or size, and all three can fit my budget, but obviously, if the best alternative is cheaper than that $2200 Sigma, more toys for me! I currently use a Canon 70-200 2.8, and with the Kenko 1.4X it's adequate, but I need more reach. My initial move to the L series 400 5.6 was immediate, but then wanted to stop being ignorant about the Sigma and Tamron offerings and try being less of a lens snob. Any thoughts? Thanks

a fixed 400mm would really limit you for field sports but if you had two bodies with a 70-200 on the other it could work. A zoom like the 120-300 or 100-400 is more versatile. I use the Canon 100-400 (original V1) for college lacrosse and other field sports like soccer, track and field hockey but only during the day.

sports pics with the 100-400 V1 on a 60D
c w Flickr - Photo Sharing

Those photos are really good. (BTW I am thinking more of wildlife photos).

As Canon 100-400 Mk II is out of my price range what would be best the Tamron 150-600 or Sigma C 150-600

the original 100-400 is around $800 used, The non-Canon longer telephoto lens are usually not as fast focusing as Canon but do a search, someone has used one of those lens for field sports.

CNU Christopher Newport Univ. Captains Frostburg State Bobcats Maryland Lacrosse NCAA women's sports by c w, on Flickr

Those photos are really good. Is there a big difference between the original 100-400 and the new one? Is your lens the same as this one Canon EF 100-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens 8714574991610 eBay

 

[beagle100]

Hello all.....New to the boards, and of course, my dilemma is trying to get the most lens for my $$$. I am looking for the best lens to go with my Canon 6D, mostly for shooting outdoor sports like lacrosse, and wildlife. Not concerned with weight or size, and all three can fit my budget, but obviously, if the best alternative is cheaper than that $2200 Sigma, more toys for me! I currently use a Canon 70-200 2.8, and with the Kenko 1.4X it's adequate, but I need more reach. My initial move to the L series 400 5.6 was immediate, but then wanted to stop being ignorant about the Sigma and Tamron offerings and try being less of a lens snob. Any thoughts? Thanks

a fixed 400mm would really limit you for field sports but if you had two bodies with a 70-200 on the other it could work. A zoom like the 120-300 or 100-400 is more versatile. I use the Canon 100-400 (original V1) for college lacrosse and other field sports like soccer, track and field hockey but only during the day.

sports pics with the 100-400 V1 on a 60D
c w Flickr - Photo Sharing

Those photos are really good. (BTW I am thinking more of wildlife photos).

As Canon 100-400 Mk II is out of my price range what would be best the Tamron 150-600 or Sigma C 150-600

there is a slight difference but much larger difference in price!
yes, it's the original 100-400

[/QUOTE]