Sports lens suggestions?

[MLeeK]

I started out thinking an extender and upgrading my second 70-200 Tamron to the Canon NON-IS version... THIS post.
I quickly decided that the compromise in 2 stops and softness just wasn't worth it when I could buy the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS for less money out of pocket than the upgrade and extender would cost me.
I like the idea of the zoom, however the design of that zoom is push/pull which sucks in dust. Not good for me because in my house dust is a problem... I have a shar pei with skin issues, a bull dog with skin issues-they create dust as fast as lightning. AND I have parrots which produce dust faster than the dogs. And 2 kids. AND wood heat. Mind you I won't be using it in my house, but it's a concern too. I'd probably be sending it out for servicing at least between each sport. I am a Canon CPS member, so it's not a big cost for me it's just 2 weeks of time and the hassle of sending it in. :/
Goonies mentioned the 400mm f/5.6 which falls into budget. I am afraid to be without the zoom at THIS point, but I am sure I'd adjust and I may even like it better. Never know. I probably will rent and play. Any other opinions?
I am not ONLY a sport shooter. I shoot portraits and the occasional wedding-or anything else that strikes my fancy. The ability to multi task with it will definitely help to justify the cost!
Now I am wondering what else I am over looking. I am trying to stay under $1500 total here or about $00 to $800 out of pocket after getting my Tamron sold.

 

[Destin]

I started out thinking an extender and upgrading my second 70-200 Tamron to the Canon NON-IS version... THIS post.
I quickly decided that the compromise in 2 stops and softness just wasn't worth it when I could buy the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS for less money out of pocket than the upgrade and extender would cost me.
I like the idea of the zoom, however the design of that zoom is push/pull which sucks in dust. Not good for me because in my house dust is a problem... I have a shar pei with skin issues, a bull dog with skin issues-they create dust as fast as lightning. AND I have parrots which produce dust faster than the dogs. And 2 kids. AND wood heat. Mind you I won't be using it in my house, but it's a concern too. I'd probably be sending it out for servicing at least between each sport. I am a Canon CPS member, so it's not a big cost for me it's just 2 weeks of time and the hassle of sending it in. :/
Goonies mentioned the 400mm f/5.6 which falls into budget. I am afraid to be without the zoom at THIS point, but I am sure I'd adjust and I may even like it better. Never know. I probably will rent and play. Any other opinions?
I am not ONLY a sport shooter. I shoot portraits and the occasional wedding-or anything else that strikes my fancy. The ability to multi task with it will definitely help to justify the cost!
Now I am wondering what else I am over looking. I am trying to stay under $1500 total here or about $00 to $800 out of pocket after getting my Tamron sold.

If getting to 400 isn't a huge concern, you may be able to grab a used sigma 120-300 2.8, I've seen them go around $1500 on ebay before.

If you need 400, the 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC may be a good option.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the 300 f/4 and TC would be a super sharp, very versatile combination. I'd love to have the Nikon version. Just Checked pricing on BH, you could have the combo new for $1,545, used you could probably shave a few hundred off easily.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

If you didn't need to be at 400mm, the 300mm is a very nice lens as mentioned. However, I don't see the point of the TC though for your situation. You are not going to have much time to swap the TC on and off as needed. Also 300mm really isn't much longer than the 70-200. I think, as you stated in the other post, that 2 bodies would be better which is what every pro sports shooter does. Why not get the 400 f/5.6 for use on your 7D since you will be able to use the better AF, since its a smaller minimum aperture lens as well as use the high ISO capabilities to gain speed. Then try and pick up a used T3i ( or stretch the budget and grab a used 50D ) that you can slap the 70-200 on for closer and mid range shot? This is all assuming you rent the 400mm and like it.

 

[MLeeK]

If you didn't need to be at 400mm, the 300mm is a very nice lens as mentioned. However, I don't see the point of the TC though for your situation. You are not going to have much time to swap the TC on and off as needed. Also 300mm really isn't much longer than the 70-200. I think, as you stated in the other post, that 2 bodies would be better which is what every pro sports shooter does. Why not get the 400 f/5.6 for use on your 7D since you will be able to use the better AF, since its a smaller minimum aperture lens as well as use the high ISO capabilities to gain speed. Then try and pick up a used T3i ( or stretch the budget and grab a used 50D ) that you can slap the 70-200 on for closer and mid range shot? This is all assuming you rent the 400mm and like it.

I have a 50D, 7D, 1D3 and a 5d2, so two bodies aren't a problem... I do shoot with 2 bodies, but I am not very adept at it and I find myself using one or the other most of the time and switching only for the sideline shots,etc. I have lots of bodies, although I am seriously thinking about getting rid of the 5d2 and the 50d. I'd sell every one of them if I could get myself into that 1DX!

I am finding myself using the 7D more and more and more... I am able to totally max the ISO on it and the added little tiny bit of crop factor is a boost, even if it's only .3x. I am shocked at how much I like that camera. I am actually questioning my decision to keep the 1d3 as I am finding the 7D meeting my needs more and more. It's kind of like having a corvette on the golf course some times. I don't really utilize it to it's fullest and with the new 7D and it's abilities PLUS the crop factor being just a little more on it...
I rarely max the FPS on either, I am able to use the ISO all of the way to the max on the 7d... It's money I could put elsewhere. Hell, getting rid of it, the 5d2 and the 50D would get me to half way on the 1dX-which I wouldn't use to it's fullest either. I just want it! LOL!
IN REALITY... getting rid of it and planning on the 5d3 for a full frame I'd be able to get my butt into a bit more in the way of lenses. PROBABLY my wiser course of action.
PLUS... how long am I realistically going to shoot sports? 10 years is probably maxing me beyond my true capabilities. I have health issues already and I am into my 40's.
I am just not QUITE ready to take that leap.

I think eventually I will purchase the 1.4x TC. From what I read and hear it is the best of them with minimal compromise. It's not a lot of boost either, but you are right in that adding that little bit of boost to my 7D will give me even more boost.

 

[gsgary]

Sigma 120-300F2.8

 

[MLeeK]

Sigma 120-300F2.8

Um, did you see the budget there?? LOL!
I am really wanting more reach to boot...

 

[Derrel]

I think the dust-pump aspect of the Canon 100-400 trombone-styler zoom is wayyyyy overblown. Virtually all lenses suck in some air when the mechanism is moved smartly. The issue with the Canon 100-400 isn't the dust, it's just the kind of awkward zooming action and the bad performance at the long end and the sloooooow autofocus and clunky handling and bad balance it has. I checked into the 100-400 and borrowed one...nope,a no-go for me...I bought a Sigma 80-400 OS in Canon EF mount used from Adorama back in the spring of 2008, and it went on immediate loan to my best friend Steve, who has used it for four summers in a row as the semi-official official photographer for a minor league baseball team...the Sigma does pretty well for him.

Sigma's 100-300 f/4 is a decent lens. Good range for baseball. Weight is bearable. Different sports demand different lenses. 50-150mm/2.8 can be a great zoom lens length for some sports. There is no one, single answer. I used to shoot newspaper sports stuff in the mid-2000's. 50mm/1.8 or 1.4,85mm /1.4,105mm/2,135mm/2,200/2 prime, 300 f/4 and 300/2.8 are all handy and are "best" for one thing or another...baseball/softball is the lens that need the widest focal length range IMHO. Not sure if you feel up to the 7-pound class lenses...like the 300/2.8...it is also too LONG in many situations....simply too-restrictive on 1.6x. There seems to be a kind of "missing" selection of lenses for many people who want a lens that offers reach, speed, and good handling...not sure "why" the camera or lens makers have not designed a really killer "sports/action lens"... I used to write some blog columns lobbying for a 50-250 f/2.8...the 50mm end would be really handy on close action!!!

 

[MLeeK]

I see what you mean, Derrel. I am kind of stumped.
Gary had said in the other post that the 100-400 wasn't so hot for me, but not why... If it's slow to focus that would be the no-go on that one.
I have the 70-200 and a 1.3 crop and a 1.6 crop. I am wanting more reach. I love my 70-200 sigma OS, but I was hoping to get rid of the 70-200 tamron and get into more zoom one way or another.
Somehow I knew the 100-400 was too good to work!

 

[MLeeK]

I started out thinking an extender and upgrading my second 70-200 Tamron to the Canon NON-IS version... THIS post.
I quickly decided that the compromise in 2 stops and softness just wasn't worth it when I could buy the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS for less money out of pocket than the upgrade and extender would cost me.
I like the idea of the zoom, however the design of that zoom is push/pull which sucks in dust. Not good for me because in my house dust is a problem... I have a shar pei with skin issues, a bull dog with skin issues-they create dust as fast as lightning. AND I have parrots which produce dust faster than the dogs. And 2 kids. AND wood heat. Mind you I won't be using it in my house, but it's a concern too. I'd probably be sending it out for servicing at least between each sport. I am a Canon CPS member, so it's not a big cost for me it's just 2 weeks of time and the hassle of sending it in. :/
Goonies mentioned the 400mm f/5.6 which falls into budget. I am afraid to be without the zoom at THIS point, but I am sure I'd adjust and I may even like it better. Never know. I probably will rent and play. Any other opinions?
I am not ONLY a sport shooter. I shoot portraits and the occasional wedding-or anything else that strikes my fancy. The ability to multi task with it will definitely help to justify the cost!
Now I am wondering what else I am over looking. I am trying to stay under $1500 total here or about $00 to $800 out of pocket after getting my Tamron sold.

If getting to 400 isn't a huge concern, you may be able to grab a used sigma 120-300 2.8, I've seen them go around $1500 on ebay before.

If you need 400, the 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC may be a good option.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the 300 f/4 and TC would be a super sharp, very versatile combination. I'd love to have the Nikon version. Just Checked pricing on BH, you could have the combo new for $1,545, used you could probably shave a few hundred off easily.

As I go here I am thinking that this might be the option... I just worry about the compromise with a TC and if I can avoid it...I'd LIKE to.

Here's what I want... I want a zoom of preferably f/2.8, but I'd take up to 5.6 if I absolutely had to. I'd take a variable aperture lens. Prefer Canon L glass or equivalent and I want to reach about 400mm with it at least. I'd take 300-??? if it were more zoom. I REALLY liked the idea of the 100-400 range. Just not the problems with it.

I don't see a point in maxing out at 300mm because at that point I can use a 1.4 TC on a 70-200 f/2.8 and achieve 448mm on my crop sensor already and that would be minimal compromise at a minimal investment.

What I think? Is that Derrel is right and there just plain isn't something in there that fits what I want. I think I'll get rid of the Tamron and get a TC for now. When I hit the lottery I'll just buy every damn lens on the market and get over it!

 

[Destin]

Nikon 200-400 is about the best compromise. But it ain't gonna fit your camera or your budget. It's a big reason many sports shooters choose Nikon.

 

[gsgary]

I started out thinking an extender and upgrading my second 70-200 Tamron to the Canon NON-IS version... THIS post.
I quickly decided that the compromise in 2 stops and softness just wasn't worth it when I could buy the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS for less money out of pocket than the upgrade and extender would cost me.
I like the idea of the zoom, however the design of that zoom is push/pull which sucks in dust. Not good for me because in my house dust is a problem... I have a shar pei with skin issues, a bull dog with skin issues-they create dust as fast as lightning. AND I have parrots which produce dust faster than the dogs. And 2 kids. AND wood heat. Mind you I won't be using it in my house, but it's a concern too. I'd probably be sending it out for servicing at least between each sport. I am a Canon CPS member, so it's not a big cost for me it's just 2 weeks of time and the hassle of sending it in. :/
Goonies mentioned the 400mm f/5.6 which falls into budget. I am afraid to be without the zoom at THIS point, but I am sure I'd adjust and I may even like it better. Never know. I probably will rent and play. Any other opinions?
I am not ONLY a sport shooter. I shoot portraits and the occasional wedding-or anything else that strikes my fancy. The ability to multi task with it will definitely help to justify the cost!
Now I am wondering what else I am over looking. I am trying to stay under $1500 total here or about $00 to $800 out of pocket after getting my Tamron sold.

If getting to 400 isn't a huge concern, you may be able to grab a used sigma 120-300 2.8, I've seen them go around $1500 on ebay before.

If you need 400, the 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC may be a good option.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the 300 f/4 and TC would be a super sharp, very versatile combination. I'd love to have the Nikon version. Just Checked pricing on BH, you could have the combo new for $1,545, used you could probably shave a few hundred off easily.

As I go here I am thinking that this might be the option... I just worry about the compromise with a TC and if I can avoid it...I'd LIKE to.

Here's what I want... I want a zoom of preferably f/2.8, but I'd take up to 5.6 if I absolutely had to. I'd take a variable aperture lens. Prefer Canon L glass or equivalent and I want to reach about 400mm with it at least. I'd take 300-??? if it were more zoom. I REALLY liked the idea of the 100-400 range. Just not the problems with it.

I don't see a point in maxing out at 300mm because at that point I can use a 1.4 TC on a 70-200 f/2.8 and achieve 448mm on my crop sensor already and that would be minimal compromise at a minimal investment.

What I think? Is that Derrel is right and there just plain isn't something in there that fits what I want. I think I'll get rid of the Tamron and get a TC for now. When I hit the lottery I'll just buy every damn lens on the market and get over it!

So you don't have the budget, i used to have the 300F4 and use it with the 1.4x on a 1Dmk1
This shot was taken with that combo Anil Kumble former captain of the Indian test cricket team

 

[MLeeK]

What was the distance? can you guestimate? Looks like maybe the opposite side of the field or almost? Is that wide open? I can't see your exif on it!

 

[Derrel]

From left: The slender-barreled 400mm f/3.5 ED~IF in AiS mount with CPU added; the second lens from left is the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S Mark II;the third lens from the left is the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S;fourth lens from left is the 70-200 2.8 VR-G;fifth lens from left is the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM Sigma; far right is 80-400VR.
400/3.5 and 300/4 are shown with their built-in lens hoods in collapsed or storage orientation. All other lenses have their lens shades removed.

_DSC2328_lenses_800x.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

There just simply are "not" many faster-aperture zoom lenses. There is nothing I am aware of that goes to 400mm and is as fast as f/4, except for the 200-400 Nikkor f/4 AF-S VR-G. Canon, Nikon, and Sigma (as well as Sony) all have either 100-400 or 80-400 lenses with stabilization, but apertures are like f/4.5 wide-open at 70 to 100mm, then drop to f/4.8 around 100-110 or so, then to f/5, then f/5.3, and finally the 300-400 zone is f/5.6, more or less...that hurts action-stopping, stresses ISO performance, and makes autofocus slower and less authoritative than a faster-aperture lens, due to the way "most" AF modules are NOT cross-type at f/5.6 (except on the very-newest Nikon AF modules). Sigma's 50-500 and 150-500 OS lenses are Slooooow...f/6.3 at the long end...Tamron's 200-500 is also slow,aperture-wise...

Sigma's 100-300 f/4 HSM is a good compromise...I bought one...it's better than a 70-200 + 1.4x, and covers the entire zoom range with decent quality. Sigma's 80-400 OS is okay. Price-wise...these two Sigmas, used, are in the budgeted range. But...otherwise, until you have $7999 to pony up, and switch to Nikon, there just simply is nothing available that gets to 400mm with f/4 speed...why that is is not entirely clear to me...low demand I suppose... A prime 300mm lens at a baseball game is almost useless if you want to shoot with one camera, and cover that sport well, in field to outfield, from the best shooting spots...if you shoot from the home team's dugout, first base is soooooo close that you want a 50mm, but center field demands a 400mm...the ball will travel to center field in 3 seconds...
from 3rd base, the 80-400 is a bit tight on close-in stuff but it's versatile.

Pentax makes a 60-250 f/4 DA* (Dee-AYyy Star)...that lens makes SENSE... Pentax SMC DA* 60-250mm f/4 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report

other makers seem to have a thumb up an orifice...

 

[gsgary]

What was the distance? can you guestimate? Looks like maybe the opposite side of the field or almost? Is that wide open? I can't see your exif on it!

Yes it was wide open F5.6, sorry it was on a 10D not sure how far it was but you have got to compromise because you don't have the budget for the lens you need