Staring sports photography........

SHaller · Feb 2, 2011

Overread said:
Everything I've researched about the 100-400mm says that 1.4TC performance with it is - debatable. Auto focus is mostly gone (actually unless you tape the pins or use a 3rd party none-reporting one its gone by default) and even in good light it will hunt a lot. Further the image quality hit, when combined with the loss of AF leaves many who find that its ok in a pinch, but its not a combo they reach to often to do shots with.

I still think however that for sports and wildlife the more expensive, 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 +2*TC (M2 or M3 work well and M2 is cheaper) is a better bet than going for the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and the canon 100-400mm - you get a far better 70-200mm lens for the match and a pretty much equal quality 140-400mm lens for wildlife work (it also does rather well with dragonflies)

I know the issue with the autofocus with the tc, and i was willing to work around that since i wont need more than 400mm at most times. Aslo you say that 70-200 2.8 is mark 2. Is it that much of an improvement over that m1? $1000 dollars extra is quite a bit of $ to spend.

Overread · Feb 2, 2011

Check my former post (I added a link to it

scroll a few pages in or just start on the last few of that thread).

Also check here: 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open - Canon Digital Photography Forums
That compares the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 +2*TC direct against the 100-400mm L

In short I had the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L lens and in that focal range I never had a problem with it bare or with a 1.4TC. It was a solid performer and the pro choice for many for a good many years.
However it was lacking when paired with a 2*TC which was what spirred me to upgrade it to the M2. The M2 however is not just good with a 2*TC but its also a full overhaul of the original lens. In short it is better - you can't argue against that fact - and its even got enough quality for some to consider it over prime lens offerings like the 135mm f2 L.

I know it is a serious cost increase over the original, but considering that you were looking at a 70-200mm plus 100-400mm combo before I felt that a single lens that does it both and is better in one range and equal to the other is a better choice. Working with a single camera body it means you're travelling lighter than carrying both.

JDaves · Feb 2, 2011

If you live in a small area and your the first to start sports "action photograpy" and the parents like what your doing , there will be a "Mom with a cheap rebel" who will start taking pictures at the same events and give them away or sale them for less. This can kill your business if your not careful. It happen to me.

It took me 5 years of hard work to get the business back. Now I have all the high schools in our areas contracts. They just got tired of her very poor work.

You have to keep working on getting better and showing parents that your work is of professional quaility. Also learn how to produce custom sports posters, the moms love them. The posters are your best marking tool.

SHaller · Feb 2, 2011

Overread said:
Check my former post (I added a link to it scroll a few pages in or just start on the last few of that thread).

Also check here: 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open - Canon Digital Photography Forums
That compares the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 +2*TC direct against the 100-400mm L

In short I had the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L lens and in that focal range I never had a problem with it bare or with a 1.4TC. It was a solid performer and the pro choice for many for a good many years.
However it was lacking when paired with a 2*TC which was what spirred me to upgrade it to the M2. The M2 however is not just good with a 2*TC but its also a full overhaul of the original lens. In short it is better - you can't argue against that fact - and its even got enough quality for some to consider it over prime lens offerings like the 135mm f2 L.

I know it is a serious cost increase over the original, but considering that you were looking at a 70-200mm plus 100-400mm combo before I felt that a single lens that does it both and is better in one range and equal to the other is a better choice. Working with a single camera body it means you're travelling lighter than carrying both.

You do raise a pretty good point, but at this stage i honestly can't justify me spending $2500 on a lens. I think a better option for me would be to get the older 70-200 and get and the 400 5.6 prime. That would come to about the same price as the new 70-200 and i wouldn't have a need to put a 2x tc.

SHaller · Feb 2, 2011

JDaves said:
If you live in a small area and your the first to start sports "action photograpy" and the parents like what your doing , there will be a "Mom with a cheap rebel" who will start taking pictures at the same events and give them away or sale them for less. This can kill your business if your not careful. It happen to me.

It took me 5 years of hard work to get the business back. Now I have all the high schools in our areas contracts. They just got tired of her very poor work.

You have to keep working on getting better and showing parents that your work is of professional quaility. Also learn how to produce custom sports posters, the moms love them. The posters are your best marking tool.

I will make sure to watch out for that "mom" and will be sure to out do her haha. Also, what do you mean by a custom sports poster?

BKMOOD · Feb 2, 2011

As a parent, I'd just take the $150 bucks, get a camera and shoot my own kid.

KmH · Feb 3, 2011

SHaller said:
Also, what do you mean by a custom sports poster?

A custom sports poster:

JDaves · Feb 3, 2011

Take your $150 camera and shoot your child from the stands and then compair to one made from the side lines under low light conditions with a professional DSLR and you will see the difference. Thats is my I can make a good living in a very small area shooting sports.

In our area and state you can't get anywhere the playing area of a high school or youth game without a media pass. Our local youth baseball league required 2 million dollors worth of insurance just to get near the fence during the game.

So good luck with the $150 camera.

BKMOOD · Feb 4, 2011

Actually back in the day I used to coach. So on the sidelines me and my point and shoot did just great.

bigtwinky · Feb 4, 2011

BKMOOD said:
Actually back in the day I used to coach. So on the sidelines me and my point and shoot did just great.

I doubt that, specially in low light. And even during daylight, the shutter lag from a p&s would make it impossible to get consistently good shots. A few lucky ones, sure, but they are just that...luck.

And then you need to define what you consider good, which i doubt is good by any professional standards. Good snap shots, probably.