What Lens for beyond 200 for outdoor sports?

[gslefeb]

I currently have a 10d and a 70-200 F4L; I would like to find a way

to go beyond 200. Backgroud: I will be shooting family / friends

soccer and baseball games. The 70-200 is good for the small soccer

fields and the little league baseball fields. Now my kids have moved

on to the large fields, thus the need for a longer lens.

Photography is a hobby, I don't sell or make a money on the

pictures. From reading the archives here are my thoughts:

 

1. Teleconverter - get a 1.4x and have 100-280.

 

2. Sigma 135-400; will this be better then the 70-200 and 1.4x?

 

3. By a used third part prime - tokina 300 f4 or sigma 400 5.6

(77).

 

Thanks.

[beauh44]

Hi Greg, Compared to a 35mm film camera (or even a 1Ds Mark II) if you take into account your 10D's "crop factor", you're already at the 35mm film equivalent of 320mm. If you add a 1.4x TC you're at 448mm albeit with a little softening of the image and your f/4 lens becomes an f/5.6. I suspect this would get you the most bang for the buck. Good luck!

[digitmstr]

The 1.4 will work but, of course you'll lose a stop which, depending on the amount of available light, could make it hard to shoot sports.

 

A 3rd party prime, if good, would be a good alternative but, again at f/5.6 you have not much room for stopping down. So, the lens better be excellent wide open.

 

Also, AF on the 10D @ f/5.6 is at its limit.

 

Unfortunately there is no easy "way out" when shooting sports/action. Ideally, you'd need a fast lens...

[John Crowe]

I agree, with a 10D, the 1.4x would be your best bet. Reasonably priced 3rd party lenses will not be superior. In a few years when you have a full frame DSLR you'll have to figure out your best way to a 400mm focal length.

[digitmstr]

>>you'll have to figure out your best way to a 400mm focal length.<<

 

Translation: sell you car? Rob a bank? Mortgage your home, etc...

 

;p

[bsd230]

1.4 TC would be the cheapest way to go.

I wouldn't worry about full frame, remember 1.6x crop is just that, a crop not magnification.

[ky2]

How important is >200mm to you? If not that much (5% of your shots), then get the TC. It would be an easy match for your 70-200/4L, and also easy to carry around.

 

If you plan to shoot much at 300mm, get a dedicated prime (300Ls spring into mind), or upgrade your 70-200/4L to either the EF 75-300 DO or the Sigma 100-300/4.

[greg_koni]

My oldest daughter plays HS and club soccer on a U18 team. These games are all played on football size or larger fields. I mount the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4X TC on a 1DM2 and find that if I set up on the 18 yard box from the touch line that I can cover most of the field. You will have a bit more reach with the crop factor of the 10D. I just make sure I position myself so that the sun lights their faces. If I am shooting a night game under the lights I need to set ISO as high as 1600.

[mark_chappell]

<I>1. Teleconverter - get a 1.4x and have 100-280.</i><P>

As others have said, this should work fine if you've got enough light. I use this

combination occasionally and it is very, very good optically.<P>

 

<I>2. Sigma 135-400; will this be better then the 70-200 and 1.4x?</i><P>

Doubtful, and the Sigma 135-400 is not very fast either optically or in focus speed.<P>

 

<I>3. By a used third part prime - tokina 300 f4 or sigma 400 5.6 (77).</i><P>

Maybe, but don't count on them working with your 10D -- at least the Sigma (older

Sigmas often need to be re-chipped for newer cameras, but they won't do this if the lens

is out of production like the 400/5.6). Test them before purchase, at least.<P>

 

The suggestion of the Sigma 100-300/4 is good, or you might consider a Canon 300/4 IS

which will give you the considerable benefit of stabilization.

[gslefeb]

Thanks to all.

 

I've decided to get the 1.4x.

 

Now my next question - comparing the ef 1.4x to the tamron sp 1.4x or the kenko 300 pro?

 

Image quality going to be better with the canon?

 

Also will I need the tripod mount for use with a monopod or is this combination ok to hand hold?

 

Thanks again.

[john_vigants]

Also shoot soccer (my daughter moved to the big field this year) so I feel your pain. I've been using mainly my Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS but also had the chance to shoot a Tamron 200-400 f/5.6.

 

Light. Early morning games, late afternoon games and really heavily overcast day cause me problems. I have a 20D, which is supposed to produce good images even at ISO1600, but I find that above 800 they need to be run through noise reduction software. The girls move too fast to shoot below 1/800 (1/1000 is better and even then the ball sometimes blurs), so at full zoom (f/5.6) occasionally I am forced to go to ISO1600. I don't like that.

 

Zoom. The comment about setting up part way up the side and being able to shoot the game from there may be true, but I prefer to move about a bit. It gives a more varied perspective of the game, helps me to get images of all the players and (when the refs allow it - which is most of the time) by shooting from the end line I find I get the most dramatic shots. I cannot imagine using a prime - too many times the play gets too close to me and I'd be shooting just ears and noses. I also find, that on the big field, even 300 mm on the 20D (480 mm in 35mm terms) is not quite enough. When I used the 200-400 I found the short end too long, but loved the extra 100mm on the long end - it really helped me get shots I'd have needed to crop heavily for otherwise. BUT, f/5.6 is too slow. The Tamron was great in full sunlight or light overcast, but between the early/late games and heavily overcast it meant that about half the time it was too slow.

 

Size. I don't care about this. I always shoot from a monopod because it helps me stay focused and maintain composure while panning.

 

IS. Wasted my money. If I were shooting birds sitting in trees, handheld, while hiking, this would be a great feature. Since I am mostly shooting high shutter speeds I never even turn it on (I did for one game and all it did was make a lot of noise and seem to slow down focusing). Since the 75-300 is a bit long for indoor photography (under the Christmas tree, etc.) and because for a vacation I'd bring a different zoom range (my 17-85 IS), I doubt I'll own this lens too much longer . . .

 

Image quality. Lots of posts say the 75-300 is soft beyond 200mm. Frankly, I don't see that as a huge issue. My bigger problem is that the "smart" autofocus doesn't read my mind perfectly and so many great shots are ruined because the subject is out of focus while another player (5 feet away) is brilliantly crisp. Only remedy for that is to shoot lots and hope for the best (100 monkeys in a room full of typewriters...). Seriously, though, when I am in focus (even at 300mm) I am quite pleased with the sharpness.

 

So what we need is a 50-500 f/2.8. Unfortunately, nobody makes one. If they did, your monopod would snap under the weight. If you bought a sturdier monopod you'd still have to mortgage the house for it. I'm also warring with what to do next. Whatever I decide, I'll sell the 75-300 IS to help pay for it.

 

For a while I was thinking 120-300 f/2.8, but the price is too high for my budget. So now I'm deciding between a Sig 70-200f/2.8 + 1.4xTC + 2xTC or a Sig 100-300 f/4 + 1.4xTC (2xTC would be manual focus so I wouldn't both with that - not sure I need the 420-600 range anyway).

 

For a little more money the 70-200 option gives me the possiblity of shooting f/2.8 when I need to (even if it means only having 200mm max range). With the 1.4xTC it'll give me an f/4 lens to 280mm and with the 2xTC I'll have f/5.6 and 400mm.

 

What makes the decision tough is that I know I'll most often want to have at least the 1.4xTC mounted to get the range - so probably I would get more high quality images with the 100-300 f/4 . . . Experts?

 

To answer your original question - since you already have the 70-200 f/4, I'd buy the TC and give it a go. Its not a huge amount of money and if you decide on a different approach later you'll get most of it back on eBay.