Upgrading lenses

[sheryl_bury_michals]

I currently own a Canon 100-400 IS USM lens - I've had it for almost 8 years

now, and have used it with my film Rebel cameras, as well as my digital ones

(10D and 30D).

 

I've been very happy with the results from this lens over the years, as I've

mainly used it to shoot rugby matches, which are pretty fast paced.

 

The question I have is in upgrading - since the 100-400 has the advantage of

being able to shrink down to fit in a camera backpack (along with my camera

bodies, pistol-grip for my monopod/tripod, accessories, etc.), I was wondering

if there were any advantages to getting a single-mm. lens, such as a 300/2.8

which I was thinking about possibly getting. I think it's small enough to carry

onboard a plane without too much fuss. I have a 1.4 teleconverter, but I wonder

if that may slow things up on a 300mm.

 

Even with the 1.4 crop factor of the 30D, I don't think that distance may be

long enough. I have a Canon 70-200/2.8, which is a great lens, but that falls

short distance-wise if you're on one side of a pitch with the action coming at

you.

 

any advice you have would be great. I may be shooting an international match

this summer, so making the right decision will be crucial.

 

Would the 300/2.8 be a good complement to the 100-400 IS - or would I be better

off just sticking with the 100-400 IS? I think Sigma's got a 50-500 lens, but

not sure how good it is, as it's a lot less expensive.

 

Thanks,

Sheryl

[bobatkins]

Well, the 300/2.8 will be sharper and of course it's a couple of stops faster, but it won't be as convenient as the 100-400.

 

If you're happy with the 100-400 why do you want to "upgrade"? What can't you do with the lens you have that you think a new lens will let you do?

 

The only other thing the 300/2.8 would give you is AF with a 2x at 600mm f5.6, but of course you'll be adding and removing TCs to change focal length, so you may miss some critical action shots that you might have gotten with the zoom. If you have two bodies then of course you can put one lens on each camera.

[davyjo]

The 300mm 2.8 would give you the advantage of faster shutter speeds and probably sharper images. I can't detect much slow-down of my 300mm f/4 with the 1.4X extender so I can't imagine the 2.8 would slow much either. <P><P>

The Bigma will reach out there and produce fine images but will need very high ISO to get high shutter speeds when it is overcast or twilight. <P><P>

The 300mm plus 1.4X is a wonderful combination of lengths on the 30D.<P> Sure a 400mm f/4 DO or 2.8 would be nice but you are going to spend a lot more $$$.

[zml]

What do other shooters use for rugby or soccer? (A rugby field is just a tad larger than in soccer.) For soccer, I see lots of 400 lenses plus 70-200 or similar zooms for close action, but also a lot of 100-400 lenses.

 

 

As for the 300 mm lens, my 300/2.8 IS performs great in fast-paced situations (with and without a 1.4x TC) but I would never shoot an important event with a new/unfamiliar equipment, so plan acordingly should you plan on purchasing that lens. The 300/2.8 fits in many carry-on cases. I'm not familiar with Sigma.

[mark u]

The Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS is of course a legendary lens, but if you are looking for something that is a little faster to increase shutter speeds on dull winter afternoons or under inadequate floodlighting then it might be worth considering the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 - but beware that it's no lightweight, OTOH you might not need to bring your 70-200 as well. It can be used with a 1.4x TC to give 168-420 f/4. 300mm f/2.8 and a zoom is a great combination for sport, especially as optically it's a good performer, including with TCs. Some user reviews here:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

 

I'm assuming you are going to get touchline access to shoot the international: certainly these days at e.g. Twickenham you are a long, long way from the action as a spectator. However, the pitches in the big stadia are no bigger than a good club pitch, so you won't need anything longer on that account.

[markonestudios]

Of course, if you really need to get up close, there's this:

<a href='http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=canon+ef+1200&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t'>link</a>

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Thanks to everyone for the advice.

 

To answer a few questions, yes, I always shoot from the sidelines, or try zone line when I shoot matches (home or away with the team I normally shoot for). Looks like I'll be shooting the Churchill Cup finals in Chicago, so my plan was to rent out the 300/2.8 for one of our club matches before then to see if it's worth investing.

 

Bob - yes I'm happy with the 100-400 big time. The big perk, especially when shooting an oncoming try from the end zone, is that I can slide the lens back from 400 to 100 as the action gets closer. Something you can't do with a single mm. lens.

 

I guess for me it's the speed factor - f/2.8 vs. f/4-5.6, which can make a difference in an action shot. I know the 30D has a built in crop factor which is great with a 100-400 lens. Really it's a possibility I'm toying with, but since I know I'd get the straight dope here, I thought I'd ask before even considering renting the lens.

Now if there were a 100-400 f/2.8 that Canon decided to make, I'd buy it ina new york second!

 

At an international match I shot at last year - it was at a soccer stadium in Chicago - I saw quite a few 300's out there, and only 1 or 2 100-400 Canon lenses like mine. It was an odd setup, as we only were allowed on one side of the pitch, and not on the end (try) zones at all. The people running the match didn't get it at all. I hope this doesn't happen again with this tournament in June.

 

Sheryl