Lens to Shoot High School Golf

[donna1459]

<p>I have a Canon T2i and the following 85mm1.8, 100mm 2.0 and 24-105mm L. Light is not a problem and I can get in pretty close. I am thinking of purchasing the 200mm L, 135mm L or 70-300mm (3.5 I believe). I love the clarity and sharpness you get with a prime, but I need a bit more zoom. Any recommendations would be helpful. I am new to the forum. Thank You in advance.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>There are several ways to approach this, but I'd go for 70-200/2.8, and if necessary add 1.4 ext. You can rent this lens and see how you feel about it or the combo. The main reason I'm suggesting this (vs 70-200/4) it's that it will give you wider apert. opening/s; therefore, you can crank up the shutter. Your loss in consideration to primes would be minor. If you have unrestricted access during the golf meet, you may also want to have WA (or zoom) handy.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I shoot a lot of golf, using 15mm fish-eye (full-frame), 24-105mm, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and 500mm f/4L IS. Over half the shots are with the 70-200mm. Go with an f/4 70-200mm because you will almost never need the extra speed of the f/2.8 and the extra weight will eventually matter, particularly if you can't carry your kit in a cart.</p>

<p>Forget about primes except at the extremes (ultra-wide and super-tele). Shoot in Raw and use Digital Lens Optimization and, with good technique, your shots will be stunning.</p>

<p>Golf is relatively slow moving, so one body is enough, but having a "short" and a "long" body really allows you to switch fast with the situation.</p>

<p>The ultra-wide is really useful for showing the course and environment. </p>

<p>You say that you can "get in pretty close", but golfers are easily disturbed when swinging. The 70-200mm give you a nice working distance so that your shutter doesn't disturb them. Getting a faster camera give you a better chance to get the shots of the ball leaving the club. A used 7D would be excellent.</p>

<p>EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, with 7D:</p>

<p><a title="_MG_4045_DxO by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7299/9685378488_aea0c71439_c.jpg" alt="_MG_4045_DxO" width="534" height="800" /></a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree with David. If you can stretch to the 70-200mm f4 IS that will be great. If not, then pick up a non-IS version at around $600. Great lenses with great performance. You could get an f2.8 version but they are very heavy and pricey and just not necessary for golf. The 70-200mm f4 zooms are pretty indistinguishable from Canon tele primes and are nice and light. </p>

[arthur_reyes1]

<p>Before I got the 70-200 2.8II, I used my 70-300 4.5/5.6. with a 5DII to photograph my sons baseball games. Its a great lens especially outdoors with lots of light. I got a lot of sharp photos with it and it was nice that it was a relatively light lens too. So I'd imagine it would be great for golf photos as well. Paired with your T2i you'll have the added reach in focal length too. <br />I currently have the 70-200 2.8 II and I continue to be amazed with the quality of photos that it gives. Its heavy and you feel it after awhile but I think its totally worth it if the pocketbook allows for it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You're better off getting an f/4 and spending your money on a faster body.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that golf courses cover a lot of territory and the team members that you're trying to cover may be on different holes. I've covered corporate events with 16 and 20 players all over the course, making a cart very useful. It's important to plan ahead and know where all the players you're trying to cover are relative to each other.</p>

[donna1459]

<p>I would love a full frame that won't cost me a child. I think I will do the 70-200 F4 and get a better /faster camera. Any recommendations on a full frame.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>No, no Donna, you don't need full-frame. The 7D is fast and excellent for this type of shooting.</p>

<p>I mentioned full-frame because I own and use both the 5D MkIII and the 7D, but if I had only one camera for golf, it'd be the 7D. Buy used and you can get a very fine camera for well under $1,000, probably $600, less your trade-in.</p>

[phule]

<p>A refurbished 7D from Canon with a 1 year warranty is $780. <br>

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-7d-body-refurbished</p>

<p>That is an amazing deal. </p>

[donna1459]

<p>David, you are a wealth of information. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with me. I want to keep my T2i and purchase a full frame, but used. I am as novice as you can probably tell. I have learned quite a bit shooting food. This sports thing is another animal....</p>

[phule]

<p>edit: n/m </p>

[dcstep]

<p>You're welcome Donna.</p>

<p>I don't know your budget, but, given your current equipment, I'd put a full frame body into the future. Even for food photography, it's really more important to match your focal length with your sensor crop factor, rather than going with full-frame, just because it's "better". A 7D, with proper lighting, will give exception results at reasonable ISOs. Using quality lenses is key.</p>

<p>Even though the 7D is a 2009 design, it's still very effective at ISO 800 and below. In neither food or golf photography will you need to go above ISO 800. Yes, a full-frame gives you more ISO freedom, but at the expense of speed and resolution. I have both and they're literally different tools for different purposes.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>If the budget allows, it would be worthwhile considering the <em><strong>EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM.</strong></em><br>

It is heavier (about 300gms) than the EF 70 to 200 F/4 L IS USM, but affords an extra 100mm of reach.<br>

I think that the 70 to 300 would make for <strong><em>a better pair of zooms</em></strong> (with your 24 to 105) for shooting Golf.</p>

<p>I would also suggest that you stick with APS-C format; a 7D is a good choice for this shooting scenario.</p>

<p>I would also suggest the extra investment in the IS version of the 70 to 200 F/4 L, if you choose that lens: both for the IS and also because the IS version that I have used performed better with the x1.4 Ef Extender, when compared with the non-IS version.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[donna1459]

<p>Out of curiosity, what does one shoot with a full frame? I usually shoot on vacation, family, friends, kids sports, food and maybe weddings in the future. I have a tremendous amount to learn. The 70-200mm F4 will be on the way tomorrow.</p>

[donna1459]

<p>David and William, I love the pics you posted.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>I use ‘full frame’ cameras (exclusively), mainly for Portraiture.</p>

<p>I also often use a 5D Series Camera and the 24 to 105L IS F/4 as my “all in one walkabout kit", though I recently bought a Fuji x100s and I tend to use that more often now: but a ’full frame’ camera and the 24 to 105/4 is a really nice, flexible ‘go everywhere’ bit of gear – especially combined with a 5D MkIII.</p>

<p>I do use a dual format kit ( i.e. ‘full frame’ and APS-C) for some sporting events, I mainly only cover swimming events now: but I use ‘full frame’ for those gigs because I have two ‘full frame’ and two APS-C bodies, and sometimes I use three bodies so I don’t need to change lenses.</p>

<p>Portraiture, Landscape, Night Sky and Architectural Photography are four genres where ‘full frame’ might give one some leverage over APS-C – being for (amongst other issues):<br /> > Shallow Depth of Field capacity<br /> > Access to fast Wide Angle Lenses<br /> > Access to Tilt & Shift Lenses</p>

<p>That’s not to imply that ‘full frame’ is “better”. AP-C Format can make very good images in all genres: but when it gets down to minutia there are advantages and disadvantages with both formats.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>As per the line of advice that has been given above in several replies: I think (these days) it is usually more important to quantify the OTHER performance factors of a digital camera against the uses that the camera will need to perform somewhat ignoring the sensor size as the defining factor for any purchase choice. Also price has a big bearing.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>‘Full frame’ vs. APS-C format has been widely discussed in several forums on Photonet.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Pretty much any of the 70-200s are ideal for the task, and shooting on the crop will give you enough additional reach to shoot more selectively. <br>

Frankly IMO though, upgrading your camera body for this type of work is largely unnecessary - Your T2i is as fully capable as any other APS-C given the lighting you'll mostly be working in, and the subject's movement relative to focal plane. The only advantages which will you will see from upgrading to a 7D (for example) are your FPS (maybe you want to do sequence shots?) and the improved ergonomics of all of the full sized camera. </p>

<p>Personally, in your shoes, I would add a 70-200, and a FF unit. Buying used, you could easily get a 70-200/4 and a 5D for $1-1.2k. If this is pushing your budget, I might suggest selling either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2, as they both cover a very similar FOV, making one largely redundant. Remember, your bag is not simply a bag of camera(s), lenses, and accessories, it forms your kit. I advise thinking of lens and camera purchases not as individual things, but how they are going to combine with what you already have to make you a more capable photographer.</p>

<p>The reason I would suggest a FF unit is simply that it will more effectively allow you to shoot wider (w/ the 24-105), which can allow much more dramatic shots than simple shots of the subject swinging a golf club (which of course you must do also). </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Golf is usually played outdoors in good light. The maximum aperture of the lens, the high-ISO performance of the camera body, and even image stabilization hardly matter. If the game goes on into twilight, golfers are static enough that you can use a tripod or monopod to stabilize the camera.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Marcus, you say, "...upgrading your camera body for this type of work is largely unnecessary." and then you say, "...add a 70-200 and a FF unit" and go on to recommend the clunky old 5D. I suspect that you've never shot golf. The golfers want to see themselves swinging and the ball coming off the club. The 5D is not a very good tool for capturing that.</p>

<p>If Donna needs and wants a wider lens (I would put this next, after a 70-200) then she can buy a used EF-S for next to nothing.</p>

<p>The only Canon FF that I'd recommend for golf is the 5D MkIII, which we suspect is way out of her price range. I have one, love it and use it for most of my super-telephoto shots, ultra-wides and walk around. The earlier 5Ds just don't have the FPS needed to capture a golf swing. For shooting food, her other main interest, a 6D or a 5D MkII would be excellent, but I suspect either of those will also ruin the current budget, but might be option not too far down the road.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Donna asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Out of curiosity, what does one shoot with a full frame? I usually shoot on vacation, family, friends, kids sports, food and maybe weddings in the future. I have a tremendous amount to learn. The 70-200mm F4 will be on the way tomorrow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Congrats on the 70-200/f4.</p>

<p>As I've mentioned through the thread, I shoot the 5D MkIII as part of a two-camera rig, with the 7D as the other part of the package.<br /><br /><br /><br>

The 5D MkIII is a wonderfully versatile camera and can do everything that you're considering, including the golf. It's much superior to your current camera and the 7D when it comes to high-ISO performance, which you'll want for the available light shooting that's part of most wedding photography. (You'll be moving between flash and available, depending on circumstances). If I had to select only one body, this would be this, or the even more expensive 1D X, which is even faster and even better at high-ISO.<br /><br /></p>

<p>The 6D and the 5D MkII, will serve you well in high-ISO performance, general file quality, etc., but they'll lack the speed needed for golf. Still, with a two-body rig, then they would be viable options. As full-frames for portrait and weddings, they're pretty darn good.</p>

<p>You sound like you're fairly new, but committed to going deep pretty quickly. Are you being paid yet?</p>

[donna1459]

<p>Thank you all for your input. I sure I will have many more questions in the future....</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I advise thinking of lens and camera purchases <em><strong>not as individual things, but how they are going to combine</strong></em> with what you already have to make you a more capable photographer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. . .</p>

<p>AND - sometimes it is better to start with a blank sheet of paper and plan the kit that you require WITHOUT considering “building on top of” what you have at the moment.</p>

<p>For example: the advice to sell either of the 85/1.8 or 100/2 has a particular resonance of logic with me: but on the other hand, keeping the camera that you have at the moment is a good idea. Because (on the face of what you have revealed) having BOTH and 85 Prime and a 100 Prime is superfluous to your needs and you could sell either for an amount of money which could be put to better use – BUT – the worth of what cash you could get for your camera renders the camera MORE VALUABLE as a “back up camera” when you buy another camera, whatever format that new camera will be. </p>

<p>Then once the kit is planned it is a good idea to <strong>prioritize</strong> the items into what is most necessary and then make a <strong>purchasing time-line</strong> and then make a <strong>budget plan</strong> to get there.</p>

<p>Also, moving forward you mention that your photography may NOT just be exclusively about 'golf'. So you should consider the other genres, too. Particularly referencing Weddings, the kit needs to have several layers of <strong>System Redundancy</strong>, which includes at least two of each of the following: Camera Bodies; Lenses that can be used as “A Main Working Lens”; and “Speedlite” Flash Units. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[didereaux]

<p>Golf? Proper lens? I'd use a Lyman 6x12 on a .270 Winchester. Some might go lighter. ;)</p>

[donna1459]

<p>David,</p>

<p>Purchased the 70-200mm F4L can't wait to use it next week for a few golf tournaments. For now I will shoot on my T2i. Another camera and lens are in my future. Can some tell me when I use stabilizer mode 1 versus 2? Thank you in advance.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Can some[one] tell me when I use stabilizer mode 1 versus 2?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simply -<br>

Mode 1: is for general use to avoid camera shake when the subject is still or close to still.<br>

Mode 2: is for when panning the shot either vertically OR horizontally.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Canon’s words -<br>

<em> “Select the stabilizer mode.</em><br>

<em>*MODE 1: Corrects vibrations in all directions. It is mainly effective for shooting still subjects.</em><br>

<em>*MODE 2: It compensates for vertical camera shake during following shots in a horizontal direction, and compensates for horizontal camera shake during following shots in a vertical direction.” </em> <br>

<strong>Reference: p 7 "EF 70 to 200 f/4 IS USM Instruction Manual".</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>