mike t.

<p>John and DP - thanks for the info, very helpful. I'll look for a larger QR plate than my generic (the one I was hoping to use). I don't have the camera yet - it's enroute - just trying to be set for tripod work.</p>

<p>New to the Autocord here. Is there an accessory similar to the Rolleifix to add support to the Autocord for tripod use? Or can I use one of my generic plates with my ballhead clamp? Any advice would be appreciated.</p>

Head over to fredmiranda.com and contact *Russ Isabella* for info. Russ does wonderful gymnastics work and is very helpful. Good shooting!

I agree with Trevor. Possibly it's Zeiss' turn, since they entered the RF market recently with the Z-I. But it would seem doubtful...

What David Wogan said. Pragmatically, yes, the 5D, esp if you're going to need to run light and shoot in the dark. Fwiw, i've had two 5D's and sold them once I began using the 1Ds. Really special files. The 5D epitomizes the smooth digi-look. The 1Ds often makes me feel like I'm shooting slide film again ...

My thought is that sportsshooters who depend on their cameras to make a living tend not to use prosumer bodies. I switched to 1-series cameras when I began shooting youth soccer fairly heavily. Works very well for me.

 

You can buy the 1D II used, try it, and sell it, if it doesn't work well for you, probly for little to no loss.

Very hard to answer without knowing what you shoot. How about a little more information, Bob? Which sports, typical field size, typical lighting, etc. And what body will you be using?

 

Lacking info, I'd say the Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS or the Canon 200/2.8 + 1.4x TC for under $1K. Around $1,500 I'd probably look for a used Sigma 120-300/2.8.

 

Why? Generally you want f2.8 speed and at least 200mm of reach. The lenses I mention are all proven performers.

I've owned and used the 50 Summarit, Elmar, DR Cron, and 'Lux. Imho, if you don't really like the low-contrast, "soft" rendition that's typical of the Summarit wide open, then you can stop it down and so increase contrast and sharpness considerably. In other words, it can do two things for you: gentle for close portraits and sharp for other things. The 'Lux has a similar split personality, just less old school than the Summarit (overall higher contrast and sharpness).

My experience differs from Ben's. Even Canon's 20/2.8 compares well to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 in terms of IQ. The "cheap" EF primes (20, 24, 28, 35) are all well-corrected for distortion, if that matters to you (where the Tammie isn't). All perform well stopped-down and I believe the primes are superior to the Tammie wide open, at least my copy.

 

I recommend any of the f2.8 primes, all of which are near your budget. And the 28/1.8 (USM!)is something to consider if you're feeling fuller in the wallet. It's underrated, imho.

Lannie said it best. Those are basic PS skills you need to learn. If you're not inclined to learn them, then shoot film. Film is simple, proven, and something that gave you pleasing results. Digi will require a learning curve that you'll have to ride. A 10D produces lovely files imho, even jpegs. Equipment has nothing to do with it, other than maybe dropping down to a 50mm to get the same effective length as your 85mm on full frame. It's up to you.

 

Fwiw, I'm old and made the transition about a few years back. Not easy, not yet even close to expert myself, but it's worth it (even if I still shoot and scan B&W because film has never been better).

Camera Repair Japan in Duluth, Georgia services the lens, I believe.

If you don't need autofocus, consider alternative lenses for extra wide work. I just bought a zuiko 21/3.5 with adapter and a circ pol filter for $350 that is at least as sharp as my 35L, if not sharper. The best wide zoom out there is reputed to be Nikon's AFS 17-35/2.8, also easily adapted to EOS bodies, but it's $1,000+ used.

I second Tony's suggestion. The Sigma 100-300/4 is a cracking lens. KEH has one for, iirc, $649. Their return policy is as good as it gets, btw.

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

Mike

If you don't want to spend up to the EOS 3, you can get the equivalent of an Elan 7/7N/7NE that has spot metering and shutter speeds through 1/8000 - Canon's A2/A2E. Keh always seems to have several in the USD125-180 range.

 

Best,

Mike

Practically speaking, I've printed stunning sports posters as large as 24x30 for customers who've raved over them. All from my lowly 4 mp 1D. A dirty little secret: some of those files were crops of about 2 mp. Stop worrying about the camera and concentrate on finding a good lab for print and poster work. Your customers will love you for it.

 

If you haven't shot a 1-series camera for sports, at current prices you should turn a deaf ear to the nay-sayers and try it for yourself.

 

The only shortfall of the 1D is high ISO noise, imho. Not megapixels. No way.

Ross, I've used the 120-300/2.8 non-DG extensively for soccer on a 1D. Sorry no experience with the new DG. If you wish I can send you a few samples. There is no question that it's a tremendous lens for the money. My experience:

 

1. Bought for just under $2,000.

2. Quick, sure AF

3. Very sharp, pleasing color, excellent bokeh

4. Sold for $1,500 to fund longer class for full-field sports

5. Miss it - wish I could have managed to keep it.

 

I must politely disagree with Yakim's comment. A 70-200/2.8 + 1.4xTC is not comparable, and I've used one next to the 120-300. If I had to compromise one stop, I'd pick up a Sigma 100-300/4 over the 70-200 + 1.4xTC.

 

Good luck with your decision!

 

Mike

 

But please know that there have been some posts at FM re: the DG version and inaccurate AF. Wherever you buy, be sure you have 100% return/refund right.

Robert, I agree with all the sage comments above re: buying a prime - either the 135/2 or the 200/2.8. I have both and prefer them to the poorer handling 70-200/2.8 (which I no longer use, having sold it). One small point: if you're really concerned about camera shake and want the benefits of IS, consider shooting from a lightweight monopod for your church services, or bracing against walls, pillars, etc. You can do well without IS.

 

For about the price of a new 70-200/2.8 IS, you can eventually have the 85/1.8 + 135/2 + 200/2.8 when budget permits. If you can zoom with your feet, your pictures will benefit from the primes. Wide open, the 70-200/2.8 softens up, while the primes are quite sharp at max aperture.

 

Another thought, if you're willing to consider 3rd party gear, is the Sigma 70-200/2.8. At about $6-700 used, they're quite comparable to the Canon 70-200 non-IS and a better deal from the performance per dollar spent point of view.

Buy the glass, Matt, buy the glass. The 300/2.8 is a fabulous lens that is a clear step up from your 70-200/2.8. Unless you've got a good reason to spend on digi - I mean you're into high volume, fast workflow, deadlines, etc - invest on the important end of your kit.

 

By the way, you'll love the AF speed of your 3 and the 300/2.8, if you use AI Servo at all. They were made for each other!

Ted, you won't regret the EOS 3 purchase. It's a great contrast to the Elan's quieter shutter and smaller size. Try to keep both. I sold my Elan 7N and miss it. Me, I have gone digi for my sports shooting - it's a volume and turnaround thing. I shot a 10D, 20D, and 1D before opting for the 1 series - it's a very strong sports camera. The 20D is likely the best allround digital camera from Canon that can be had at reasonable used prices today.

 

After sports, I use my EOS 3 for everything else, along with a couple of nice RFs for B&W and daytrips.

 

I enjoy the benefits of shooting film and digital, and wouldn't think of dropping either option.

 

Good luck with your choice,

Mike

I can't add much except to echo the recs for Superia 400 and 800 as good bargains. Lots of exposure latitude in tough lighting. Gotta love that. The "pro" films seem an unnecessary expense for most of my sports shooting, although I do like Portra NC and VC as well as UC400. Depends on my mood and the light, really. Portra VC and UC400 do nicely in overcast, drippy conditions to my eye. But my fridge always has a big old bag of Superia 400 ready to go ...

John, I think if you want to learn as you go (what other choice do we have?), and keep the initial outlay low, the Tamron mega-zoom or the Canon 28-135 would be a place to start, sure. FWIW, if I could justify spending about $500-600, I would buy faster glass: a used 70-200/2.8 or a 70-200/4. There is a reason so many of us have a 70-200 lens in our kit. It is fast, versatile, full of character, and wonderfully sharp, whether Canon or Sigma.

 

Having said that, the 28-135 is also a great lens from a versatility standpoint. A friend of mine took one to Greece with him for three weeks and it never left his 10D's mount. But ... he wasn't shooting any sports ;-))

Great work, Gene. Thanks for sharing it. Anytime you need a fishing buddy, drop me a note. I'll meet you and bring the beer for afterwards. We'll catch a few and tip a couple in Joe's memory ...

Felix, batt life on my 3 with the CR5 varies between 10 and 25 rolls, depending on how much I lean on the AI Servo and continuous drive. Never have gotten near 40-50. Like others here, I bought a used grip (from keh) early on. Cheap "fix" compared to service, which I doubt would solve the prob, anyway.

John, congrats on your decision to shoot your kids' soccer. I'll bet if you stay with it you'll end up shooting other kids as well.

 

My 2 cents, since I'm an amateur youth soccer shooter myself.

 

I've tried lenses slower than f4 and didn't like them due to slower AF speed and poorer performance in anything other than drenching light. In any case, stick to f4 at minimum, while f2.8 is really the norm. But this is my experience - yours may vary.

 

You can shoot very effectively with a shorter focal length. You just have to wait for your shots to come to you, while longer glass allows you more shot opportunities. Position yourself on the end line b/w the goal and the corner flag and concentrate just on the players in and around the penalty area, if you have shorter glass. It works very fine, and you tend more to capture faces and action better, too.

 

If I had to choose b/w a 200 or shorter zoom/prime at f2.8 or a 200+ zoom/prime at f4, I'd take the f2.8. Those late matches in the fall will be unshootable with f4 - remember the difference is twice the light entry.

 

You will appreciate the flexibility of a zoom early on if you are shooting with one body. The Sigma and Canon 70-200/2.8 lenses are great gear, and the Sigma is selling used for around $600 or so. A real value, IMHO. If you do decide to go with the f/4, the Sigma 100-300 is another great value, esp if you a used one in good shape. DO try keh.com for used glass. Very reliable and trustworthy in my case.

 

But for the best combo of sharpness and speed, the posters that mentioned the Canon 200/2.8 and the 85/1.8 are spot on, IMO. If you can learn to shoot without zooming - and most of your shots can be gotten without one, once you become fluid in your technique - for the money these two lenses are wonderful. The 85/1.8 is very versatile, and is a plus on 1.6x crop body for indoor soccer (the smaller fields), btw.

 

My real point is that it's best to just buy a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or the 100-300/4 and then shoot. Your experience will tell you what you need. Then you can sell what you don't like and buy what you know you need. It's the only way, really, to learn what works for you.

 

Good luck and enjoy your shooting!

Choose your path. You can acquire images. Or you can acquire equipment. Whick path do you think makes a better photographer?

 

Kenny, you're buying tools and you've got more money than knowledge. Pause, breathe deeply, go shoot 10,000 frames and then you'll know more about what equipment you need.

 

Don't listen to biased opinions about lenses. Go form your own by trial.

 

Good luck!