# Your choice for amateur Sportslens



## candyman (Nov 20, 2011)

I am in the process of upgrading my current telelens (max reach 270mm) to a L-lens of Canon. Reason: better quality (optical & weathersealed)
I see - within my budget (max 1500 euro) - 3 options:

- canon 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM
- canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM + extender 1.4 III (giving me 280mm & A5.6)
- canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM

I am using the Canon 7D camera.
I shoot soccergames photos mostly *outside*. The weather is typical Dutch: sunny, foggy, rain etc - you never know here.... 
The soccerfield length is NOT yet the full length since the players are playing minor league. But I found that 270mm is just too short

The combo 70-200mm + 1.4 extender (thus 280mm) is the minimum distance I need.

Would anyone be so kind and share experiences (focus speed, apeture, sharpness etc) of using the Canon 7D and one (or more) of mentioned lenses in regards to sports (mainly soccer, amercian football, rugby etc)

It may help me to decide

Thanks!

(pardon my English, it is not my native language)


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 20, 2011)

for soccer you'll want to be near 1/1000 so you don't need IS, that means you don't need 70-200 f/4 IS version. you could get the non-IS version for half the price and add an extender.
but the 1.4x extender would make the entire lens f/5.6 (even on wide end) and AF speed would take a hit as well, so I would skip this combo altogether for sports.

then you're looking at 70-300L or 100-400L indeed. while both are really sharp and have good AF speed, you will have to bump up the ISO quite a lot to get a nice shutter speed on cloudy days, due to slow aperture.

since the reach is your problem, how about a 300mm f/4 prime? that would give you a great reach (480mm) and 1 stop better ISO (thanks to f/4 vs f/5.6). subject isolation will also be better.

you could always add a 70-200 f/4 non-IS which doesn't cost that much, if you need the flexibility of a zoom.

i hear 70-300L is extremely sharp but i just can't justify paying over 1200 euro's for a f/4-5.6 lens...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 20, 2011)

What about an EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS? You can find them for under $1000 used.


----------



## candyman (Nov 20, 2011)

handsomerob said:


> for soccer you'll want to be near 1/1000 so you don't need IS, that means you don't need 70-200 f/4 IS version. you could get the non-IS version for half the price and add a converter.
> but the 1.4x extender would make the entire lens f/5.6 (even on wide end) and AF speed would take a hit as well, so I would skip this combo altogether for sports.



Thanks for that info. That helps me to be critical review my options. 



> since the reach is your problem, how about a 300mm f/4 prime? that would give you a great reach (480mm) and 1 stop better ISO (thanks to f/4 vs f/5.6). subject isolation will also be better.
> 
> you could always add a 70-200 f/4 non-IS which doesn't cost that much, if you need the flexibility of a zoom.


I want to be able to get close and far with one lens. 
If I take a prime and zoom that would require an additonal camera. I just have the 7D (for now) 



> i hear 70-300L is extremely sharp but i just can't justify paying over 1200 euro's for a f/4-5.6 lens...



You may be right about the high price. But, if that would not bother you, would you take this lens as being the best out of those mentioned here?


----------



## candyman (Nov 20, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> What about an EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS? You can find them for under $1000 used.



Sounds good for the aperture. 
Thinking about that. How well can I use this lens for non-sports events - out of hand with f2.8? (parties, journalism)
I believe it is 1.3 kg
I don't have experience with that.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2011)

As CR said, a 70-200mm f/2.8L non is would be a big improvement, a equivalent of 320mm max on your 7D, and with a 1.4 TC, about 448 mm equivalent at f/4. You could squeak by at $1500 with a used MK II TC if you don't already have one.

That will allow you to get the high shutter speeds you need, which should be about 1/800 sec - 1/2000 sec. Even so, you may have to crank up the ISO.

The next step up is a 300mm f/2.8, and the price is very high.


----------



## JR (Nov 20, 2011)

I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I am waiting for the next version of the 100-400L to go longer. Personally if I needed longer now I would consider the 70-300L. I dont like extenter and their impact on image quality.



candyman said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > What about an EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS? You can find them for under $1000 used.
> ...



You are correct this lens seem heavy. I got only recently and I am getting used to its weight. I would not make it my walk around lens but it is perfect for parties especially if they are inside the house. Any invent where I dont need to walk too much, this lens will be my pick, assuming this is the focal lenght I need.


----------



## CanonFanNum1 (Nov 20, 2011)

JR said:


> I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I am waiting for the next version of the 100-400L to go longer. Personally if I needed longer now I would consider the 70-300L. I dont like extenter and their impact on image quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know it's not "amateur" but I recently shot 6 soccer games with 5 different lenses, and the best (naturally) was the 300 F2.8/L II IS.

I also tried (all on a 1DmkIV):

300 F2.8/L II IS: Epic. On the 1.3x crop body, I got great body shots full-frame. DOF is amazing.
70-200 F4/L IS: OK... but good for wider angle shots, but not enough zoom when action is far away.
70-200 F2.8/L II IS: Better, the DOF is nice. Agreed, IS not necessary (1/1000).
400 F5.6/L: Major hit-or-miss action. Great when action is far, very tough when it isn't. Love the weight and IQ.
100-400 F4.5-5.6/L IS: Sigh... yes, it is the right zoom range. But I hate the push-pull so much... especially in the heat of the moment. If you like push-pull, it is the best for soccer.

I didn't try 70-200 F2.8/L II IS with a 1.4x extender... but that would be my next attempt (since I cannot stand the 100-400 push-pull action). 2nd body with a 300 or 400 prime makes for ideal setup.


----------



## candyman (Nov 20, 2011)

JR said:


> I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I am waiting for the next version of the 100-400L to go longer. Personally if I needed longer now I would consider the 70-300L. I dont like extenter and their impact on image quality.



What kind of impact is that?
Would you be so kind to describe that compared to the image quality of a lens not using an extender?


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 20, 2011)

one thing, none of these lenses mentioned are "light". they are all over a kilogram and you WILL feel them in your hand/arm  especially if you're coming from cheap telezooms.
70-200 f/2.8 L is a fantastic lens, constant & fast aperture, but you will add an extender for your needs (soccer), that will slow down AF speed (which will reduce your rate of keepers) and lower the IQ a bit as well.
70-300L is great, maybe the best of the bunch (between those 3 you listed) for your needs, since it's the lighest, the most recent design, weather sealed, extremely sharp and has latest generation IS. but i can't justify it's cost for a variable aperture lens. and it's not a fast lens (f/4-5.6), so you'll need lots of ISO to stop action, especially above 200mm or so (the range you'll need most?).
100-400L has great reach and the zooming is different, it's a hate or love thing i think. but it's again not a fast lens so i pass...

i personally would go for a prime such as 300mm f/4 (since the f/2.8 version is way beyond the budget). you won't be zooming indeed, but once the action is in your viewfinder, it will deliver far better results (great IQ at that focal length with very fast AF). then you could save up for the legendary 300mm f/2.8 or even 400mm f/2.8 haha 

good luck with your decision, i know it's not easy to decide


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 20, 2011)

JR said:


> You are correct this lens seem heavy. I got only recently and I am getting used to its weight. I would not make it my walk around lens but *it is perfect for parties especially if they are inside the house.* Any invent where I dont need to walk too much, this lens will be my pick, assuming this is the focal lenght I need.



i find 70-200 on crop a bit too long/awkward inside the house but on a FF body it would be much, much better.


----------



## JR (Nov 20, 2011)

candyman said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I am waiting for the next version of the 100-400L to go longer. Personally if I needed longer now I would consider the 70-300L. I dont like extenter and their impact on image quality.
> ...



It really depend on the combination you make, but have a look at the following from Bryan for example:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I am not saying extender are bad since I have had little experience with them myself, I am just saying that depending on the choice you have, a different lens without the extenter to get your focal lenght might bring better result. again it depend on what is the choices...Play with the configurator from the digital picture and you will see.

You should not dismiss the prime option as well as many other suggest here, like the 300 f4.

Good luck.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

handsomerob said:


> then you could save up for the legendary 300mm f/2.8 or even 400mm f/2.8 haha



Good suggestion - and also the 1D4 to mount ot on.

I am an amateur and that is what I did. Fantastic pairing that delivers fantastic photos.

Everyone assumes that the 400/f2.8 is too heavy, well as a pensioner I have no problems with an afternoons shooting with it.


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> handsomerob said:
> 
> 
> > then you could save up for the legendary 300mm f/2.8 or even 400mm f/2.8 haha
> ...



Great combo, happy for you. I hope to get one myself some day, even if that day is far, far away 

It's one of the heaviest lenses out there, if not the heaviest but I don't think it's fair to complain about the weight once you see the results it can deliver. Glad to hear you manage it just fine. The new version (400 f/2.8 II) is magically 1.5kg lighter and probably slightly sharper (is it even possible?!) but everything has a price


----------



## Jim K (Nov 21, 2011)

I have two of those lenses and am looking at the third.

I started with the 100-400 (and the 28-135 kit lens) on a 50D. Shooting birds I found it heavy after a while & quickly bought a monopod. The push-pull is not a problem to me. I like the results from the 100-400.

The next instant rebates I added the 70-200 f/4L IS as a walkaround in the bird sanctuary lens. Much lighter and delivered shots at least as good as the 100-400 in the overlap range. Very happy with it when I do not need the 200-400 range. I added the 1.4X II later and find it does not decrease the quality very much if at all. But sometimes adding or removing the 1.4X during a shoot is a PITA.

I shoot the local Spring Training Baseball games here (seats right behind the dugout) in March and last March they started a "No lens longer than six inches" rule so even without the 1.4X the 70-200 is too long. Walk in with it in my pocket and only got caught twice and told to remove it. But the 70-300, at 70mm is less than six inches.

If I did not own the 70-200 now I think I would buy the 70-300 for the newer construction and longer reach. I may rent one next spring. Whe shooting wildlife I frequently need the 350-400 range so will keep the 100-400. Right now I an shooting with two 7Ds and the 50D as a backup or loaner to friends.

I think you should rent the 70-300 first and see if it works with what you shoot. Or come to Florida this winter and try both of my lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 21, 2011)

I get great results with my 100-400mm l, and push pull is a non factor. However, the f/5.6 is a big factor. To get a high shutter speed, the ISO has to be cranked way up, and on a dark or overcast day, I'd be wishing I had the 70-200 f/2.8. At night, forget it!


----------



## pwp (Nov 21, 2011)

You have a number of choices. If you have not been there already, check the very recent thread on the f/4 300mm.

The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is a genuine bargain. Check out Ken Rockwell's viewpoint on this classic lens.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28.htm 

Another very strong contender for may be the recently announced Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS (stabilized). There also may be some runout deals on the outgoing non-IS models that will fit your budget.

For shooting action, a fast f/2.8 lens is a genuine advantage. You need to give your AF the greatest possible opportunity to work as advertised....f/2.8 will help achieve this.

We need to stay aware that the original poster's question was in the context of shooting action sports. Lenses with maximum apertures of f/4 are definately borderline and f/5.6 is just about out of the question. It's not just about fast shutter speed, AF works best with bright lenses.

Good luck. Let us know what you choose to go with and post some results.

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

The 70-300L is a great walkabout lens and in the 70-200 range gives IQ everybit as good as the 70-200. After that it get softer but still very good


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 21, 2011)

you should add the 300 f4L IS to your list

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2151.15.html

I love mine and you will find the extra stop great you can always throw on a 1.4 TC and get it to 420 f5.6 too

its pretty good bang for buck


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

pwp said:


> Lenses with maximum apertures of f/4 are definately borderline and f/5.6 is just about out of the question. It's not just about fast shutter speed, AF works best with bright lenses.



Big AF advantage comes with lens that are f/2.8 or faster

With slower lens than that the shooting is all about high iso performance


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2011)

Jim K said:


> I think you should rent the 70-300 first and see if it works with what you shoot. Or come to Florida this winter and try both of my lenses.



That's a good advice and a wonderful offer. Thanks!


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As CR said, a 70-200mm f/2.8L non is would be a big improvement, a equivalent of 320mm max on your 7D, and with a 1.4 TC, about 448 mm equivalent at f/4. You could squeak by at $1500 with a used MK II TC if you don't already have one.
> 
> That will allow you to get the high shutter speeds you need, which should be about 1/800 sec - 1/2000 sec. Even so, you may have to crank up the ISO.
> 
> The next step up is a 300mm f/2.8, and the price is very high.



I think I will try to rent a 70-200 f2.8 non-is with extender to see how it works.


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2011)

*Many thanks to all of you for spending some time on my questions.* 

It is truly not easy.
I need good reach over the field. Meaning get close to the otherside field action and being able to shoot close from where I am sitting. 
I want quality and sharp photos. 

I love to go for :
- Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + Canon 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS
I just don't have the budget (it would require an additional camera too so I can switch during the game)

If I go only for a 300, that would not give me the opportunity to shoot close from where I am sitting

A 70-200mm f2.8 with extender would give me some possibilities to shoot close (though that would be 98mm) and some reach to the otherside of the field. Though it may be just a little bit further as my current lens. The aperture would be f4. I understood that it should be the maximum for good AF

The 70-300 L has more reach but at the end only F5.6. I guess that will spoil it?

What can you tell me about the use of the 70-200 f2.8 for other purposes (situations with lower shutter speed) - being a lens without IS? If it can handle this pretty well, then I believe it is a good investment.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 21, 2011)

you're shooting sport everything is moving so is is going to be largely irrelevent anyway, if you need the zoom then go the 70-20 f2.8 and get a TC if you need a cheaper one i have the kenko DGX its awesome and works with ALL lenses


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2011)

How close is "close?" 1 meter is much closer than you would probably want to get to most sports. At 300mm, the Sigma 120-300mm's close focus distance is "only" 2.5 meters, but that's still quite close (and it gets closer with teleconverters or an extender).


----------



## 92101media (Nov 21, 2011)

I think if I were you, I'd probably get the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Lens. 

That would allow you to grab shots at anywhere from portrait to telephoto lengths (especially on a 1.6x crop factor body, like the Canon 7D you have) without having to change lenses, or even without having to switch cameras in a 2 body setup scenario, important in a fast changing environment like sports

Then to use it, I'd:
- shoot in full manual mode
- set the aperture on the camera to 5.6, so the aperture doesn't change as you zoom the lens in & out
- set the shutter speed to whatever works to freeze the action
- then adjust ISO accordingly to get correct exposure
- set white balance manually to match conditions
- shoot away, just zooming to whatever focal length you want, without having to change any other settings

These days modern cameras, like the Canon 7D, do a reasonable job at minimizing noise & grain if ISO is kept to a modest level.

A simple exposure calculator I found on line (http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx) indicates that even for subjects in deep shade, at f=5.6, shutter speed = 1/1000 sec, your ISO would probably only have to be 3200. That's still within reasonable limits for a camera with modern noise reduction, like the Canon 7D. And remember those settings are for deep shade. If it's sunnier out, or you can get away with shooting slower than 1/1000 sec, then you can adjust your ISO down accordingly to keep the amount of noise in the pictures to a minimum.

Also, you may be interested that there are reports that the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter (approx. US$ 250) works fine on Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. That would effectively turn the 70-300mm into a 98-420mm (i.e. close to a 100-400mm in focal length), at the cost of one stop of light i.e. your 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would effectively become a 98-420mm f/5.6-8. Now, I am sure some will be quick to point out that an enthusiast body like the 7D is only guaranteed to autofocus for lens apertures at f/5.6 and wider (i.e. only at the wider end when the 1.4x TC is attached. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the 7D is able to autofocus at the long end, even when a 1.4x Kenko TC is attached (i.e. when lens aperture = f/8), though the AF can be slow & hunt a bit, especially in lower light conditions, when that is the case. The resulting 1.6x (crop) * 1.4x (TC) * (70mm - 300mm) [lens] can net you some serious telephoto ability under the right circumstances. Probably wouldn't be suitable for fast moving objects, like sports and/or under lower available light conditions, but it's something to ponder.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2011)

Hmm, too bad the 1500 euro limit is in place. Better spend it fast though...I am worried for you guys.

If you could possibly stretch it, here in the US the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is $3100 USD or so.

It is weathersealed (though the front element will fog up rapidly, and takes forever to defog if this happens) and has been (in my non-sports experience) a fantastic contender. Very sharp although the Photozone.de guy knocked points off his review with a full frame camera for corner sharpness. It also reportedly doesn't "really" give a 300mm angle of view at its longest setting (though it's still pretty long in my book).

OS is great, f/2.8 is great, the weight isn't great (6.5 pounds, nearly 3 kilograms!), AF is great and so are the images it takes.


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 21, 2011)

92101media said:


> A simple exposure calculator I found on line (http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx) indicates that even for subjects in deep shade, at f=5.6, shutter speed = 1/1000 sec, *your ISO would probably only have to be 3200. That's still within reasonable limits for a camera with modern noise reduction, like the Canon 7D.* And remember those settings are for deep shade. If it's sunnier out, or you can get away with shooting slower than 1/1000 sec, then you can adjust your ISO down accordingly to keep the amount of noise in the pictures to a minimum.



I personally try to avoid ISO 3200 on my 7D if I can.



92101media said:


> Also, you may be interested that there are reports that the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter (approx. US$ 250) works fine on Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. That would effectively turn the 70-300mm into a 98-420mm (i.e. close to a 100-400mm in focal length), at the cost of one stop of light i.e. your 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would effectively become a 98-420mm f/5.6-8. Now, I am sure some will be quick to point out that an enthusiast body like the 7D is only guaranteed to autofocus for lens apertures at f/5.6 and wider (i.e. only at the wider end when the 1.4x TC is attached. However, *anecdotal evidence suggests that the 7D is able to autofocus at the long end, even when a 1.4x Kenko TC is attached (i.e. when lens aperture = f/8), though the AF can be slow & hunt a bit, especially in lower light conditions*, when that is the case. The resulting 1.6x (crop) * 1.4x (TC) * (70mm - 300mm) [lens] can net you some serious telephoto ability under the right circumstances. *Probably wouldn't be suitable for fast moving objects, like sports* and/or under lower available light conditions, but it's something to ponder.



as you pointed out yourself, f/8 for sports is a no go... 8)

@ candyman :
Since you want the flexibility of a zoom, if you have lots of cloudy days I would go for the fastest aperture, so the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. You can choose to add an extender or simply, crop your images. 7D has enough resolution to help you with that.


----------



## 92101media (Nov 21, 2011)

handsomerob said:


> I personally try to avoid ISO 3200 on my 7D if I can.



I agree that 3200 is less desirable than a lower ISO. However, that ISO was calculated using parameters that I think tend towards what would likely be the worst case scenario. If it's sunnier, or the OP doesn't require shutter speeds as fast as 1/1000 sec, then ISO could be lowered accordingly. My point was to illustrate that depending on the OP's requirements, the 70-300mm may still be a possible candidate.

Also, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is a very versatile lens, suitable for many other scenarios. And, being one of Canon's latest lenses (I believe less than a year old), it has the benefit of the latest features e.g. the latest generation IS. Yes, the IS isn't going to help the OP when shooting moving subjects, however while people often buy a particular lens to address some particular need, they sometimes have other potential uses in mind. What those other uses are sometimes play a role in the decision process too.



handsomerob said:


> as you pointed out yourself, f/8 for sports is a no go... 8)



Agreed, the paragraph about the Kenko TC was more a note about other possible uses/applications for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, if the OP did decide to go that route.



handsomerob said:


> Since you want the flexibility of a zoom, if you have lots of cloudy days I would go for the fastest aperture, so the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. You can choose to add an extender or simply, crop your images. 7D has enough resolution to help you with that.


 
I agree, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS would be another viable candidate, but may be a little less versatile than the 70-300, in that you can only have 70-200 _or_ 98-280 (with 1.4x TC attached), not 70-300 at the same time. Well, I guess if you stick with 70-200 & just crop the image then you do, but then you have less pixels/resolution in the equivalent cropped area. How that turns out vs. using a TC (going through an extra piece of glass, along with the resulting extra stop of light loss), your guess is as good as mine. Under good light, the TC may be better; under lower light, the cropping may be better.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

Go Manual as said earlier but:

Use Auto ISO which is what I use for birding. Works a treat.


----------



## candyman (Nov 21, 2011)

In understand that the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS is not fully weather sealed but partially. I read at DP:

"Unlike its IS sibling, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is not fully weather-sealed - Extra caution will need to be taken in wet conditions. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is, however, a partially weather sealed lens. A lens mount gasket is not present, but the switches, focusing ring and zoom ring have moderate dust and moisture resistance. A front filter should be used for sealing purposes."

Since I have to deal with wet weather conditions during soccer games - and I may take the lens with me on my yearly dessert trips (dust) in Israel - maybe the 70-200mm is after all not the right choice.....

Wow, if money is no issue, you have the perfect fit with some of the lenses available. If money matters, there is always something with the lens that does not fit your requirements. So always consessions.....they know how to do that at Canon. 

I don't know....I really have to think about my purchase and may postpone buying the lens. Saving more money (for a full weather sealed 70-200 f2.8.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 21, 2011)

candyman said:


> I am in the process of upgrading my current telelens (max reach 270mm) to a L-lens of Canon. Reason: better quality (optical & weathersealed)
> I see - within my budget (max 1500 euro) - 3 options:
> 
> - canon 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM
> ...




Does it need to be a white zoom lens? For my son's soccer games this season my EF200 2.8LII turned out to be great. This is on full frame though, so I'm not sure how it would fare on a 7D. And if you can stretch the budget a bit and are willing to go hunting for used lenses you may be able to get the 200 and add the 135L. That would always be my preference over the big, heavy and expensive zooms. Fast, light and super sharp. And much more reasonably priced.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

The 200 f/2.8 is a very nice lens..


----------



## pwp (Nov 23, 2011)

Candyman, there are plenty of posts here that are urging you towards f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses or various combinations using 1.4x & 2x converters. These do fall into your nominated budget, and with careful use, moderate expectations and good strong light you'll come home with some keepers.

There is a very good reason that sports shooters use lenses that are f/2.8 or brighter. It's not so they look cool. They're under both creative and commercially driven pressure to come back with sharp, well composed shots. It's a fairly simple matter. F/2.8 or faster simply delivers better AF, better AF and better AF.

If a f/4.5-f/5.6 lens performed like a f/2.8 300is or f/2.8 400is you had better believe that most sports shooters would happily save themselves several thousand dollars at lens update time.

If sports action photography is where you really want to develop your skills, do try to make the stretch to fast glass. One poster mentioned the new Sigma f/2.8 120-300 OS. That's a great suggestion. 

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 23, 2011)

pwp said:


> Candyman, there are plenty of posts here that are urging you towards f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses or various combinations using 1.4x & 2x converters. These do fall into your nominated budget, and with careful use, moderate expectations and good strong light you'll come home with some keepers.
> 
> There is a very good reason that sports shooters use lenses that are f/2.8 or brighter. It's not so they look cool. They're under both creative and commercially driven pressure to come back with sharp, well composed shots. It's a fairly simple matter. F/2.8 or better simply delivers better AF, better AF and better AF.
> 
> ...



Dont forget that sports are often taken in low light so f/2.8 will give the opportunity to shoot one stop down on iso or use a faster shutter speed.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 23, 2011)

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (non-II version) seems to be a good deal as well. It does seem to have some sharpness issues barely visible, maybe, even at web resolution, but that doesn't mean you can't take photos that turn out great at print size. Any problems with it are going to be visible only to the most picky of viewers.


----------



## Flake (Nov 23, 2011)

Sports outdoors in variable weather conditions such as Holland are going to need a minimum of f/2.8 - or a decision to just walk away in poor visibility. I don't know what you want these images for, but for most users 18MP is plenty to be able to crop your images, might then get away with a 200mm lens. The Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 has been suggested, and this is the only affordable way to reach this focal length, it's also the only zoom lens of this type available.

You will need a monopod or a tripod as 90 minutes plus will really tell on you hand holding. As for shutter speeds - experiment! there's no rule stop action is not the only solution, and the ball can travel much faster than the players so if you get it right you can have stop action on the player but not the ball, or some movement in both, or pan so the background gives a sense of movement.


----------



## Gary W. (Nov 23, 2011)

Hey all,

Have you considered the Sigma 70-200 Æ’2.8 OS version? Stabilization at the rough cost of what the non IS 2.8 Canon, or the Æ’4L IS USM goes for.

Gary W.


----------

