# Sport lens - low budget



## Alrik89 (May 10, 2013)

Greetings,

i need an advice concerning low-budget-sportphotography. 
I'm looking for an EF-tele-lens for my 1Ds2 - and i have no money. 
My first thought was the 70-300mm-class. 
Here my thoughts thereafter:
1.) the L-lens is out of my budget
2.) considering the 70-300mm for 300€/400$

3.+4.) Canon 70-300mm IS and Tamron 70-300mm VC
well, these lenses are definitely in the budget. But considering the imagequality HERE, well, i don't like it each at 300mm. 

So, is there any other alternative? 300mm would be nice, and the 70-300mm is attractive. But the imagequality gives me a headscratch. 

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Northstar (May 10, 2013)

are you shooting on a field? if so, then your options are a bit limited. at f8, the 70-300 is reasonably sharp at 300mm, and you could probably get away with f8 outdoors for sports in the daytime.

an alternative is the canon 100 f2, it is a great lens for sports....quick AF and very sharp, you won't get many good shots from across the field but you can work the action near the sidelines. it's also in your budget and will work real well for indoor sports where the 70-300 is not very good for indoor sports.

it's always a compromise it seems...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2013)

200/2.8L II.


----------



## Cory (May 10, 2013)

My 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 define "ridiculous awesomeness".


----------



## funkboy (May 10, 2013)

Hi Alrik,

I think it depends on what kind of sports you're shooting, and under what conditions. 

I once had a 70-300 IS USM (the non-L to which you refer) & used it extensively. It was OK but on the long end anything over 200mm was really not so hot. Photozone & other tests confirm this. I was using it on a 40D and your 1DsII has a much lower pixel density so it won't push the resolution limitations of this lens as hard, but I'm still not sure this lens is such a good choice for you. Also the AF is not full "ring USM" so you don't have full-time focus adjust available & the AF is not as fast as a full "ring USM" lens. In short, it's OK but not great.

If you're shooting sports where you can get a bit closer to the action (e.g. indoor sports or something outdoors where you're not too far away), you may want to consider a used or refurb 70-200 F/4 L. I started out with one of these & it was really great. Super sharp at all focal lengths, fast AF, not too heavy. I sold it because I found myself using my 135L most of the time instead, and was quite long & didn't fit well in my bags or balance so well with my smaller bodies. But with a 1Ds you're already used to dragging around bigger gear, so this shouldn't be a problem for you. When refurbs & used lenses are in stock they're under $500 so just keep an eye on it (also check B&H & Adorama used inventory).

Also all the 70-200s (unlike the various 70-300s) work great with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The mkII 1.4x is quite good but if you were going to go for a 2x TC I'd say either splurge for the mk3 or don't mess with it. But a used/refurb 1.4x II turns the 70-200 f/4 into a 100-280 f/5.6 with very good quality & fast AF for not a lot of money. Removing a TC takes more time than just turning a zoom ring, but the benefit is that your base lens is lighter and more luminous for closer indoor stuff. 

You only need to worry about IS if you're shooting in situations where you can't use a tripod. For a shorter lighter lens like the f/4 zooms a monopod is also quite acceptable. IMHO a tripod collar is necessary for the heavier lenses, (use a 3rd party tripod collar or find a used Canon collar as the new ones are ultra-pricey) but especailly on a bigger body like the 1DsII the f/4 zooms should be fine using the camera's tripod mount & a good ball head. For sports, most likely you'll have your shutter speed fast enough to be able to hand-hold a 200mm lens anyway in order to freeze the action. If you've got a monopod, you can really move around quickly & easily & still get down to 1/100th or so at 200mm with good shooting technique. Your subject is probably going to be pretty blurry at that speed anyway unless they're standing still.

The Tamron 70-300 VC is supposed to be the nicest of the budget zooms, but unless you really need the IS I'd stick with the white ones with the red rings .


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 10, 2013)

the 70-300 is great for a non-L. I wouldn;t buy anything cheaper, new at least.

the 200mm f2.8 is a great lens, but you would need to buy used, perhaps even s1 used.. (lens hood only real difference)

or you might get lucky with a used Sigma 400mm f5.6.
If you can find the APO Macro HSM version (the last one they made) there is a good chance that will work properly on your 1Ds (although not the lower spec or newer bodies) and actually gets a better rep than the Canon 400mm f5.6L

Needs to be the last version, and there is a good chance it will be for use on your 1DS only.


----------



## Alrik89 (May 10, 2013)

Thanks for the answers. 
Yes, field photography is the case: mainly soccer and horse riding. 
And yes, at the moment, i want to be flexible, so the 200mm 2.8 is no option, i think. 

So, it boils down to a 70-300mm or the 70-200mm f4 i guess.


----------



## markojakatri (May 10, 2013)

For budget outdoor sports, 70-200/4L would be great. Yeah, it is L, but way better than 70-300 and not much more expensive.


----------



## cfcis99 (May 10, 2013)

if you are shooting indoor sport and I assume you have access pass, I suggest EF 85mm F1.8 or EF 100mm F2.


----------



## Cory (May 10, 2013)

Not sure why, but my 100 2.0 seems a lot nicer than my 85 1.8 was. The 85 was pretty good, but my 100 seems almost 135 2.0 - like.


----------



## Barrfly (May 10, 2013)

I bought a Sigma 50-500 2 years ago and have used it to photograph my kids sports ( outside) and also inside at their band and choir events . Inside required a tripod . 
For $1500 I can't complain . I also use a Sigma 2X converter . This on a cropped camera gives you an effective power of 1600 mm. 

I'd suggest renting one to see if it meets your needs. 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682764-USA/Sigma_738101_50_500mm_f_4_5_6_3_DG_OS.html


----------



## TexPhoto (May 10, 2013)

I would buy the best 70-200 f2.8 you can afford. On a crop camera 200mm is pretty long. F2.8 will be critical in bad light. Maybe the Canon f4 (with/without IS) but still 

Look at used Sigmas, or older Canons.


----------



## meenanm (May 10, 2013)

Have you considered saving for long term and renting now? If you don't need it every day/wee you could rent a few times and save up for a better lens. I agree with Tex, consider a used Sigma or Canon if you need to buy now.


----------



## Northstar (May 11, 2013)

Northstar said:


> are you shooting on a field? if so, then your options are a bit limited. at f8, the 70-300 is reasonably sharp at 300mm, and you could probably get away with f8 outdoors for sports in the daytime.
> 
> an alternative is the canon 100 f2, it is a great lens for sports....quick AF and very sharp, you won't get many good shots from across the field but you can work the action near the sidelines. it's also in your budget and will work real well for indoor sports where the 70-300 is not very good for indoor sports.
> 
> it's always a compromise it seems...




Ok, soccer and horse riding...then as others have said, 70-200 f4 for $630 would be nice step up from either of the two lenses you mentioned....for not much more money


----------



## Alrik89 (May 11, 2013)

Thanks for your opinions. 
If i would have the money: 70-200mm II, but this is simply dreaming.
I don't need the lens today... but it would be nice ;D. Can't wait to do some tele-shootings.

Well, i think, i'll save some money and wait until one of the 70-200mm is in reach.


----------



## brad-man (May 11, 2013)

$480 used @ B&H Photo.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sid=used-9679704&is=USE&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=800950920


----------



## bholliman (May 11, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> Thanks for the answers.
> Yes, field photography is the case: mainly soccer and horse riding.
> And yes, at the moment, i want to be flexible, so the 200mm 2.8 is no option, i think.
> 
> So, it boils down to a 70-300mm or the 70-200mm f4 i guess.



If you can wait and buy better glass, do it! No point in buying a low quality lens now that will only lose value when you eventually try to resell it. The 70-200 f4 is a great lens.


----------

