Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #13 · 70-300mm f/4-5.6L for sports? |
I'm having a bit of fun right now, comparing a D4 with a 1D X. I've been a Canon user in the past, Nikon user for a while, D4 user now but I just got a 1D X and I'm thinking about switching. There's no compelling reason so far but I've only been using the 1D X for a day.
Anyway, I was curious about one thing: using the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L for sports. I've always used the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS (or its Nikon equivalent) and I assumed I'd get another one for this test.
However, I'm wondering if the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L might be a better overall choice. If I look at all the photos I've taken with the 70-200mm, most of them have been at f/4 or slower and most of the photos I did take at f/2.8 would just as easily have been taken at a slower aperture. (Auto ISO has really made life easier!)
One of the lenses that's only available from Canon is the 400mm f/5.6 but perhaps with the 100mm extra length of the 70-300mm, I wouldn't want it.
If anyone has used the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L for sports photography, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of it, particularly if you've also used the 70-200mm f/2.8. I'm photographing horse riding and soccer, so the light is usually very good. I'm mostly interested in focusing speed, as I hear that the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L has excellent image quality, comparable to the 70-200mm f/2.8.
if you also have something long to go with it then on the zoom side a 70-200 2.8 without question, you often want f/2.8 to help blur backgrounds and if the light it at all bad it sure helps
for a single lens solution, the 70-200 is kind of short for field sports though and 70-300L focuses pretty quickly so it's better if you are doing field stuff and won't have anything else (also nice in that it is small enough to be let into more stadiums for times shooting as a regular spectator), the variable aperture means you may be stuck at f/5.6 at times
longer and faster can help of course, demo:
1. here is the pic taken with 70-300L f/5.6:
2. here is nearly the same shot but taken by someone else who was using an even longer lens and f/2.8 by a different photographer (go to 1:52 in the video and freeze it, i know awkward but I don't know of link to the still for this shot, and notice the background way more blurred out here):
notice the shot in the video has the BG way more blurred out
but anyway it has good image quality wide open at 300mm and it focuses well, maybe not like a super-tele, but like a 70-200