Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football
  
 
pplskills
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


Hello all. This is my first post. I'm hopefully going to be assisting with sports photography for the university I work for this next football season. We have an indoor football stadium and I'm not to sure how good the lighting is.

I have a Canon 5DM3, 135mm F2, and a 200mm F2.8. Yes, I realize primes are not the best for sports but they are what I rolling with right now. I assume I'm going to need something longer than 200mm for football correct? I will have access to the sidelines and endzone areas. I'm not getting paid so a 300mm 2.8 is out of the question. If I was going to purchase a lens it would be the Canon 300mm F4 IS but I'm not sure how good this would perform with the lighting in the stadium. I'm going to purchase an additional Canon cropped body so I have the option of 2 primes at any one time. My question for you guys is should I put my 200mm f2.8 on a cropped body (such as 7D 1.6x) to basically give me a 320 reach at F2.8 or should I purchase the 300 and hope that F4 is going to be good enough? The ISO performance on the 5DM3 is pretty darn good that I might be able to get away with F4. The images would most likely be used on the web only so at that size you probably wouldn't notice the noise anyway. How would the bokeh compare between a 7D with 200 @ 2.8 vs the 5D3 with 300 @ F4? With the primes, I realize that I'm not going to get every possible shot and I may miss some important moments. All I need is a few good shots per game for them to use on the web. There will also be others working along with me so no pressure.

Thank you.




Jul 06, 2013 at 08:40 PM
schlotz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


pplskills wrote:
...I realize primes are not the best for sports...


Hmm... that suggests most pros at every NFL game using the legendary 400 f/2.8 should be trading in their lens. Well, they probably will pass on the idea. Primes are used widely in sports but you will see the pros with a second body on their shoulder with a shorter zoom, one common choice is the 70-200.

1. Do you have any opportunity to get onto the field soon and test the lighting conditions with your current equipment set to f/4.0 to see what shutter speeds can be maintained?

2. Taking expenses into the equation, have you considered the option of putting a 1.4 TC on the 200 2.8 that will provide 280mm at f/4.0? This setup will provide similar results as the 300 f/4 although the tc does slow down the AF speed a tad. BTW, forget using a 2.0 tc.

3. If you are going to buy a lens, do yourself a favor that will continuing to reward you with excellent service for many years, get the 70-200 f/2.8

My guess the 5D III's ISO ability will provide sufficient SS. Another part of the same equation however, is will its lower FPS be adequate for what you are after? It's a bit hard to explain what can be missed at 6 FPS when attempting to capture "the moment". It is quite amazing just how fast the human body can be. If you are good at timing/anticipation the 5D can work.

Matt



Jul 06, 2013 at 10:45 PM
pplskills
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


1.) Yeah I can probably get access someone soon to test. That would be helpful for making a decision.

2.) I would rather not use a 1.4 TC as that degrades the quality and slows down the focus and the 1 stop of light. I have no problems forking out the $1500 for the 300mm F4 lens. Wouldn't putting a cropped body on the 200 be pretty much the same thing as a TC though (1.6 vs 1.4 but close enough) and without the 1 stop loss of light and the loss of quality. I mean I'm planning on getting a second body anyways so why not get a 7D so I get 200 x 1.6?
3.) Are you referring to one of the 1DX cameras? I'm more than happy with 6 FPS and again this is not a paying gig.

Thanks.



Jul 06, 2013 at 11:20 PM
ahender
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


I have a 7D and the upper ISO range is no where near the 5D you have.

If you can, just rent a 300 f4 and try it out. I have one and I believe focusing in low light will be a challenge.

Once you acquire focus you will be OK. Changing from close in to distance will be relatively slow.

I shoot youth and high school soccer with my setup but will have to change to a better system come spring as all the games will be played under poor lighting.



Jul 07, 2013 at 01:29 AM
schlotz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


Personally I would spend money on a 70-200 for sports long before spending any on a 300 f/4. This is why I suggested only picking up a tc to give you an inexpensive option at 300 f/4. You are correct regarding what limits the tc imposes. BTW, in decent light a good 1.4tc will work better than most realize and if your indoor lighting is on the high side maybe an option.

Good luck.



Jul 07, 2013 at 02:29 AM
Ted ellis
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


pplskills wrote:
Hello all. This is my first post. I'm hopefully going to be assisting with sports photography for the university I work for this next football season. We have an indoor football stadium and I'm not to sure how good the lighting is.

I have a Canon 5DM3, 135mm F2, and a 200mm F2.8. Yes, I realize primes are not the best for sports but they are what I rolling with right now. I assume I'm going to need something longer than 200mm for football correct? I will have access to the sidelines and endzone areas. I'm not getting paid so a
...Show more

Sorry if I come off sounding harsh and insensitive but, how much do you love what you want to do Spend the money, nothing less than a f2.8 300mm (with 1.4 TC) or 400mm and a f2.8 70-200mm will do unless you go for the 200-400 with the built in 1.4 tc.

Ted



Jul 07, 2013 at 03:20 AM
picboy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


indoor stadium yuck. take tons of pics and some are bound to be okay. plus you can crop. truth is, you need as much speed as you can get. if you run up and down the sidelines, that 200 might give you some crops you can use. obviously a 2.8 300 or 400 is better, but if you don't have it, just stay close to the action. should work out fine and you'll get a great workout. forget 4.0 lenses. btw, you will have to work on your timing with that canon.


Jul 07, 2013 at 03:36 AM
jspytek
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


I've got an older sigma 120-300 2.8 (non OS), I know you can pick those up for below $1,500.


Jul 07, 2013 at 05:10 AM
cocodrillo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


If you're short on cash, buy older generation glass. You're not going to need the IS to shoot sports so look for a well cared for older 300 f4 or 2.8 somewhere like the FM b/s board. With a 5Diii you probably don't need to bother with a 70-200 in place of your 135 and 200 (depends on how tight you like to shoot and skill with cropping). Plus, if you can get an educational copy of the latest version of photoshop you'll find you can do some quite remarkable things with noise removal, which often looks much worse on the screen than in a print. Ted is right about buying the fast long primes, but if you don't have five grand sitting around, what are you going to do? Also, you say you are assisting. does that mean you need to be highly mobile? A 400 2.8 slows you down a might, particularly if you have to carry someone else's too.


Jul 07, 2013 at 05:16 AM
pplskills
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


Thanks for breaking it down for me guys. You guys have all been very helpful. Any love for the Sigma telephoto zooms that are 2.8? I would much rather have a Canon. Yeah I think I'll ditch the 300 F4 idea. I've been looking at some 300mm F 2.8 non IS (old glass as cockodrillo recommended) on Ebay for quite a while now. I think I would be taking a chance as if something went wrong, Canon doesn't service it anymore. However, I think you can get a hold of an older 300mm 2.8 for 2-3 grand. You guys think it would be better to buy that on the boards here vs Ebay. I've never bought on the boards here but I would be very afraid of getting ripped off. I have a 50mm 1.2 that I really don't need so I can sell that to help finance part of a 300mm f2.8. I agree that I don't need IS. Also lol at the 200-400 + TC which is like 12k that just came out. Would you guys say a 300mm or 400mm would be more helpful for football? Also, any recommendations for a 2nd body to compliment my 5DM3. Should I go with a 5DM2 or a cropped body? Even maybe a 6D might be better than a 5DM2 because of how old the mark 2 is. However, I heard the 6D isn't the best at fast focusing.

Cocodrillo: I worded things wrong when I said assisting. What I meant was there is also going to be other photographers with the school taking pictures as well. A few maybe getting paid and a few maybe volunteers like me. I'm going to be doing it for the love and the access.

One last question for you guys. What is the widest focal distance I'll need for football? Lets say I did have a 300, a 200, and a 135. Do you think I would need to go any wider than that at times. The good news is I have a crap load of room to backup on each endzone if needed. I do agree that a 70-200 would be better and I may move that direction in the future but for now I would be sticking with these 3 lenses between 2 bodies. I also have a 85 1.8 which would be the next option if I Would need to wider.

Thanks again! I really appreciate it.



Jul 07, 2013 at 08:30 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



cocodrillo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


I've spent and sold about 10K on the FM b/s sell board, including returning one body with blown pixels. All no problems. Do you homework (ratings, communication) and trust your gut. Others, of course, have had less enjoyable experiences.

As for focal lengths... I like the SI ethic I saw somewhere once... longer than 600 and wider than 24, but I'm strange and often shoot way too tight (and sadly have a 500, not 600). Since you're going to be shooting indoors predominantly have you though of a 1D Mark 3 for a second body? Great camera when it works. The real issue with the affected bodies was that they couldn't focus worth a damn in sunlight. They were still pretty good in the dark, i.e., indoors.



Jul 07, 2013 at 11:20 AM
ahender
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


I find threads pretty funny when someone suggests you run out and buy a $6000-12,000 lens when your initial budget was $1500. I've been looking at used 300 f2.8 IS lenses for a while and the typical price is $3800. You might can find a beater for less than that. If you are looking at the Sigma 120-300, here's a link from LensRentals.com ( http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-120-300-f2-8-os-sport-part-1-features-and-optics ).

Photography sites with classified ads are:

Fred Miranda

DP Review

Luminous Landscape

Naturescapes

Sports Shooter

Photography on the Net



Jul 07, 2013 at 01:02 PM
pplskills
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


ahender wrote:
I find threads pretty funny when someone suggests you run out and buy a $6000-12,000 lens when your initial budget was $1500. I've been looking at used 300 f2.8 IS lenses for a while and the typical price is $3800. You might can find a beater for less than that. If you are looking at the Sigma 120-300, here's a link from LensRentals.com ( http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-120-300-f2-8-os-sport-part-1-features-and-optics ).

Photography sites with classified ads are:

Fred Miranda

DP Review

Luminous Landscape

Naturescapes

Sports Shooter

Photography on the Net



lol ya. Thanks for the links. I'll start looking around. Wow, this sigma looks interesting. I bet the autofocus sucks on it again. I'll have to find some in depth reviews on it. I have the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 which is one of the first ones out with the new Quality control and it is an awesome lens and very sharp. The autofocus is a bit off from time to time.



Jul 07, 2013 at 02:47 PM
gschlact
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


You didn't elaborate whether your indoor stadium is one for Division I and has / is televised? If so, your lighting requirements might be 1-2 stops of light better than you think. Televised stadiums have much higher minimum lighting requirements. I would guesstimate ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/800 as min if not better. With the 5d III you would still have plenty of room to shoot at f4 and higher SS. Much better than outdoor under the light football.

As far as focal lengths with and w/out crop, I always found this site helpful to estimate the field of view using an estimated distance to give height and width of your shot, scroll down half way and use the calculator http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html , On 300mm non crop at 100 ft, you'll shoot 12x8 foot frame.

Guy



Jul 07, 2013 at 04:26 PM
picboy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


take the 85. when they come into the end zone it's nice to shoot wide, IF you are on the right side. re-think that 70-200 2.8. great lens and you'll use it all the time. sell the 85 to help pay for it. maybe a 1 generation old canon can be found for decent price.


Jul 07, 2013 at 05:23 PM
pplskills
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


gschlact wrote:
You didn't elaborate whether your indoor stadium is one for Division I and has / is televised? If so, your lighting requirements might be 1-2 stops of light better than you think. Televised stadiums have much higher minimum lighting requirements. I would guesstimate ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/800 as min if not better. With the 5d III you would still have plenty of room to shoot at f4 and higher SS. Much better than outdoor under the light football.

As far as focal lengths with and w/out crop, I always found this site helpful to estimate the field of view using
...Show more


The games are on television but they are on some local crappy station but maybe there is hope for good lighting. Thanks for the site recommendation.

picboy wrote:
take the 85. when they come into the end zone it's nice to shoot wide, IF you are on the right side. re-think that 70-200 2.8. great lens and you'll use it all the time. sell the 85 to help pay for it. maybe a 1 generation old canon can be found for decent price.


I'm actually hearing good things about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 so I'm thinking about selling my 50 1.2 and 200 2.8 and maybe I'll have enough cash for it. It is $3600 new. I'm thinking for football I could have the 120-300 on one body all the time and then on the 2nd body switch off from a 135 F2 L and 85 1.8 with the option of throwing on a wide angle lens to get full stadium shots from time to time.



Jul 07, 2013 at 09:41 PM
picboy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


hmmm. i'd stick with the canon lenses. they work great, retain value and should work for a long time. just my experience. anyway, what do i know? if people think the sigma is killer then it must be.


Jul 07, 2013 at 11:45 PM
RyanL
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


pplskills wrote:
I bet the autofocus sucks on it again.

I was debuting on purchasing a canon 300mm F/2.8 (non IS) recently, and decided to go with the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for the versatility and the superb reviews. I am very happy with it so far. I think the AF is pretty good as well. I've only been shooting with it a couple weeks, but I think the quality is definitely there. Be warned it's a tank though, I do hand hold 80% of the time. By the end of the day, I know I've been curling a 6lb lens all day. Mine is the older version. 120-300mm APO IF, not the DG or OS version.



Jul 08, 2013 at 02:51 AM
Carl Auer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


Moved to correct gear talk board.


Jul 08, 2013 at 05:07 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football


Hi, if you can find a good 300mm f2.8 non-IS at a good price its a good choice.

The 200 f2.8 is a superb lens. You can try using a 1.4x on it. I had it for a while and sold it to get the 70-200 but I miss that lens both for its optical quality (not just resolution but bokeh, color and contrast) and it's small size and light weight.

That said the 70-200 IS is a must have lens since it is very useful for a very wide range of situations. If you can get one, get it. Most 70-200 are sold by people switching to another system (nikon?) or upgrading to a newer version of the lens. They always sell well.



Jul 08, 2013 at 05:39 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password