Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #18 · Cheap Mans 300mm for football |
Carl Auer wrote:
Moved to correct gear talk board.
Sorry about that Carl Noob mistake. Also did I see you mention that you were going to try to use the 120-300mm Sigma for basketball? I guess you could get some decent shots from other end of court but never thought of using anything past 135 or 200 for basketball. Then again, I don't know much.
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 or upgrading to a newer version of the...Show more →
Ya the 70-200 is pretty standard. I should really ditch the 200mm prime and get either a Canon 70-200 2.8 or a Sigma 120-300. I would be using Monopod if I got monster 120-300. The 120-300 would be the perfect lens for football with a ~85mm on 2nd body for wide shots.
I was in your shoes LONG ago, I get it about the money constraints and the need for good glass...
Don't take jspytek's advice lightly... I have that lens and would not trade it for anything. In a dome, it will do exactly what you need it to do! You don't need the OS version for football.
Find one, buy it for a good price ($1500 is a great price right now) and never look back!
Yeah maybe I should just find a reliable copy of the old Sigma 120-300. Selling a 50 1.2 would almost cover it and I could still keep my Canon 200mm 2.8 prime for other sports that don't need zoom as much.
I find it hilarious the number of folks who think an f2.8 supertele is the only way one can catch good sports photos. No one has asked the most important question here, are you getting paid for this? If not then rock your 200 all day and forget about it. Maybe slap on a 1.4 but otherwise save your cash.
Yeah, I'm probably getting way to caught up in the gear huh. I don't have a lot of hobbies so this is one I'm willing to throw some cash at. Also, a good lens holds its value and hopefully can be used for years and years. I would rather not use a 1.4x as that would changed 2.8 to 4 and if I make the move to 300mm I would like to stay at 2.8. I agree that I should be rocking that 200 all day .
I would not buy any Sigma anything. They ALL have had and the newer ones WILL have compatibility issues which Sigma may or may not fix. Every Sigma lens ever made has eventually had compatibility issues with a newly released Canon body. The newer ones, of course, haven't yet. Someday Canon will release a body that today's Sigma lenses will not work with. Lenses are long-term durable goods, unlike bodies.... Ideally you would want to keep a high quality lens that does what you need for life unless you wear it out. There are quite a few Sigma cheerleaders here,...Show more →
1D III looks nice but double price of 7D. Probably just go with 7D for now. Do I keep hearing rumors about 7D MII?
This is standard American college football field (100 yards).
With the 5D you have a fantastic camera to start with. The slower frame rate will not matter much for you since you only need a few quality images per game. As for a lens, if the field is smaller, a TC added to your 200 f2.8 should work fine. While some say big, fast primes are not necessarily needed to get quality sports shots, the reason they are used is because they focus fast. A 300 f2.8 IS will focus mush faster that a 200 f2.8. I have the 300 f4. While the image quality is exceptional, the focus...Show more →
Thanks for advice on focusing speed. I'll cross off that 300mm f4 from my list for sports.
To everyone else: Thanks for all the replies. I think this is the community for me. Look forward to posting some photos soon.