Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · O-Line and Some Questions

  
 
canerino
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · O-Line and Some Questions


Greetings all!

I've been on FM since 2005 and have nearly 10K posts and truth be told, I've only been in this forum a handful of times! Shame on me! I'm not surprised that the talent level here is extremely high! And it seems that there is great camaraderie among the participants! My main focus in photography has been documenting my family life (I have three sons, 8, 5, 2... work can be seen at www.growingupanerino.tumblr.com). This has lead me to photographing weddings and working as the associate photographer for Hoffer Photography (http://hofferphotography.com/weddings/anerino/).

As my children become older, it seems that they are gravitating to sports (my 8 and 5 year old have played baseball for the past few seasons and most recently my oldest son started playing football).

Naturally, I want to continue to document their lives as they play sports! I have worked hard to hone my wide angle, documentary photography skills by using wide primes almost exclusively (24L, 35L). My current lineup consists of the 24-70L v2, 35L, 135L.

As you can see, I'm a bit limited on the long end. I dont really want to invest a whole lot of money (yet) in that area. I might down the road, but just not yet. My thinking was to pick up a 2x TC for my 135L (which would give me 270 f/4). Would you recommend that? Or would you buy the 300 f/4?

Here are some of my shots from my son's first game ever. He is playing left offensive tackle. My favorite is #1. I was able to get close because they were down at the goal line. The other shots are just random (although you'll see some of my son trying to block).

EDIT: THE IMAGES ARE BEING COMPRESSED FOR WHATEVER REASON FROM MY HOSTING SITE MAKING THEM LOOK PIXELATED. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

1
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046604/original.jpg

2
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046605/original.jpg

3
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046601/original.jpg

4
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046603/original.jpg

5
http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046820/original.jpg


One of my middle son playing first base:

http://www.pbase.com/anerino/image/152046748/original.jpg

Thanks in advance for your help!

Chuck



Aug 27, 2013 at 01:39 PM
Carl Auer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · O-Line and Some Questions


Chuck,
If you are just wanting to continue documenting your kids, not looking to "get into" sports photography as a profession, you have some good options. The 300 F4 is a decent lens, but as your kids get older and start playing games when it gets darker, it can limit you. But at this level right now, the 300 F4 and the 100-400 is not a bad choice. Another option would be a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x tc.

The images you posted here look great. any parent would be proud to have photos of their kid that look like this...



Aug 27, 2013 at 02:03 PM
Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · O-Line and Some Questions


Chuck,
Welcome to the Sports Corner. You're following a path with your photography that many of us have traveled ahead of you. Looking at just these few photos you have posted, it's obvious you have everything you need to succeed in branching out with your chronicling of your children's lives.

Given your photographic abilities and what I can surmise about your approach to photography to this point, eventually you are going to be satisfied with nothing less than the best, which for many is the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS lens. Until then, the 300 f/4 would be a good choice. I don't know whether a 2x extender on the 135 is going to work very well. Another option is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. This is a beautiful lens, absolute workhorse for all sports photographers. It won't give you quite the range you will need eventually, but at the younger ages with smaller fields, if you are patient, you can get great shots of the action as it comes to you. I understand that this newer version of the 70-200 also does quite well with a 1.4x extender, so that would give you some flexibility.

Be sure to get in the habit of posting some of your photos here. I'll look forward to seeing them.



Aug 27, 2013 at 02:08 PM
Geoffrey Bolte
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · O-Line and Some Questions


While I am not a Canon user, I recommend the 100-400 if you are just using it to document your kids. Yeah you won't get the creamy bokeh of a 2.8 but you will get the reach you will need at some point. If you want a lens that you can use for weddings as well pick up a 70-200. Get one in your price point, for sports you don't need IS, but for weddings you may or may not want it. And from what I've seen non-IS are decently priced.

When your kids get bigger and start playing on larger fields look for the 100-400 or 300 f4. If you are feeling adventurous look at the 300 2.8 or even 400. In the end its all what you can afford.

Love the look you are getting so far so in the end you can decide what way you want to go.



Aug 27, 2013 at 03:25 PM
matt.garnett
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · O-Line and Some Questions


I'm going to agree with Geoffrey on this one, I think that 100-400 is the perfect lens for shooting you kids in just outside environment, during the day. Looks like you've still got some time before you have to get a big white monster with a wide aperture, but by that time you could probably just pick up a 300 f/1.8 IS IV

Kidding aside, I absolutely LOVE number 5. The way they're both looking at the defender is awesome.



Aug 27, 2013 at 09:54 PM
Deborah Kolt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · O-Line and Some Questions


Given your sons' ages, you've probably got seven years before anyone is playing under the lights, so you won't need f/2.8 for a while. As long as your camera body supports reasonably high ISO, you should be fine during heavily overcast late afternoon games at f/4.

The 135 is a wonderful lens, but it will be short for shooting linemen. My choice given the parameters you have laid out would be the 300 f/4; you'll want the extra reach. It is also incredibly lightweight and works as a macro lens. I've never tried it with an extender, though.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the 100-400 and don't care for the 70-200 with an extender. But that's me.

Word of warning. If your son is still playing line in college, you'll want to have money set aside for a 500 or 600m!



Aug 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · O-Line and Some Questions


Chuck, welcome to this side of FM! When I started shooting in the digital age, my first sports lens was a 100-400. My kids were young and I always shot in daylight conditions. I progressed into shooting baseball tournaments with that lens. It ended up financing my whole kit! That being said, I rarely take it out unless it's high noon (although it works really well with an "X" or 5D3). I think the 70-200 2.8 IS V2 would be a solid choice. I'd use it with a 1.4 TC for your kids' sports. When and if you find limited with that choice look into drinking the 300/400 2.8 Kool-Aid. Depending what body you shoot, a 7D with the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC gives you a an equiv. of over 400mm on a full frame all at f/4. Plus you could use the 70-200 for other projects as well.


Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM
cocodrillo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · O-Line and Some Questions


I'm going to deviate a bit from the above, although all good advice... Go as long as you can get away with, which at the moment would be a 400 f5.6 -- the 100-400 focuses a tad slow in my experience and is pernickity on the sharpness end.

I say get the 400 over the 300 because, well, you can never be close enough. And given that you already know what you're doing with a camera and composition it isn't going to be long before you want to be even tighter in on the action.

Just don't rent a fast 400, 500, or 600... you'll never be able to go back. Heck, the 300 f2.8 is really seriously lovely, even with a 2x convertor on it.



Aug 28, 2013 at 07:27 AM
finster1018
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · O-Line and Some Questions


Consider using a 300 f/2.8 non-IS with 1.4 TC. You can find a used 300 on the Buy/Sell forum here for a fraction of what you would pay for a new 300 anyways. Who needs the IS at your shutter speeds? Still plenty sharp! The f/2.8 gives you some beautiful bokeh. For kids games, unless you're from the local paper or Sports Illustrated, it looks a little odd showing up with a monster 400...I mean really


Aug 28, 2013 at 07:47 AM
canerino
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · O-Line and Some Questions


Thanks all for the great advice!

To summarize some suggestions:

100-400mm
70-200mm f/2.8 (with a 1.4x)
300mm f/4
400mm f/5.6

I was surprised that nobody suggested just adding a 2x or 1.4x to my existing 135L. Is that such a bad idea?

I do like the option of the 70-200 as I could fold it into my wedding kit whereas I'd never whip out a 300mm lens for a wedding.

Russ did profile me correctly I do like nicer gear! Maybe I'll look for a beater 300mm f/2.8 NON IS? What can I expect to pay for such a lens?



Aug 28, 2013 at 09:15 AM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · O-Line and Some Questions


From time to a 300mm 2.8 non IS can be had for $2-2.5k. There are some pretty clean non-beaters out there on the B&S forum.


Aug 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM
finster1018
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · O-Line and Some Questions


canerino wrote:
Maybe I'll look for a beater 300mm f/2.8 NON IS? What can I expect to pay for such a lens?


got mine here on this site for $1200 two years ago. It's got lots of scuffs, but it works and it sure is sharp so that's all I care about. Perhaps another option would be the 120-300 Sigma. Not as sharp as the 300L, but it will save your legs from doing some walking. Saw a good price for one of those over at Buy and Sell this morning.



Aug 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM
finster1018
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · O-Line and Some Questions


canerino wrote:
I was surprised that nobody suggested just adding a 2x or 1.4x to my existing 135L. Is that such a bad idea?



I also have a 135L and both the 1.4X and 2X but something tells me if you strap on the 2x you'll see some noticable degradation in clarity as the 135 is purportedly one of the sharpest lenses in the Canon lineup. I've never strapped one on before so maybe I'll do some testing.



Aug 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM
rolette
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · O-Line and Some Questions


canerino wrote:
I was surprised that nobody suggested just adding a 2x or 1.4x to my existing 135L. Is that such a bad idea?


Adding a 1.4x to your 135L is ok, but still a bit on the short side for field sports even though you are taking a hit on AF speed. It will work if you are willing to let the action come to you.

Adding a 2x to just about any lens and trying to use it for sports is rough. AF speed dropping by 75% makes it tough to keep up with the action. You'll lose a lot of shots that you ought to be able to get with longer lenses. You also lose a fair bit of subject isolation and get pushed into higher ISO territory from the 2-stop hit.

It's not uncommon to use a 1.4x for sports if you need to, but I'd avoid the 2x like the plague.

Jay



Aug 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM





FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.