ChipinSD Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Help Selecting Long Zoom for Sports/Nature | |
Hello,
I am looking for advice from sports photographers on a lens swap. Here is the main gear I have for outdoor sports:
Canon 7D
Canon 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS)
Canon 300mm F4 IS
Canon 1.4x extender
I am shooting baseball, soccer, and football, but also want to do more wildlife/birds and landscape. I find that I rarely use the 300 F4 due to its lack of zoom or the extender. Yet there are times I would like more reach than the 200mm. My thinking is I should sell the 300 and buy something that is more useful to me.
Last week I went to an NFL game and rather than use the 70-200 I pulled out my ancient Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM. I found I really appreciated the extra 100mm on the long end. What I didn't like was the IQ from this old, entry-level zoom. Also the slow lens forced me to crank up ISO to 1,000+ at night.
I looked at the reviews for Canon zooms and identified a few possible alternatives. I would love feedback from FMers on these choices. I know I can rent these to try it out, so if we can narrow the list to two I can go that route. I am hoping I can get around $1,000 for my mint 300 F4 (with box).
Here are the lenses I am thinking of.
Option 1: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
Dec 2010, 9.5 Overall rating
New = $1,400 B&H after rebate
2.3 pounds, 5.6" long
What I like is that it has IS, is a relatively new model, is under 8" so I can bring it into an NFL stadium and covers the full range of zoom I would want. The downside is how slow it is - will AF be quick on a 7D? Will I see a huge difference in IQ over my 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM? Not sure how it is with manual focus either.
Option 2: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
March 2003, 9.1 overall rating
New = $1,500 B&H after rebate
3 pounds, 7" long
Has older IS, even longer reach but again is slow at full zoom.
Option 3: Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM
March 2003, 8.7 Overall
New = $2,500 B&H
3.7 pounds, 7.2" long
This is of lower interest, it is much more money than Options 1 and 2, I don't need anything under 100mm for what I am using this for. For all that money there is no IS.
Option 4: Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
August 2004, 9.1 Overall
New = $2,500 B&H
3.7 pounds, 7.2" long
Similar to Option 3, but with IS. Still paying for something I don't need (the under 100 mm).
Option 5: Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX APO DG OS HSM For Canon
Saw this for $2,400 from Abe's. I hesitate to consider non-Canon not because I am a snob, but because I have a Tamron that is too slow in AF to be of much use. Spec wise, this sounds perfect - I would have F2.8 as well as OS technology. The cost is a bit of a stretch, but of this lens is amazing I can swing it. I can probably sell my 1.4x extender too. The big question is how is this lens in AF speed, build quality and IQ. It is also 11" long - so I may not be able to bring it to NFL games (they say the lens must be under 8").
Option 6 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Sept 2005, 8.9 Overall rating
New = $650 B&H
This is a much smaller non-L version that would be an upgrade of the lens I used last weekend. It is light, small, inexpensive, has IS - but will it perform anywhere near Options 1 and 2.
Thanks for reading my long post. Any comments are greatly appreciated!
Chip
|