Timberland
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.1 #8 · 70-200 F2.8 IS or 300 F4 IS football photos requested | |
rscheffler wrote:
Here's my take. You probably need both. Or, at least two lenses with one in the 70-200 range and one that is 300mm. You should also consider a two camera system if you can afford it.
I looked at all of your football/soccer photos on pbase. Based on the exif information (assuming it's correct), your shots are mostly at the extremes. Either they are around 100mm or at 300mm. A smaller percentage are around 200mm. For this reason I don't think you can get away with just one of the two lenses you suggest. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of my football (soccer) photos online (though I have photographed around 30 FIFA football/soccer matches if that means anything), so you will have to take my suggestions at face value.
First of all, I don't like the Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses. I've tried several copies of the IS version and have found all to be less than stellar for AF accuracy, especially close in action at the wider end. At the 200mm end, the lens is a touch on the soft side. This lens could be an all in one solution coupled with the 1.4x TC, but that will just degrade image quality more and also slow down AF. I know this sounds crazy for sports, but I much prefer the 70-200 f/4L IS. For me it just works better. It's sharper, has better contrast, more luck with AF on people running, less lens flare in backlighting... It also works great with the 1.4x TC, but of course then you're down to f/5.6. Some will argue it doesn't blow out the background as much as 2.8, but I'd rather have more consistently in focus images. On a second camera, it's much easier and faster to bring up to your eye when switching over from the camera with the longer lens. The 70-200 2.8 series is considerably heavier and will cost you additional fractions of a second to bring up to your eye unless you have very strong arms... and in sports fractions of a second can make a huge difference. Alternatively you could consider a prime like the 85 1.8 or 135 f/2. These are even better. Better AF speed, better sharpness than the zooms. Of course one concern is very loose compositions. But so what - you crop. I think the decision about your main lens is less complicated. It will be the 300mm f/4 on the 40D.
I prefer prime lenses. Whenever I photograph action with zooms I almost always compose more loosely than I would prefer. With a prime, I don't have the choice, what I see is what I get. A lot of times a composition might "feel" too tight, but once on the computer screen isn't as tight as I thought. With a zoom, I habitually zoom back when the composition feels tight.
Did you keep your EOS 350? Even if you've sold it, you could buy another similarly priced camera. I would advise you to consider a second camera for use with a shorter lens. One suggestion would be the 300 f/4 and the 85 1.8 as the least costly new combination. The 300 will cover your mid to long field action while you can optimize the 85's effectiveness based on where you sit between the goal and corner. Obviously the closer to the corner the looser the shot on the goal area will be with the 85. I re-read your last post and noticed that you own the 24-105. Theoretically, you could use that lens on a second camera for the closer action around the goal or at the corner. It might even be the better option for those rare times when a player celebrates a goal right in front of you and a wide angle lens would be the best option.
I don't agree with Duncan's logic that f/2.8 (or a zoom) will benefit you more than the reach of the 300 f/4. There is a reason why most press photographer at football/soccer matches are using a 300, 400 or 500/600 rather than a zoom (though I hear the Nikon 200-400 is quite nice). I noticed in your pbase images you were able to get reasonable results at ISO 1600 using the 100-300 f/4 at night games. Considering you should get even better quality from the 40D at ISO 1600, or even 3200, an f/4 lens is not the hindrance it used to be when ISO 800 was considered the highest usable setting. It's one of the reasons I've adopted the 70-200 f/4 IS, because when I need to, I can set the Mark III to ISO 1600 or 3200.
Therefore, I would suggest: 300mm f/4 and a second camera, if you don't already have one. For the time being you can use the 24-105 on the second camera to get a feel for how it will work for you. I recently bought the 300mm f/4 and believe it's a decent lens. The AF will be faster than the 70-200 2.8 but it's not in the same league as the 300mm f/2.8. But, as you mentioned, the 2.8 lens is not in the budget, so we won't go there.
Ron
Wow, thanks for taking the time to reply Ron.
I think it's quite strange that an expensive 70-200 F2.8 IS would not be sharp @200mm f2.8 and not focus very accurate. The (newer) 70-200 F4 IS is (what I read on the Internet) is a very nice lens, but I cannot imagine it's more accurate than a €600,- more expensive lens (the flagship of the telezoom collection).
I don't own a second body and I don't shoot football for work. I just really enjoy it very much as an amateur. So I won't be buying a second body to lug around. 
What I want is a very accurate (AI servo) focusing lens with excellent sharpness.
Hmmm, a 200-400mm F4 lens would be nice if Canon made it (but not with the price of the Nikon).
|
) 300 f/4 non-IS - $600. I've used the 300 f4 non-IS before and it's a great lens for the money, also plays well with a 1.4x. Here's a full res image (please only open if you need to) 
)?