Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2010 · Best Sports Lens??

Gary Ellis Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Best Sports Lens?? I shoot college rugby, pro & amateur Scottish Games field events, pro minor league baseball, and some school sports. I use two Canon 1D Mk II bodies and two main lenses: 70-200/2.8 non-IS and 400/5.6. I'm tired of the lack of bokeh with the 400/5..6 and thought that another lens would be better. I can't afford the newest 400/2.8 IS and the 300/2.8 IS is pretty expensive, too. I was wondering what you thought about the following as a replacement for the 400/5.6: Old version 400/2.8 non-IS? Newest or older 300/2.8? 200/1.8 with a 1.4x extender? (Also gives me the flexibility to use the 200 for portraits.) My goal is to have excellent sharpness, fast autofocus, and bokeh. Which lens would you recommend since my ideal budget is $3K (maybe $4k)? I don't mind used. Thank you! Gary Mar 05, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Crossczechfoto Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Best Sports Lens?? Honestly go straight for the 400mm f/2.8. Get the MK II version if you can as it's lighter and sharper than the MK I version. Between that and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens your going to capture everything you need. The other two lenses are stellar in what they will be able to do but with the 400 you will be able to get everything you want and more (even if you throw a 1.4 extender on it). It gets you this.... and this.... and even indoors this... Oh and by the way the 200mm f/1.8 with a 1.4 extender can get you this... Ross Mar 07, 2010 at 05:27 AM

Gary Ellis Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Best Sports Lens?? Outstanding photos, Ross! Thanks. I'm getting all kinds of advice with no real consensus. It's a very tough choice since I don't have the money to get all the lenses! I think the real issue with me, other than money, is that the 400/2.8 is 12 lbs whereas the 300/2.8 and 200/1.8 are only 6 lbs. AND I'd be more likely to hike around town with the latter two. Given the weight, I'd only use the 400 for sports, but I could use the other two for other things as well. It's quite the dilemma! You said that the 400 would give me everything that the 300 or 200 would, and more. What did you mean by that? And is the 400 Mk II really that much better than the first version? I saw a version 1 in the low $2K range, but the Mk II is killer-expensive. Thanks for your comments. Gary Thanks. Gary Mar 07, 2010 at 07:02 AM

	end FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?