Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Archive 2022 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

ShootPDX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Hi Canon Fans,

I’d like to take a stab at HS football and while I have the RF 70-200 2.8, is like something with a little more reach. The RF 400 2.8 is out of the question. Is there a decent adaptable equivalent for around $2-3k?

Sep 03, 2022 at 10:22 AM

jwolfe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

The best HS football lens is going to be a 300mm 2.8. Personally I would shoot an R7 on a 300mm IS or IS II. The newer the glass you can get the better it will work on the R bodies. There’s tons of IS II’s on eBay, this forum etc. Happy snapping!

Sep 03, 2022 at 04:17 PM

Joe Winn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

The 300 2.8 LIS I does not allow high speed modes on the new R models. So you need the II.

Sep 03, 2022 at 05:18 PM

Llewtwo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

You can find a 300 IS I in your range and another option would be the Sigma Sport 120-300. I believe there is a good copy of the 120-300 for sale on the buy and sell forum right now. Both are very good options in the range you mentioned. You can find the IS II 300 beginning around 4000. Here is a link to the Sigma I mentioned. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1772321/0?keyword=sigma,120-300#16034036

Sep 03, 2022 at 05:46 PM

jwolfe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

That’s a great option! I shot quite a bit with the original version. But I don’t know how it will play with the adapter.

Llewtwo wrote:
You can find a 300 IS I in your range and another option would be the Sigma Sport 120-300. I believe there is a good copy of the 120-300 for sale on the buy and sell forum right now. Both are very good options in the range you mentioned. You can find the IS II 300 beginning around 4000. Here is a link to the Sigma I mentioned. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1772321/0?keyword=sigma,120-300#16034036

Sep 03, 2022 at 06:05 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

The 100-400 vII is very capable given the extremely good high ISO performance. Of course, not sure how badly lit your field is.

-Brian

Sep 03, 2022 at 06:14 PM

hoytme
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

My 300 2.8 version 1 works very well on my R5. Even with the 1.4 v3 extender. While I haven't shot Friday night light for a few years it has worked great on back yard birds and some motor sports

Sep 03, 2022 at 06:34 PM

Uarctos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

300f2.8 IS II and 400f2.8 IS should be in your budget.

Sep 03, 2022 at 06:44 PM

bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Use crop mode on the R5.

Sep 03, 2022 at 08:06 PM

Yaryman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Before you buy a 300 f 2.8 lens...
Have you ever photographed football before?
Have you ever photographed football using a monopod?
Is your plan to make money photographing HS football?

Sep 03, 2022 at 08:32 PM

ShootPDX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

No, no, and no. This is just for fun.

Yaryman wrote:
Before you buy a 300 f 2.8 lens...
Have you ever photographed football before?
Have you ever photographed football using a monopod?
Is your plan to make money photographing HS football?

Sep 04, 2022 at 01:23 PM

Mike Jacks0n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Llewtwo wrote:
You can find a 300 IS I in your range and another option would be the Sigma Sport 120-300. I believe there is a good copy of the 120-300 for sale on the buy and sell forum right now. Both are very good options in the range you mentioned. You can find the IS II 300 beginning around 4000. Here is a link to the Sigma I mentioned. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1772321/0?keyword=sigma,120-300#16034036

I'd avoid Sigma and Tamron lenses like the plague. Canon could at anytime brick them. While I don't think that's likely, they have already done a number on the Sigma 150-600s with the occasional odd focus jitter. Additionally, I'm curious to see if Sigma and Tamron will be able to update their EF offerings without Canon throwing a fit. The future of the third-party lenses is looking very bleak on Canon's mounts.

Sep 04, 2022 at 04:37 PM

garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Joe Winn wrote:
The 300 2.8 LIS I does not allow high speed modes on the new R models. So you need the II.

I believe this limitation applies only to the mechanical shutter modes using H+. Electronic shutter will allow for higher framerates if the lens is shot wide open. (Rolling shutter may or may not be an issue for football, depending on the camera body and rate of panning.)

Sep 04, 2022 at 05:01 PM

garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Mike Jacks0n wrote:
I'd avoid Sigma and Tamron lenses like the plague. Canon could at anytime brick them. While I don't think that's likely, they have already done a number on the Sigma 150-600s with the occasional odd focus jitter. Additionally, I'm curious to see if Sigma and Tamron will be able to update their EF offerings without Canon throwing a fit. The future of the third-party lenses is looking very bleak on Canon's mounts.

To our knowledge, Canon has not done anything to inhibit third party lenses using the EF mount. Canon has had plenty of opportunities to "brick" these lenses over the past 20 years. They won't start now.

I would be more worried about Sigma or Tamron abandoning their older DSLR lenses by not keeping firmware up to date. A number of third-party lenses got firmware updates when the R5/R6 were introduced. Not sure how long they will keep this up.

Edit: Canon most certainly did not "do a number" on some specific random Sigma lens. It is not Canon's responsibility to ensure compatibility with unlicensed, reverse engineered third party lenses. That's on Sigma to fix.

Sep 04, 2022 at 05:07 PM

garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

When I shot football from the sidelines, I'd have a 400mm focal length on my primary body, and a 70-200 (or back in the day, a 200 2.8 prime) on my secondary body. A 600mm could be useful when shooting from behind the goal posts, but I preferred the shorter lenses when I could move about. (For football, I have only ever used full frame cameras.)

If you can't afford a 400 2.8, a 300 2.8 is a good compromise. You can use it with a 1.4x extender for daytime competition and take the TC off for night games.

Most use the big primes on monopods for sporting events.

Edited on Sep 05, 2022 at 11:59 AM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2022 at 05:23 PM

Mike Jacks0n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

garyvot wrote:
To our knowledge, Canon has not done anything to inhibit third party lenses using the EF mount. Canon has had plenty of opportunities to "brick" these lenses over the past 20 years. They won't start now.

I would be more worried about Sigma or Tamron abandoning their older DSLR lenses by not keeping firmware up to date. A number of third-party lenses got firmware updates when the R5/R6 were introduced. Not sure how long they will keep this up.

Edit: Canon most certainly did not "do a number" on some specific random Sigma lens. It is not Canon's responsibility to ensure compatibility...Show more →

Canon has NEVER liked third parties making lenses for their bodies and they have changed aspects in the cameras quite often (presumably) to create problems for third party lenses and accessories, but this is the first I've ever heard of them issuing cease and desists to these makers. As I said before, I don't think they will brick them, but if you think it's not possible, go ahead and continue on. I hope you are right, but take note, this issue is escalating not easing.

I fully expect Sigma and Tamron to start walking away from Canon's mounts. There isn't much reason (other than warranty commitments) for them to continue supporting Canon lenses for customers they can't sell another product to. I don't know if Canon has the right to stop them from using of the EF mount or if the new direction is only for the RF mount, but if there is an ability to limit the EF mount, I'm willing to bet they will take it.

All and all, it's too sticky of a situation to wade into for me, and I would caution anyone asking, not to spend thousands of dollars on a hope that Canon isn't going to escalate it any further.

OP, Sorry if this highjacked the thread for a second, but I feel like it's something that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Sep 04, 2022 at 08:36 PM

leewoolery
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

If you are just taking photos for fun, I would look for a used 300 f/2.8 and see what you come up with.

Hopefully you have field access for the games.

Sep 05, 2022 at 09:52 AM

Llewtwo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Canon has NEVER liked third parties making lenses for their bodies and they have changed aspects in the cameras quite often (presumably) to create problems for third party lenses and accessories, but this is the first I've ever heard of them issuing cease and desists to these makers. As I said before, I don't think they will brick them, but if you think it's not possible, go ahead and continue on. I hope you are right, but take note, this issue is escalating not easing.

I fully expect Sigma and Tamron to start walking away from Canon's mounts. There...Show more →

I don't know if Sigma or Tamron will make any RF mount lenses but they have a very nice lineup of lenses that pair well with RF bodies via the adapter. The Tamron 35 1.4 is one of the best 35 mm lenses and if you consider the price it's a great addition to the bag. The Sigma Art series all mate nicely with the R series with the adapter and their 135 to me is superior to the Canon version. The Sigma 120-300 sport is a good value purchased used and offers a sports shooter a lot of lens for the money at around the $2000 mark. I think your cautionary tale is a little exaggerated. My 120-300 sport works just as well as my adapted Canon lenses on my R bodies.

Sep 05, 2022 at 12:41 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

leewoolery wrote:
Hopefully you have field access for the games.

Yes. This very much determines what lens to consider and also the quality of the photos you can achieve.

If it's mostly during the day, then the 100-400 or 100-500 would be a starting point to become comfortable with following action through a long lens.

If it'll be a lot of night games, then you'll want a fast prime. As mentioned, 300/2.8 is probably the best compromise of cost, size, speed and image quality. But a 400/2.8 is better for covering more of the field. When the action is too close, you can use the 70-200 instead. A benefit of using the R5 over the R7 is that while you don't get quite the same pixel density reach out of the R5, you have the benefit of still being able to use the lens when action is closer before starting to crop off body parts, all while getting even better background separation/blur.

IMO, once the action is on the other half of the field (when shooting from sidelines), background separation decreases considerably and often distracts too much from what's on the field. It's kind of to the point where it's not worth bothering unless it's some rare or game-turning play that requires documentation. So you'll probably be concentrating more on relatively closer action and a 300 might be fine.

I have photographed football for over 30 years and it was nearly always with a 400, then later also with a 600 (because I love shooting from the end zone looking down the field). For the last ~10 years it's been with the 200-400 with built-in 1.4x TC. For the way I shoot football, I'm more in the 400-560 range, probably 2:1 ratio, compared to the 200-400 range. But I really like being able to pull back to 200 when the action gets closer. Hence the reason I'd recommend the 100-400 or 100-500 zooms if the light will be OK. No, those won't melt away backgrounds like a 2.8 prime, but they're a starting point from which you can then determine whether or not you want to move to a faster prime and which prime will better suit your requirements.

Sep 05, 2022 at 06:29 PM

JRobertson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Sports photography on a budget — outdoor HS football using R5

ShootPDX wrote:
Hi Canon Fans,

I’d like to take a stab at HS football and while I have the RF 70-200 2.8, is like something with a little more reach. The RF 400 2.8 is out of the question. Is there a decent adaptable equivalent for around $2-3k?

Depends, are you shooting football during the daylight? If so, then I'd go RF 100-500. If you're in any kind of transition or low light/field lighting, you'll need an f/2.8 without question. To correct an earlier comment, the 300 f/2.8 is absolutely NOT the best lens for football. Not nearly enough length, and you'll be cropping/damaging the images constantly. That said, you could probably secure a 400 f/2.8 v1 for $3500ish, if you can extend your budget slightly.

Sep 06, 2022 at 10:07 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

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