Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe correctly quote what I said originally:
That is all one sentence, with a comma between '300mm' and 'I', not a period.
I am well aware of the advantages of a zoom over a prime shooting many types of subjects.
I do then agree with you then, for all the sports that you are not naming and not providing any examples that are shot only at 300mm then the Sony is the best lens that exists ;-)
action99 wrote:
I do then agree with you then, for all the sports that you are not naming and not providing any examples that are shot only at 300mm then the Sony is the best lens that exists ;-)
I don't need to name any sports or provide any examples. Want to see examples shot at 300mm go search the forums yourself. Why don't you tell us which of these sports can't be shot with a 300 f2.8
Imagemaster wrote:
Except there has never been a first-class 300 f2.8 as light as the Sony.
True, but that doesn't negate the value of the 100-300. Just as as the 400 DO II did not negate the value of the 200-400, despite being a couple pounds lighter.
I don't think anyone said you can't shoot sports with a 300 prime. The argument is rather that the 100-300 provides the photographer with a much more flexible tool to cover very fluid situations where switching cameras/lenses costs precious seconds and possible missed photos.
Most editorial sports coverage will be with two or three bodies. Typically a three body combo will be a super-tele prime, a 70-200 and a wide to tele zoom, or an UWA zoom. Dealing with three bodies on the sidelines can be a hassle so a lens like the 100-300 eliminates the need for a 70-200 and the wide angle zoom can be a 24-105, making a very effective 2-body combo. If a third body is still desired, then it could be something for a <1% shot, like a fisheye, the new 10-20 or maybe a fast mid-range prime for a shallow DOF look.
A lens like the 100-300 simply provides more options for effective sports coverage that a prime does not. But we all have our habits and preferences so thankfully there are both prime and zoom options available to satisfy most of us.
Canon could still release a 300 prime, perhaps as a somewhat slower, super compact and lightweight DO, like a 300/3.5,300/4, 300/4.5, etc.
In any case, IMO Canon made the right choice with the 100-300; zoom rather than prime. The 24-105/2.8 is also very interesting. Hopefully the rumored 200-500/4 also materializes, as it would be a great evolution of the 200-400.
Imagemaster wrote:
I don't need to name any sports or provide any examples. Want to see examples shot at 300mm go search the forums yourself. Why don't you tell us which of these sports can't be shot with a 300 f2.8
And since many sports photographers use two cameras, please tell me how many don't shoot with a prime on one body and a zoom on the other body?
Do you shot pro spotrs? Do you own a Sony 300 2.8?
I'm far away of being a good sports photographer but I have done a bit in the last 20 years. Here some of my experience in covering sports so you may stop telling me what others pro do, like I have 0 idea what I'm talking about:
action99 wrote:
Do you shot pro spotrs? Do you own a Sony 300 2.8?
I'm far away of being a good sports photographer but I have done a bit in the last 20 years. Here some of my experience in covering sports so you may stop telling me what others pro do, like I have 0 idea what I'm talking about:
Well whoopee for you. What do I care what photos you have taken? Those photos could have been taken with a variety of lenses. Where did I say sports photographers only use 300 f2.8 lenses?
Maybe get off your high-horse and learn how to read. Quote where I ever said the 100-300 f2.8 lens is not a great choice for sports.
Since you know it all, why did you not answer my question as to which of those sports I listed can't be taken with a 300 f2.8 lens? While you are at it, why don't you tell me all about the sports photographers that don't shoot with both a prime and a zoom.
The Sony 300 2.8 is quite badass. I bought the 100-300 but I wish I could add the Sony 300 to my stable as well. While I'm at it, give me Nikon's 400 and 600 TC's to complete the collection.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well whoopee for you. What do I care what photos you have taken? Those photos could have been taken with a variety of lenses. Where did I say sports photographers only use 300 f2.8 lenses?
Maybe get off your high-horse and learn how to read. Quote where I ever said the 100-300 f2.8 lens is not a great choice for sports.
Since you know it all, why did you not answer my question as to which of those sports I listed can't be taken with a 300 f2.8 lens? While you are at it, why don't you tell me all about the sports photographers that don't shoot with both a prime and a zoom.
Again, what is your experience in pro sport? It seems that you just read forums and google around.....
The funniest part that you wrote is this one:
"What do I care what photos you have taken? Those photos could have been taken with a variety of lenses."
Boy there is even a fisheye one in there.... of course they are taken with many different lenses
But hey you are the master as per your nickname, so I changed my idea I do agree with you that for all the sports the Sony 300 2.8 is the best lens that exist. assuming that you don't need a zoom and you are using a Sony......
Btw is quite relevant for a Canon forum where a fixed 300 2.8 is such a novelty.... o wait it existed since the 80s..... FD...
artsupreme wrote:
The Sony 300 2.8 is quite badass. I bought the 100-300 but I wish I could add the Sony 300 to my stable as well. While I'm at it, give me Nikon's 400 and 600 TC's to complete the collection.
I still don't get how the Sony is so much lighter and yet sharpness does not suffer w/ 2x in the same way as 100-300 does (if reviews are to be believed).
I am far from being a conspiracy theorist, but Japanese manufactures play this game where each has something that other does not, making sure all stay in business. The best of all worlds would be a 100-300 w/ 1.4x built-in.
well, I am happy with my 100-300 bare as is. Did the first 1/2 day of HS track yesterday and the results are as pleasing as could be expected.
thedutt wrote:
I still don't get how the Sony is so much lighter and yet sharpness does not suffer w/ 2x in the same way as 100-300 does (if reviews are to be believed).
It seems to suffer about the same with the 2x to me, similar blurriness and similar chromatic aberration:
I fully agree that an integrated 1.4x TC would have been amazing and same for the Sony too. Nikon is doing it right and I bet they will come out with a 100(120)-300 2.8 with integrated. 1.4x
thedutt wrote:
I still don't get how the Sony is so much lighter and yet sharpness does not suffer w/ 2x in the same way as 100-300 does (if reviews are to be believed).
I am far from being a conspiracy theorist, but Japanese manufactures play this game where each has something that other does not, making sure all stay in business. The best of all worlds would be a 100-300 w/ 1.4x built-in.
well, I am happy with my 100-300 bare as is. Did the first 1/2 day of HS track yesterday and the results are as pleasing as could be expected.
Agree, a built in TC would have been nice but maybe they were trying to keep it as small and light as possible, which it is for a zoom of that range. I don't see any degradation at all with the 1.4x, but I'm not a super crazy pixel peeper. I do see the degradation with the 2x but it's minor IMO. The first day I got it I put the 2x on it and shot portraits at 600mm f/5.6 in mediocre lighting and I was very happy with what I saw considering I've never been fond of using a 2x on any of my past big whites. IMO, it's definitely plenty good to use with the 2x without hesitation, but I'm sure the Sony could be better with the 2x as it's a prime.
I fully agree that an integrated 1.4x TC would have been amazing and same for the Sony too. Nikon is doing it right and I bet they will come out with a 100(120)-300 2.8 with integrated. 1.4x
right on. Well, the 2x is not terrible on the 100-300 and I plan on using it often. The big appeal of 100-300 to me is going with only 2 lens 2 body setup for remote locations (24-105, 100-300 +/- 2x). I am still hopeful that Canon will introduce the 1x-2x sometime this year and make this combo become even more flexible.
action99 wrote:
Again, what is your experience in pro sport? It seems that you just read forums and google around.....
Again, your replies just keep getting more obtuse. First of all, where did I say 'pro' sports? I guess you think you can take better sports photos than amateur sports photographers. Yeah, I guess looking at photos on the Sports Forum, etc. does not give one any indication of gear used or how well it performs.
The funniest part that you wrote is this one:
"What do I care what photos you have taken? Those photos could have been taken with a variety of lenses."
Boy there is even a fisheye one in there.... of course they are taken with many different lenses
Saddest part is you just don't comprehend that.
....I do agree with you that for all the sports the Sony 300 2.8 is the best lens that exist. assuming that you don't need a zoom
Duh, that is what I said.
But hey you are the master as per your nickname,
Yes, that explains it, the Big Man now has to resort to name-calling. You have no idea what my username represents, just like I don't know what yours represents. The difference is I don't care and don't make such assumptions.
Btw is quite relevant for a Canon forum where a fixed 300 2.8 is such a novelty.... o wait it existed since the 80s..... FD...
Alas, I forgot you are the Moderator and one is not allowed to mention Sony, or Nikon on the Canon Forum, or vice-versa. Get a life. Don't pro sports photographers have better things to do
Imagemaster wrote:
Again, your replies just keep getting more obtuse. First of all, where did I say 'pro' sports? I guess you think you can take better sports photos than amateur sports photographers. Yeah, I guess looking at photos on the Sports Forum, etc. does not give one any indication of gear used or how well it performs.
Saddest part is you just don't comprehend that.
Duh, that is what I said.
Yes, that explains it, the Big Man now has to resort to name-calling. You have no idea what my username represents, just like I don't know what yours represents. The difference is I don't care and don't make such assumptions.
Alas, I forgot you are the Moderator and one is not allowed to mention Sony, or Nikon on the Canon Forum, or vice-versa. Get a life. Don't pro sports photographers have better things to do
I guess I should have checked your history first, as you were banned.... and avoid any discussion with you and as you suggested do something better. Something that I will do from now on as many seems to have learn to do.....
action99 wrote:
I guess I should have checked your history first, as you were banned.... and avoid any discussion with you and as you suggested do something better. Something that I will do from now on as many seems to have learn to do.....
I guess you should have Action Boy. Your 1&1/2-year posting history with around 98% of your posts in the Canon Forum shows you are a great Canon Fanboy. Don't see any of your sports photos or advice in the Sports Forum though.
Sorry if you can't accept others members' opinions on gear other than Canon's, or that you have to assume that only pro sports photographers know what gear to use.
Most of us Canon users don't go nuts when other members discuss Sony, Nikon, etc. in this forum.
Choose whatever lens you want, these are the facts regarding weight:
Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM 5.7 lb / 2590 g
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM 5.29 lb / 2400 g, plus adapter for mirrorless body
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II 6.38 lb / 2900 g, plus adapter for mirrorless body
This weekend the Swiss U19 national team is playing a tournament here and one player comes from our region, so they asked me to take some pictures of him.
Be aware that last time I shoot basketball was 20 years ago :o and only a few matches, so I have basically no idea. Also, the level in Switzerland is low and stadiums are not great.
That guy in the blue Porsche is really flirting with an accident.
If you figure out the best image upload settings let me know. I've tried and they usually don't look too good after uploading at the size requirement. I think the best viewed images come from a linked Flickr image.
