docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · R5II + 100-300 = Ultimate field sports combo [image heavy] | |
thedutt wrote:
superb images - the flexibility of a 2.8 / 4/ 5.6 zoom is pretty amazing. Paired with R5II, this is the ultimate field/track combo. The 400's 2.8 subject isolation is pretty impressive, but if you can fill the frame with 300, you get that too. For sports situations where subject distance is always changing, the 100-300 is becoming my clear choice. Reach limited situations, well that's another story.
For an human adult to fill the frame(2m)
300mm distance: 55feet DOF @2.8: 1.71 ft
400mm distance: 75feet DOF @2.8: 1.78 ft
400mm distance needed 75feet DOF
Thank you! These creatures are tiny though, about 1.2m/4ft tall. So it's like a sports macro 
Still no problem filling the frame from the side lines (junior size pitch).
patotts wrote:
I did 14 yrs of travel and varsity soccer with 3 boys. State Cup chams, Conference league champs, regional champs, went to Nationals, etc. Many memorable years shooting sidelines.
Why not ditch the Sony rig and get 2 R5II's and more RF glass? Even if you can afford double set ups and playing with high-end gear from multiple brands, why not make it easier if Canon meets the need?
I do like global shutter (A9III) for "active" outdoor portraiture with strobes, and my 400/600 are Sony. It would be ~$4-5k loss to switch the lenses. Also, I started my photography journey with Sony (the good ol' A99!). I don't mind shooting two systems, I think they complement each other really well.
RustyRus wrote:
I am eyeing this lens-
Can I ask a silly question-
How do you get past the feel of running around with a massive lens on a monopod? I feel awkward enough at times with just a 70-200 or a big prime. I can't imagine with this one.
Its one main reason I love carrying a Leica M with a Summilux.
I need a lens like this though and will just have to get over it but intrested in your thoughts.
I never use a monopod because it's limiting my agility. I usually sit cross-legged on the grass and if I get tired of hand holding - I raise the left knee and rest my elbow on it (while still holding the lens), so it gives me some extra support. I had to shoot 3 games in a row a couple of times this way, and it wasn't bad.
For each long lens I have this handle: https://www.camvate.com/products/camvate-carbon-fiber-handgrip-support-stabilizer-with-1-4-20-mounting-screw-for-dslr-camera-video-flash-light-black-locking-ring-2758 and this clamp: https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-dc-24-dm-47-24mm-47mm-screw-knob-clamp-arca-compatible (DM47). They add very little to the system weight but make my life much easier:
For the 100-300 the handle must be close to the front of the foot so I would be able to reach the zoom ring with my thumb and index fnger. For the primes the handle position doesn't matter.
jedibrain wrote:
I shoot a lot of soccer as well. I'm out of reach of a 100-300 2.8 lens, but maybe in reach of an R5II or used R3.
Have you used an R3? How does the AF compare to o the R5II? If you have the grip for the r5II (regular battery grip) how does it feel compared to the R3? I rented an R3 and it was so nice in the hand. The 24mp is enough for me. But I've got FOMO on pre-capture and the fancy new AF modes.
Thanks, Brian
I did, but briefly, just for a week, for MLS Next games. It was no worse than the A9III in terms of hit rate, and way better than my old R5. Ergonomics was also great but my battery didn't last two games. Could be a bad battery, it was a rental after all.... I was surprised because the tiny A9III battery could survive two games easily. The new R5II battery also lasts two games (12k shots, pre-capture on). If you don't need to crop a lot it's a great camera. Plus, it should drive the ring-USM based lenses faster. I appreciate having pre-capture on the R5II since it allows me to "travel back in time" a little bit when I was too slow to react. If you're an experienced shooter you may never need it though. Regarding the fancy AF modes - see my notes above. They are great if you don't care who's possessing the ball. If you do care - it's better to turn the action mode off.
mb126 wrote:
Is there any benefit to this setup vs the 200-400 f4 for daytime field sports?
If one shot a mix of field sports and indoor (gymnastics, basketball volleyball, etc.) I totally get the appeal of the 100-300.
But for field sports, I'd expect the 200-400 is a more suitable focal length (paired with a 70-200) and they are available for a song these days!
The 200-400 would cover the entire field, especially if you engage the TC, but it's harder to handhold (I think it's the same weight as the 600/4II), and it can't go lower than f/4. It has its pros and cons... The biggest con for me if I buy it today - Canon will release the long promised 200-500 tomorrow
|
)!
