When you need 500mm, f/7.1 will give you more separation than a 200/2.8 shot cropped to match. If 200mm is all you need to fill the frame, then the choice becomes a lot easier.
xcoaste wrote:
Thank you for all the suggestions. I had a chance to check out the ef 100-400 and rf 100-500 at a baseball game. Both had really sharp images, but the backgrounds at the long ends just didn't have enough separation for me after using f2.8 on the 70-200.
With how small the fields are my kids are playing at, and the backgrounds are really busy with spectators, lawn chairs and parked cars, I think I am going to go with f4 or f2.8.
xcoaste wrote:
Thank you for all the suggestions. I had a chance to check out the ef 100-400 and rf 100-500 at a baseball game. Both had really sharp images, but the backgrounds at the long ends just didn't have enough separation for me after using f2.8 on the 70-200.
With how small the fields are my kids are playing at, and the backgrounds are really busy with spectators, lawn chairs and parked cars, I think I am going to go with f4 or f2.8.
It sounds like you and I have similar taste, which is the desire for thin DOF and nice bokeh. A lot of people here drool over the 100-500 but it's my least used lens due to exactly what you have experienced. I would much rather take my 300II out to shoot soccer and be limited to shoot the action within the 300mm range instead of taking my 100-500 and zooming all over the field. The 300II will give you the professional looking images you are looking for with subject isolation, whereas the 100-500 will give you more of what I call "snap shots" all over the field. A lot of people here are plenty happy with using small apertures on the zooms but IMO there's just no comparison to the magic a 300II can produce. I think a lot of people think they need to cover all the action all over the field, so they use zooms to ensure they don't "miss anything". If you are shooting games to sell photos, then this is where I would use the 200-400 to cover both teams and all the action. But if it's just your kid, the primes are sufficient to capture them in your range.
There is plenty of action during soccer games to shoot within whatever prime range you are using (even 135 f/2 can work), so if you are after the most professional looking images of your kids growing up, then shoot the primes and come home with the money shots.
Baseball is a little different due to limited shooting locations, but I would still take the 300II with extenders for baseball over my 100-500.
xcoaste wrote:
Which version extenders are you using with the 300, ii or iii?
I have a 1.4xIII I've use with both the 300 2.8II and 100-400II. To me, it's Indistinguishable on the 300 while the 100-400II shows a bit of softness over 300mm compared to without.
artsupreme wrote:
It sounds like you and I have similar taste, which is the desire for thin DOF and nice bokeh. A lot of people here drool over the 100-500 but it's my least used lens due to exactly what you have experienced. I would much rather take my 300II out to shoot soccer and be limited to shoot the action within the 300mm range instead of taking my 100-500 and zooming all over the field. The 300II will give you the professional looking images you are looking for with subject isolation, whereas the 100-500 will give you more of what I call "snap shots" all over the field. A lot of people here are plenty happy with using small apertures on the zooms but IMO there's just no comparison to the magic a 300II can produce. I think a lot of people think they need to cover all the action all over the field, so they use zooms to ensure they don't "miss anything". If you are shooting games to sell photos, then this is where I would use the 200-400 to cover both teams and all the action. But if it's just your kid, the primes are sufficient to capture them in your range.
There is plenty of action during soccer games to shoot within whatever prime range you are using (even 135 f/2 can work), so if you are after the most professional looking images of your kids growing up, then shoot the primes and come home with the money shots....Show more →
These are great points! Indeed, when you're only covering your own kid and have all game to get a nice selection of images, then you have the luxury of waiting for ideal moments within the sweet spot of a given focal length's coverage.
If the fields the kids play on are quite small, as mentioned, the challenge will be getting enough background separation. A long, fixed lens might work against you in some cases because ideal framing might be too far down the field when there is relatively poor background separation, even at a relatively wide aperture. So I could see there being times when just waiting for action to come closer at 200/2.8 would be better than a longer, slower lens with poor background separation.
300/2.8 is probably the best fast prime lens compromise in situations when they're playing on smaller than 'pro' size surfaces. If you need to use the 1.4x, you're getting the same look as the 200-400 at 400mm but have the option for a stop more background separation if you can fill the frame at 300mm instead. It's a relatively compact lens and a good one to learn on ahead of moving up to a 400/2.8 (which you might want to do as your kids get older and play on larger fields).
Another consideration might be the EF 200/2, which you could pair with TCs for similar coverage as the bare 300 and/or with 1.4x. A tradeoff with the 200 is that it's a pre-2010ish design and will not achieve maximum fps in EFCS/mechanical shutter. Therefore it would be better paired with e-shutter if you need higher fps. With the R6II, you might be able to get away with e-shutter depending on the speed of the action, but there are risks of rolling shutter warping balls, bats, etc. Unfortunately the R7 has high rolling shutter distortion in e-shutter. R5II would be a better option just because of the stacked sensor and cropping options with primes, but also means going deeper down the rabbit hole. Personally, I'd replace both the R6II and R7 with the R5II unless you prefer working with two cameras, which certainly is desirable when you need fast access to a secondary lens. What are your uses for the R7?
I plan on using 2 bodies. I bought the R7 as my first mirrorless to replace an older dslr. I then got the R6ii for the low light ability for dance recitals. I do find myself grabbing the R6ii more often than not. I do like the R7 for wildlife, so I have my eyes open for the R7mii when they announce it. I want to see if rolling shutter is addressed.
Starting to be sold on the ef 300mm f2,8 and carrying an extender. As a hobbyist my funds can be limited, so research tends to take me awhile so that I can try and spend wisely. The f2.8 would be nice for dance recitals as well.
I agree with you and Artsupreme go f/2.8 if you can. The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 II IS USM or the Canon EF 400 f/2.8 II IS USM are your best options within your price constraints *if* you are only going to own one big white for sports. Get a EF version III 1.4x. Done! To be honest the pros always go for the Canon EF 400 f/2.8 II IS USM (or EF III or RF). But as a non-pro you may like the weight difference and prefer the lighter EF 300mm II. Same look but way easier to hand hold. I also really like the 400mm f/4 DO II. The weight is great but f/4 is the price. F/2.8 is magic. The older 200mm f/1.8 and f/2.0 are magic for indoor sports close up and really easy to work with. You can buy a beat up f/1.8 for nothing these days and they focus a bit slower but man are they great. But not for outdoor field sports unless you are right in the action.
Zooms - not a great choice for you IMHO. I have owned nearly all of the big whites and the 200-400 f/4 is great but not if it is your only big white. It'll end up in the closet and you will regret it. I still own one and it is useful for cycling and motor sports - but by goodness is it heavy for the focal length!!! That being said it is a keeper and I'm not selling it! The smaller zooms are for second lenses on second bodies only and they will never look the same. Nice as they are they are not what you want. If you want magic go for the f/2.8 or maybe f/4.0 primes! Full disclosure the RF 100-300 is the only RF big whites I haven't tried. Canon when will you get it back in stock !?! So I can't comment on it yet. I'm sure it is wonderful. If they ever come out with an R7II that is magic - possibly. But for now I'm skeptical. Why the extra weight when the EF 300 f/2.8 II IS USM will do just as well for much cheaper and at a significantly lower weight. I will buy a RF 100-300 but only because I have stables of options available.
Depending on the second hand availability there might be some Sigma EF 120-300 f2.8 Sports version, that may come in much cheaper than the white Canon's. I have used that lens on R5 mainly and did get high frame rates there with mechanical (green H+ icon in the viewfinder).
When you read about Sigma on EOS R there are examples of pulsating AF, but I think that is mostly for the 150-600 Contemporary. I've used that lens in the past as well and experienced AF to be a bit more off (still could get me a lot of keepers), while I did not experience that with my 120-300 Sports version.
I do not use my 120-300 that often anymore, because I stepped up to an EF 400mm f2.8 version 1. That was not because I disliked the Sigma, but because I wanted to 400 mm for some more reach on the rugby pitch. I doubted if I should sell the Sigma, but decided to keep it for other occasions where 400mm prime would be too limiting.
Since you already have great experience with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II and need more reach for larger fields, here’s my take on your options:
Best Budget-Friendly Option
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
Pros: Zoom flexibility, great IS, sharp, and much better than the RF 100-400mm in low light.
Cons: f/5.6 at 400mm may struggle under very poor lighting (but your R6 Mark II’s high ISO performance helps).
Best for: Daytime soccer/baseball, decent for well-lit night games.
Best Low-Light Performance (Used Market)
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
Pros: Super sharp, f/2.8 for low light, works great with 1.4x TC (420mm f/4).
Cons: Fixed focal length, but you’re used to primes with the 70-200mm.
Best for: Night games (wrestling, basketball, poorly lit fields).
If You Can Find a Good Deal
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS w/ Built-in 1.4x TC
Pros: Versatile zoom, f/4 constant, extends to 560mm f/5.6 with TC engaged.
Cons: Heavy, expensive even used, rare on the market.
Overkill (But Amazing If You Can Swing It)
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
Pros: Unmatched reach + low-light performance.
Cons: Very expensive, bulky, and may be too much reach for some sports (soccer up close, basketball).
Final Recommendation:
Since you’re shooting multiple sports, the EF 100-400mm II is the most practical choice. If you frequently shoot under very poor lighting, the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4x TC is the best balance of reach and speed.
If you go the prime route, renting first might help decide. Otherwise, the 100-400mm II is the safest bet.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have more questions.
Based on the replies, I have started to look for an EF 300mm f/2.8 ii. I really don't need the lens until September, so I am going to try and find hopefully a good deal by then! This lens seems like it checks most of the boxes especially when I pair it with the 70-200mm.
Cnyphotoguy wrote:
I shoot youth/UPSL/NPSL soccer with an R7 and R6m2. I've shot previously with EF 70-200 2.8 III, EF 100-400II and EF 300 2.8 II. I and now the RF 70-200 2.8 and RF 100-300 2.8.
I too find that the high fstop of the 100-400II is annoying and with the 300 2.8 I stopped grabbing it when headed to a game. The 300 2.8 was always on the R7 and the 70-200 on the R6m2, so about the same as a 400 on the crop body and a bit more affordable then a 400.
Neither the 300 2.8 II or 100-300 2.8 are cheap, but the zoom is another level cost wise and if out of reach the 300 is a wonderful lens. V2 is lighter then the earlier versions and handholdable imo.
I recently purchased a 300 IS v1 here for $1650 in excellent condition. I have never shot with a mark II but I feel pretty confident in saying it isn't over twice as good! I have been very happy with it on my R6 shooting my kids and family members sporting events. Obviously everyone's needs and expectations vary but the IS mark I is no slouch! Ideally try find a "newer" one being it is a lens that canon no longer services. Mine was manufactured at the end of 08.
Travis Pavek wrote:
I recently purchased a 300 IS v1 here for $1650 in excellent condition. I have never shot with a mark II but I feel pretty confident in saying it isn't over twice as good! I have been very happy with it on my R6 shooting my kids and family members sporting events. Obviously everyone's needs and expectations vary but the IS mark I is no slouch! Ideally try find a "newer" one being it is a lens that canon no longer services. Mine was manufactured at the end of 08.
How much of an issue is the FPS limitation or are you using electronic shutter? I managed to get by with 6 fps on the 5D3 but 12 fps on the R6 is really nice.
Mike_5D wrote:
How much of an issue is the FPS limitation or are you using electronic shutter? I managed to get by with 6 fps on the 5D3 but 12 fps on the R6 is really nice.
With mechanical shutter on the R6 you are limited to around 6fps but I mostly use electronic shutter and can get the full 20 fps.
Travis Pavek wrote:
I recently purchased a 300 IS v1 here for $1650 in excellent condition. I have never shot with a mark II but I feel pretty confident in saying it isn't over twice as good! I have been very happy with it on my R6 shooting my kids and family members sporting events. Obviously everyone's needs and expectations vary but the IS mark I is no slouch! Ideally try find a "newer" one being it is a lens that canon no longer services. Mine was manufactured at the end of 08.
Thanks for that information! Did you happen to try any extenders on v1?
Personally, I'd replace both the R6II and R7 with the R5II unless you prefer working with two cameras, which certainly is desirable when you need fast access to a secondary lens. What are your uses for the R7?
The smaller zooms are for second lenses on second bodies only and they will never look the same. Nice as they are they are not what you want. If you want magic go for the f/2.8 or maybe f/4.0 primes! Full disclosure the RF 100-300 is the only RF big whites I haven't tried. Canon when will you get it back in stock !?!