I have a EF300mm f2.8L IS v1 and mostly use it with my 7D2--it's a heavy combination to handhold.
The 300mm (480mm on full frame) focal length is great for soccer and baseball, but the choice between f4 (or higher apertures) and f2.8 glass sits on two choices: Dusk/night versus daytime and tripod/monopod use:
If you're getting night games under dim flood lighting, you probably want f2.8. Otherwise, any lens will do in the daytime. Background blur is more a question of field of view compression than aperture, from my experience.
If you're set on f2.8 lenses, that comes with a lot of weight and support equipment. I found myself bringing a Wimberley head I bought for birding on a set of Manfrotto sticks plus a folding stool when shooting soccer. It also changes the way you shoot, to be fixed with a tripod.
tsangc wrote:
I have a EF300mm f2.8L IS v1 and mostly use it with my 7D2--it's a heavy combination to handhold.
The 300mm (480mm on full frame) focal length is great for soccer and baseball, but the choice between f4 (or higher apertures) and f2.8 glass sits on two choices: Dusk/night versus daytime and tripod/monopod use:
If you're getting night games under dim flood lighting, you probably want f2.8. Otherwise, any lens will do in the daytime. Background blur is more a question of field of view compression than aperture, from my experience.
If you're set on f2.8 lenses, that comes with a lot of weight and support equipment. I found myself bringing a Wimberley head I bought for birding on a set of Manfrotto sticks plus a folding stool when shooting soccer. It also changes the way you shoot, to be fixed with a tripod....Show more →
Agree with a lot of that.. the 300 2.8 IS Mk I is a bear.. The EF Mk II is really the sweet spot, and worth extra investment, and these days it's really not that expensive (relative to other options). It also allows for full FPS when adapted to mirrorless, something Canon states the Mk I can't do.
I'd agree compression / background blur can be similar on a 300 2.8 when compared to something like a 400 @ f/4.. although 400 2.8 blows them both away. Once you get used to that, it's hard to go back to anything else.
Monopod is the way to go for field sports, IMO. You'll find most prefer direct attach to monopod, I tried all kinds of heads with the monopod when I was getting started (side mount, ball head, gimbal, etc..) and I ended up with a simple arca-swiss clamp on the monopod just to distribute weight and not rely on the 3/8 screw (and also it's faster).
The stool is the way to go IMO, especially for youth sports where getting lower helps. I have a flat folding plastic one and clip it to my backpack with a large carabiner.
Yeah I am back and forth on which version. Weight and size isn't an issue. I have my setup already so it's just a matter of adding the lens. It is more of a cost decision, which only I can answer for myself. Lost a few auctions on last min. bids for both versions. We are in a nice summer sports break at the moment, so time is on my side.
xcoaste wrote:
Thanks for that information! Did you happen to try any extenders on v1?
I have 1.4x III. I don't use it often but I would say in general I am happy with it when I am able to fill the frame but using the extender and also cropping seems to be asking too much.
xcoaste wrote:
Yeah I am back and forth on which version. Weight and size isn't an issue. I have my setup already so it's just a matter of adding the lens. It is more of a cost decision, which only I can answer for myself. Lost a few auctions on last min. bids for both versions. We are in a nice summer sports break at the moment, so time is on my side.
Lots of great info and suggestions here!
What are the 300II's going for on the auctions you are bidding on?
If weight is not an issue I think you'll be happy with the v1 IQ. But if you plan on using TC's a lot then there's a noticeable difference using the vIII TC's with the vII lenses. The 300II also got some AF upgrades over the v1, but nothing too crazy. Also, it got some IS improvements if you plan to shoot things that aren't moving with slow SS's.
The 300II IQ is about as good as it gets. Good luck with your decision.
artsupreme wrote:
What are the 300II's going for on the auctions you are bidding on?
If weight is not an issue I think you'll be happy with the v1 IQ. But if you plan on using TC's a lot then there's a noticeable difference using the vIII TC's with the vII lenses. The 300II also got some AF upgrades over the v1, but nothing too crazy. Also, it got some IS improvements if you plan to shoot things that aren't moving with slow SS's.
The 300II IQ is about as good as it gets. Good luck with your decision.
Lost a version 2 at $2400 and version 1 at $1400. Neither were immaculate condition, but clean glass.
Following since I may start shooting some of my son's soccer games and other sports my boys play. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 1.4x TC III, but like yourself want more reach and a fast lens that will give me excellent separation. I've been eyeing out the 300 2.8 IS mk1 since that's in my budget, but I probably should commit to shooting actual games first instead of thinking about it . I can't even say with certainty that I will start taking photos since that would mean I can't really "watch" the game or record some of it. If we had a Trace/Veo system at every game that would be a different story.
boingyman wrote:
Following since I may start shooting some of my son's soccer games and other sports my boys play. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 1.4x TC III, but like yourself want more reach and a fast lens that will give me excellent separation. I've been eyeing out the 300 2.8 IS mk1 since that's in my budget, but I probably should commit to shooting actual games first instead of thinking about it . I can't even say with certainty that I will start taking photos since that would mean I can't really "watch" the game or record some of it. If we had a Trace/Veo system at every game that would be a different story. ...Show more →
Watching the game through the viewfinder is different for sure. My son plays forward so the 70-200 has been ok when I setup in the corner and switch at the half. We are starting to get to the age now where I see a lot of coaches and teams recording the games, so I am hoping I can trade photos for access to those recordings!
boingyman wrote:
Following since I may start shooting some of my son's soccer games and other sports my boys play. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 1.4x TC III, but like yourself want more reach and a fast lens that will give me excellent separation. I've been eyeing out the 300 2.8 IS mk1 since that's in my budget, but I probably should commit to shooting actual games first instead of thinking about it . I can't even say with certainty that I will start taking photos since that would mean I can't really "watch" the game or record some of it. If we had a Trace/Veo system at every game that would be a different story. ...Show more →
With regards to just watching the game, when I shot my son's soccer, I would only photograph when the lighting was excellent. When it wasn't, I would just watch the game.
osidesurfer wrote:
With regards to just watching the game, when I shot my son's soccer, I would only photograph when the lighting was excellent. When it wasn't, I would just watch the game.
The best I can usually hope for is overcast. Otherwise, most of the games are between 10-2 in the sun. The rare golden hour matches are awesome though, at least for half of the game.
The 1.4 extender can give your 70-200mm an extra 80mm at f/4 (loss of one stop) with very good IQ. I’ve used that combo, though admittedly the extra reach of a 400mm for outdoor sports in larger arenas (like football and soccer) would be ideal.
I use the 70-200 for wrestling and rodeo with great results.
xcoaste wrote:
Watching the game through the viewfinder is different for sure. My son plays forward so the 70-200 has been ok when I setup in the corner and switch at the half. We are starting to get to the age now where I see a lot of coaches and teams recording the games, so I am hoping I can trade photos for access to those recordings!
Our coach wants to start recording games, but there hasn't been much discussion about it among all the parents. The club has a few Trace cameras, but it's usually used for the older teams. They will only be U11 this coming season so I don't see them getting dibs on the cameras until U13+. I looked into the XbotGo Chameleon, but someone would need to volunteer a phone for that and not sure how it would do when it's blazing hot and in the rain. My son also plays forward the majority of the time so I think for now I can position myself to where the 200mm will be enough reach and I have the 1.4x as needed. Where do you typically position yourself? Near the corner of the opposing goal?
osidesurfer wrote:
With regards to just watching the game, when I shot my son's soccer, I would only photograph when the lighting was excellent. When it wasn't, I would just watch the game.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm not planning on shooting when the light is harsh or if there is chance of rain. I'll just pick and choose based on time of day and forecast. Between fall/spring league, tournaments, state cup I'm guessing they will play between 40-50 games so I have a good amount to choose from.
Mike_5D wrote:
The best I can usually hope for is overcast. Otherwise, most of the games are between 10-2 in the sun. The rare golden hour matches are awesome though, at least for half of the game.
Same with my son. Earliest is 8am games and latest is usually 3pm. I think once we had one that started at the tail end of golden hour because it was a make up game that landed on a Friday evening, but I remember by the 2nd half it was already dark and the giant field lights were on.
Yes, I have been sitting by the corner at the opposing team’s goal. I just grabbed a 300mm f/2.8 ii so I will be excited to try that out next month when fall season starts. I am thinking about letting my older son use the 70-200mm while I use the 300mm.
xcoaste wrote:
Yes, I have been sitting by the corner at the opposing team’s goal. I just grabbed a 300mm f/2.8 ii so I will be excited to try that out next month when fall season starts. I am thinking about letting my older son use the 70-200mm while I use the 300mm.
That's awesome! I'm sure you'll get some great shots with it. Just curious has anyone approached you within the team or club about volunteering? I hope no one asks me to volunteer shooting a event/tournament within the club. I would have to politely decline since I don't have the time for that although I would probably take photos of my son's entire team and share with them at some point.
boingyman wrote:
That's awesome! I'm sure you'll get some great shots with it. Just curious has anyone approached you within the team or club about volunteering? I hope no one asks me to volunteer shooting a event/tournament within the club. I would have to politely decline since I don't have the time for that although I would probably take photos of my son's entire team and share with them at some point.
I have taken photos for other players on my youngest son's team, I just gave the photos to them since we are all friendly with each other. I took some photos for my friend's kid at one of their games, and other parents asked me to get some shots of their kids too. They compensated me for my time. That has been the extent so far. I also try and send some photos to our local high school for their newsletters.
My new to me ef 300mm f2.8 ii finally arrived. Got to test it out briefly, but the images I took were very sharp. Very impressed so far. I will test it out more during a soccer tournament this weekend. I only used it on the R6m2 so far but used the ef 1.4iii extender and the results were still very sharp.
I handheld it and think that it's doable, but I will definitely take a monopod for soccer.
. I can't even say with certainty that I will start taking photos since that would mean I can't really "watch" the game or record some of it. If we had a Trace/Veo system at every game that would be a different story.