p.1 #1 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
Typically I'm using the RF 70-200 f2.8, EF 300 f2.8, and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for baseball/softball.
Recently picked up the RF 200-800 f6.3-9 for wildlife but would consider it for better reach in sports. Obviously, it won't have the separation that the f2.8 lenses give from the background. Just curious if anyone has used it for sports such as baseball/softball. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
p.1 #2 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
I don't shoot sports so I can't speak on experience, however, I would think that lens would not be 'fast' enough for any type of quick motion/movements, compared to the 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8. Yeah, the range is great without a doubt, but I feel it would have better use on other subjects. Just my 2c
Jim
p.1 #3 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
I have used it for Junior (teenagers) rugby, but it is not all roses. I normally use a 100-400L and would prefer this over the 200-800. The two problems I had were with the R6 it is too slow focussing and at times the game can move faster than the focus. The other is that it is too long on the short end so I missed a try or two because they were in the corner near my position. It is better if the positioned further back from the playing field but then spectators get in the way and isolation is not as good.
I would imagine that for baseball where the camera can be prefocussed on the hitter it might be better but a quick transit to another base or field position might result in OOF image.
p.1 #4 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
I've used the 200-800 for soccer. Compared to th EF 100-400L vII, the sharpness is about the same. The separation at the long focal lengths is pretty decent, but not 400 2.8 creamy. Remember the longer the FL the shallower the DOF anyway, so f/9 is not the same as f/9 at 24mm.
I think you'll have a good time with it in softball since you can prefocus on certain spots. It tracks well enough, but I do feel like it focuses just a tiny bit slower than the EF 100-400L VII. Still a high keeper rate though. A feat, given that it is MUCH larger and heavier. If you will be up in the stands where you have some downward view and a long clear shot, you'll appreciate the 800. Closer to the field, the 200 is a little tight feeling sometimes.
Would be good to rent one and try it. I enjoy mine but find for soccer where I am closer to the action I turn to the 100-400 more often.
p.1 #5 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
jedibrain wrote:
Would be good to rent one and try it. I enjoy mine but find for soccer where I am closer to the action I turn to the 100-400 more often.
Brian
I've purchased the 200-800 already for wildlife, just haven't used it yet for softball/baseball. I've been shooting with the R5 or R5II plus the RF 100-500 for greater distances.
I'll just take it along this weekend for the grandkid games and see how it does.
p.1 #7 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
I will admit right up front I have not used the 200-800 lens for any sports yet. That's not really the main reason I bought it. But, I did very recently use it as my primary lens at AirVenture 2025 in Oshkosh, WI, the largest airshow in the world and it performed flawless. I used it with the R3 body, so that's an important thing to take into account as well.
Focus was fast and accurate, especially when I wasn't trying to capture images of a modern jet flying at nearly the speed of sound. But I have images of those jets shot at 800mm, f9 and 1/2000 that are sharp so I have no doubt it would handle athletes at any level of play.
My main reasons for buying this lens were the crazy impressive zoom range and to use for things like the airshow(s), marching bands (in good light, of course) and wildlife. Oh, and I bought it here on FM at a pre-tariff price.
Not sure this is appropriate here, but I made a video about that experience. I will also make videos about other uses as I get the chance to make that content.
p.1 #8 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
A friend uses it to shoot football along with a 300/2.8. I believe he uses the zoom for reach limited situations during day games. In his opinion, the downside is background separation isn't great, especially across the field rather than down it, particularly when the action is on the other half closer to the far sideline. But even with fast lenses this is a problem, just it's worse with a slower lens.
If the games are on artificial turf during sunny days, you'll see a lot more 'heat haze' atmospheric distortion the longer the focal length, which will degrade image sharpness. You'll see this too doing wildlife, but with sports, it's much worse on plastic turf than natural grass.
I haven't yet used the 200-800 but tried the 100-500 for some sports. I thought it was a good lens optically, but the resistance of the zoom ring IMO was too high. I had to 'torque' it more than I would prefer, which made it harder to keep the action framed while zooming compared to my internally zooming 200-400. I suspect this is also a potential problem based on comments I've read about the 200-800. In this respect, Sony's decision to do internal zoom with their 400-800 is preferable. But I can appreciate why Canon made it an external zoom design though, because it's more compact to pack. Tradeoffs.
Ultimately though, since you already have the lens, just try it.
p.1 #10 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
vbnut wrote:
He said he was going to do just that. Hopefully he will report back here on how it went.
So, I used the 200-800 exclusively for the first softball game I shot. I was allowed on the field along the first or third base fences, and even did some shots (of the pitcher) outside the fence behind home plate. I'm typically on a walkstool and will shift to one spot or another as needed. Here are my thoughts:
1) In terms of the 200-800, I couldn't sit where I usually did simply because of the 200mm lower end (duh!) but I could easily change the type of shot I took. For example - instead of doing full body batting shots, I'd zoom in to get upper body and the bat swing. Using the 200-800, it was obviously easier to get closer shots of the infield and outfield and not have to crop so much. Everything as expected so far.
2) In terms of the acquisition of focus - found it not nearly as good as the RF 70-200 f2.8 or the EF 300 f2.8. That was even using the 200-800 on the RF R5II and the other lenses on RF R5 bodies. Some of it might be my inexperience with the lens, especially in terms of being zoomed in or out and trying to adjust to action at different bases while trying to zoom one way or the other.
I did use the 200-800 the next day for my grandson's baseball tournament. I had to stay outside of the fence on these games, but the 200-800 really was a bit easier to use because of the extra distance. Check out this post to see some of those shots. Still didn't focus as quickly as I wanted, but definitely had some advantages for being outside of the fence.
Overall, I might keep using it for baseball/softball just so I get more comfortable with it, but will probably tend to stay with my 70-200, 300, and I've also got the RF 100-500 I've used quite a bit, too. Like any lens, you have to use it for a while before you get comfortable with it. The 200-800 has it's place, for sure, but I'm not convinced I'll be taking it along every time I shoot baseball/softball.
p.1 #11 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
crteach wrote:
So, I used the 200-800 exclusively for the first softball game I shot. I was allowed on the field along the first or third base fences, and even did some shots (of the pitcher) outside the fence behind home plate. I'm typically on a walkstool and will shift to one spot or another as needed. Here are my thoughts:
1) In terms of the 200-800, I couldn't sit where I usually did simply because of the 200mm lower end (duh!) but I could easily change the type of shot I took. For example - instead of doing full body batting shots, I'd zoom in to get upper body and the bat swing. Using the 200-800, it was obviously easier to get closer shots of the infield and outfield and not have to crop so much. Everything as expected so far.
2) In terms of the acquisition of focus - found it not nearly as good as the RF 70-200 f2.8 or the EF 300 f2.8. That was even using the 200-800 on the RF R5II and the other lenses on RF R5 bodies. Some of it might be my inexperience with the lens, especially in terms of being zoomed in or out and trying to adjust to action at different bases while trying to zoom one way or the other.
I did use the 200-800 the next day for my grandson's baseball tournament. I had to stay outside of the fence on these games, but the 200-800 really was a bit easier to use because of the extra distance. Check out this post to see some of those shots. Still didn't focus as quickly as I wanted, but definitely had some advantages for being outside of the fence.
Overall, I might keep using it for baseball/softball just so I get more comfortable with it, but will probably tend to stay with my 70-200, 300, and I've also got the RF 100-500 I've used quite a bit, too. Like any lens, you have to use it for a while before you get comfortable with it. The 200-800 has it's place, for sure, but I'm not convinced I'll be taking it along every time I shoot baseball/softball.
I put a couple of key comments you made in bold and underlined. First, you "could easily change" to get the type of shot that would work best with that focal length. That's one thing I think this lens will do for people--myself included--force us to rethink how we position ourselves and what kind of photos will result. That's really something we all do anyway when we get new glass of different focal lengths, but with the zoom range of 200-800 it's even more important.
You also mentioned trying to adjust the zoom while shooting action. That is somewhat problematic with this lens. I noticed this at the airshow...I almost had to think ahead to the area I wanted the zoom because if the aircraft was coming parallel me (especially at a high speed!) it was difficult to adjust that zoom quickly enough. Seriously, my first extensive use of this lens was at AirVenture where I shot six airshows in five days and that first airshow I felt like I was getting my a** kicked by that lens! It took me a while to get use to zooming in/out for the type of aircraft I was shooting. I would image with something like baseball/softball, most action is going to be in very specific areas and the distances will be somewhat consistent, but it definitely takes some getting use to using.
I found when used it for a college marching band rehearsal last Sunday afternoon I was at 800 a LOT and didn't really have those issues with zooming.
p.1 #12 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
Scott Sewell wrote:
I found when used it for a college marching band rehearsal last Sunday afternoon I was at 800 a LOT and didn't really have those issues with zooming.
p.1 #13 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
crteach wrote:
Are you hand holding? Monopod? Tripod?
I assume at least 1/1000 shutter speed or faster!
I started hand holding, but switched to a monopod after about 30 mins. I was there for three hours and I realized I didn't need to hand hold for that long.
Ironically, too, I was a 1/1000. It was a perfect overcast day and I decided that was more than fast enough to do what I needed that day. At the airshow in Oshkosh I handheld the entire time and show with shutter speeds as low as 1/250 and 1/125 to get motion blur on the prop aircraft. Obviously, my keeper rate dropped when I want with shutter speeds that slow, but I still had plenty of usable images.
p.1 #14 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
Scott Sewell wrote:
You also mentioned trying to adjust the zoom while shooting action. That is somewhat problematic with this lens. I noticed this at the airshow...I almost had to think ahead to the area I wanted the zoom because if the aircraft was coming parallel me (especially at a high speed!) it was difficult to adjust that zoom quickly enough. Seriously, my first extensive use of this lens was at AirVenture where I shot six airshows in five days and that first airshow I felt like I was getting my a** kicked by that lens! It took me a while to get use to zooming in/out for the type of aircraft I was shooting. I would image with something like baseball/softball, most action is going to be in very specific areas and the distances will be somewhat consistent, but it definitely takes some getting use to using....Show more →
I had watched the video you linked in your comments above - you did a much better job of verbalizing the pros and cons of the lens than I did here. I really liked your idea of loosening the foot - that makes it much easier to zoom! Have played with it around the house and will definitely use it next time I've got this lens out.
I was hand holding for the 10U Softball and 12U Baseball games (but kept my SS at 1/2000 or higher) and can see the benefits of a monopod, especially when I was doing sequence shots on pitchers. For the 12U game, I could lean on the lower fence that was just beyond the 1st/3rd bases and dugouts.
p.1 #15 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
For HS boys baseball I've used a 400 f2.8 + 2x from center field and that was great to capture the back of pitcher to hitter, girls using a 1.4x. however that fixed length was difficult tracking action around the bases so just for reference. From behind the plate or down the line for me I think 100m to batter, 200mm to pitcher, 250-300 for infield, and 300-600 for outfielders. So with the 200-800 you just need a lot of light, daylight would be excellent but the later day or night games would be a problem. I'm still predominately using a EF 100-400 so the RF 100-500 imo would be the go to in your collection for probably 90% of the shots. If one is shooting let's say the same team 10 times, you don't have to shoot the same style and locations, mix things up with 200-800.
p.1 #16 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
One thing that is often overlooked when using these hi end telephotos is heat waves during day games. They definitely provide an advantage in baseball and softball by making it possible to cover from home plate to centerfield, but if images appear soft on the longer shots especially, don't necessarily blame the lens or shutter speed. I have found heat waves to be variable during afternoon games from one game to the next.
p.1 #17 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
crteach wrote:
So, I used the 200-800 exclusively for the first softball game I shot. I was allowed on the field along the first or third base fences, and even did some shots (of the pitcher) outside the fence behind home plate. I'm typically on a walkstool and will shift to one spot or another as needed. Here are my thoughts:
1) In terms of the 200-800, I couldn't sit where I usually did simply because of the 200mm lower end (duh!) but I could easily change the type of shot I took. For example - instead of doing full body batting shots, I'd zoom in to get upper body and the bat swing. Using the 200-800, it was obviously easier to get closer shots of the infield and outfield and not have to crop so much. Everything as expected so far.
2) In terms of the acquisition of focus - found it not nearly as good as the RF 70-200 f2.8 or the EF 300 f2.8. That was even using the 200-800 on the RF R5II and the other lenses on RF R5 bodies. Some of it might be my inexperience with the lens, especially in terms of being zoomed in or out and trying to adjust to action at different bases while trying to zoom one way or the other.
I did use the 200-800 the next day for my grandson's baseball tournament. I had to stay outside of the fence on these games, but the 200-800 really was a bit easier to use because of the extra distance. Check out this post to see some of those shots. Still didn't focus as quickly as I wanted, but definitely had some advantages for being outside of the fence.
Overall, I might keep using it for baseball/softball just so I get more comfortable with it, but will probably tend to stay with my 70-200, 300, and I've also got the RF 100-500 I've used quite a bit, too. Like any lens, you have to use it for a while before you get comfortable with it. The 200-800 has it's place, for sure, but I'm not convinced I'll be taking it along every time I shoot baseball/softball....Show more →
p.1 #19 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
dolina wrote:
Baseball under natural light or artificial light @crteach@?
F-number may be too slow for 1/1600s.
Definitely natural light. The 200-800 would be way too slow for night games. My original post in this thread was back in July and since then I purchased one and I've used it now several times for baseball, softball, and football. Certainly isn't an L lens in terms of focusing and keeping on your target, but it has its place. Below are some of my other posts where I've shared photos using the 200-800. For a few games, I made myself use it exclusively just so I could really get used to it. Have to say, though, if I want reach for a daytime outside game I prefer the RF 100-500.
p.1 #20 · Canon 200-800 for sports (baseball/softball) - anyone?
crteach wrote:
Definitely natural light. The 200-800 would be way too slow for night games. My original post in this thread was back in July and since then I purchased one and I've used it now several times for baseball, softball, and football. Certainly isn't an L lens in terms of focusing and keeping on your target, but it has its place. Below are some of my other posts where I've shared photos using the 200-800. For a few games, I made myself use it exclusively just so I could really get used to it. Have to say, though, if I want reach for a daytime outside game I prefer the RF 100-500.
With my R1 I did indoor pickleball and outdoor night pickleball under modern artificial lights. Used People/Eye AF for Volleball sport
- 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: USM struggled to AF and sometimes didn't focus. When it does lock-on, the shoes is in-focus but the face being slightly out of focus and R1's ISO de noising only the face obliterating details
- 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM: Surprisingly has better keeper rate than any EF body. My challenge is keeping things in frame/composition or having the paddle/ball/net not cover the face
- 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM: Surprisingly has better keeper rate than any EF body. My challenge is keeping things in frame/composition or having the paddle/ball/net not cover the face
If 00s EF L lenses can perform that well what more a 2022 RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM?
