I am looking to buy a new telephoto lens for wildlife and some sports. I currently have a Tamron 100-400 that I use with a 1.4x. This makes an equivalent 560mm f/9. It is okay with slow and larger subjects but I lose a ton of light and AF accuracy and speed. I am debating between a 300mm f/2.8L IS mk1 or a 500mm f/4L IS mk1 as they are roughly the same price. Which one would be best for wildlife and some sports?
PS. I have a 1dx mk1 which is great but an R6 would be way better. Should I ditch the lens and use my budget on a Camera body instead?
Thanks!
Unfortunately I can't, most of them are around 3000-4000 and my budget is about 1800. I would love it but from what I have read it is similar picture quality, better focusing and balanced so to me not worth the extra money.
It really depends on what kind of wildlife and what kind of sports, plus what you're willing to put up with for handling.
For birds, the longer the focal length helps.
300mm is too short for birds which suggests an extender. My opinion is the f2.8 IS is very heavy and not conducive to walking around and shooting handheld.
The 500mm f4 IS was for a long time the standard birding and wild life lens, but demands a monopod if not a tripod with gimbal head. As a casual birder I find myself hiking around versus setting up in a blind and that rules out the 500mm for me.
For sports, 500mm might be too long. Usually this is the realm of the 400mm f2.8 save for soccer which the longer lens might be useful. The larger aperture helps in dim field lighting.
My experiences with amateur baseball, cycling and dinghy sailing would agree with 400mm. I use the 300mm on a 7D Mark II and the focal length feels correct, which is roughly 420mm.
This is of course all outdoor. Indoor you're probably best served by short primes or a 70-200mm.
My vote is for the 500/4 IS. Glass is better than the body upgrade; I used the 1Dx for years and it is no slouch! I owned that lens for nine years and IQ-wise it was stellar. I mostly handheld the lens and got great results but YMMV. I did upgrade to the 500 II but saw little difference between them. Honestly, I have said for the past few years that for wildlife the original 500/4 IS is the best bang for the buck. Since you shoot more wildlife than sports, I would go 500 over the 300.
That said, I know of a very good+ condition 500/4 IS for $1999 shipped to your door that includes original case, drop-in filters, and both a 1.4x III and 2x II teleconverters. You *may* even be able to work with the seller on the price a little, who knows. Reach out if you're interested in me connecting you two.
Personally i would’t buy any of these as their well past their discontinued date. You should try to handle these lenses and check the repair costs. Also the ef 500 is a beast you likely need a monopod/tripod + head. When i got myself a 500 ii a new tripod and gimbal added to the weight and cost.
Also you don’t say which sports. A 300 would be better for sports and can do wildlife with teleconverter a 500 is better suited for wildlife (while not a walk-around lens) but too long for many sports situations
If i were you i would invest in a mirrorless body, an r5 in crop mode will allow you to ditch the teleconverter and keep the same pixels per duck of a 1dx
Swinging wildly here... but I had the 1DX from it arrived. Simply marvelous IQ and AF. Used it with the light 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400 II, with the 1.4xIII at the end when the pixel density of the 5D4 just made for superior images.
Now, if I do the strange move to compare the images I get with the R10 with the RF 100-400 there is not much there that separates them. This is how far the development has come with the mirrorless tech bodies and lenses as well. This super light and not at all expensive tool is at least as good as the old stuff. Ok, the RF100-400 has it´s minor deficiencies. A 100-500 does not. But looking at bang for buck, something like the R10 + 100-400 is really good, except for the wow factor.
I shot a lot of sports and wildlife, up until about ten years ago. I had both the 300/2.8L IS and 500/4L IS, on 1DIV and 1DX. I used the 300/2.8 L IS for indoor sports and performance events, and the 500/4L IS for most everything else.
For outdoor field sports, I would have the 500 on a monopod, with a camera+70-200/2.8L IS on one shoulder, and a wider lens on the other shoulder (16-35mm for rugby lineouts and 24-70 for most other sports). I prefer the one-hand raise/lower action of the Manfrotto 685B NeoTec monopod, or I would use a Feisol CM-1471 Rapid monopod when travelling or walking distances.
p.1 #11 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
For years I owned both the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and the EF 500mm f/4.0L IS. I still own the 500 (here is a recent example).
The 300 is better suited for court sports, events, and photojournalism. For field sports you typically would use it with a 1.4x almost exclusively. So, I think for a mix of field sports and wildlife, the 500 might be the better choice. It takes the 1.4x III very well. You can also use the 2x III successfully if you can stop down by 1/3-2/3 stop (and have a tripod, haha).
The Mark I versions of these lenses are still optically good but are relatively heavy. The 500 is 8.5 pounds; a monopod is usually required at minimum.
As others have said, the Mark II versions are preferred, but if they are out of your budget then these two are solid choices for the money. Crazy how cheap they have gotten, really.
p.1 #12 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Fritz photos wrote:
PS. I have a 1dx mk1 which is great but an R6 would be way better. Should I ditch the lens and use my budget on a Camera body instead?
What Gary and others have posted about lenses is bang on. IMO, you should put the money into a better lens. Which one will depend on which sports you mostly cover, type of wildlife, etc., which has already been covered.
That said, no one has touched on the bodies. Prior to mirrorless I was shooting a 1DX and a 1DXII. My mirrorless transition cameras were the R6 and R6II. With respect to 1DX -> R6, it's pretty much a wash for resolution but the R6 does have a newer, cleaner sensor with better low ISO dynamic range. At ISO 100 you're looking at about a 2-stop advantage for the R6 if used in mechanical or electronic first curtain shutter modes. If in full electronic shutter, it's quite similar DR performance compared to the 1DX. The ergonomics of the 1DX series is better than the R5/R6, but the latter do have more powerful AF capabilities. Not only is shot to shot AF consistency better, but you can also benefit from subject recognition/tracking face/eye tracking, which when coming from DSLRs is kind of 'magical' in how it can allow the subject to move around the frame and still focus on them correctly and consistently, even wide open.
The one 'gotcha' with the R6, and R5, R6II and R6III is that the sensor readout speed in full electronic shutter is usable but not optimal for certain sports, particularly those that are round ball and/or stick sports due to the rolling shutter distortion that can become visible in fast ball and/or stick movement (round balls become elliptical and straight sticks look curved). You can fall back to EFCS or mechanical shutter and drop from 20 to 12 fps, BUT, with the super-tele IS v1 lenses in your budget, you will not achieve maximum 12 fps. It will be more like 8 fps. For the time being, I think you're better to stick with the 1DX and spend the money on a lens. If there is a little extra money left, or a little later down the road, consider maybe getting a 1DXII. Better sensor and just a bit better AF with a little faster frame rate.
p.1 #13 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Really need to know what sports and conditions. For field sports at night under less than pro lighting, you really need that 2.8 aperture even though it's short. I normally shoot soccer, and recently rugby, with the EF 100-400 during the day. I just shot a night rugby game with the 70-200 and was still mostly at ISO 51k+ for 1/800th. Any slower of a lens would have no chance. I can't afford a 400/2.8 but I might be able to swing an old 300.
p.1 #15 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Thanks! My main sport is a bit of a weird one, I do rowing and I do the photos for my team. I shoot mainly from the shore, and extra focal length definitely helps, I also shoot all sorts of wildlife, mainly birds but sometimes larger animals like bison. I do occasional field sports like soccer and lacrosse. I am just worried that for the field sports and everywhere else the 500mm will be worthless.
p.1 #16 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Fritz photos wrote:
Thanks! Do you find the 500 to be too tight of a focal length on fields?
500 is a handful for soccer. If you're near one edge of the field your best shots will be half field or further away. If you're doing day time soccer than your existing 100 - 400 is already a great lens for that use case, you don't need to use the 500 for that.
Would the 300 be better for that use case? Absolutely. But it's all about compromises, and the 500 will easily outperform the 300 for the two main goals which is wildlife and rowing.
I'd also point out you can already answer that question yourself. With the 1.4x TC and setting your 100 - 400 @ about 350mm you can mimic what it would be like using a 500 on a field.
p.1 #18 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Get the 500. You will need as much lens as you can get for rowing. And birds, usually.
You can definitely use 500 for field sports. It's just that the 'sweet spot' of the 500 will be farther away than a 300, or a 400, etc. You just have to work with what you can get with it and maybe adjust where you position yourself. For example, shoot from the end line instead of the sideline, if possible. And you still have the 100-400 to fall back on if the 500 is too long. Actually, it would be a pretty good two camera combo. 500 for farther action and tight isolated player shots and 100-400 for closer action.
One thing to consider, if the field sports are on artificial turf, is that heat waves coming off the turf in warmer weather will be more detrimental the longer the focal length, to the point where it may be difficult to get anything usable with the 500. But you can just fall back to the 100-400 and concentrate on closer action. This won't be a factor if the games are on natural grass.
p.1 #20 · Which Telephoto for Wildlife and Sports?
Fritz photos wrote:
PS. I have a 1dx mk1 which is great but an R6 would be way better...
Well, in some respects, yes. Mostly in having subject tracking ability and in needing no focus micro-adjustment. But the various 1DX models are still formidable action cameras. (My experience is with the 1DX II, which is improved somewhat over the 1DX, while the 1DX III is reportedly better still.)
But I'll just emphasize what Ron mentioned: the Mark I lenses will be limited to 7-8 fps when used on the R6 or newer R bodies but will operate at up to 12 fps on your 1DX. You might want to factor that into your decision before you choose which way to go (either with the lens, or body, or both).
And birds, usually.