Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 19, 2007, 2:53 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
wrams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 490
Default

Lens needed for Sport Football (soccer) and Rugby. I've been looking at the Sigma's 70-200 and 100-300mm any help will be great...????
wrams is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 19, 2007, 3:31 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Are the matches always during the day or are some played at night under lights?

If always during the day, the Sigma 100-300 f4 is the winner. Outstanding IQ and quick focusing. And you'll need the extra reach.

However, if you have games under lights you'll need a 2.8 aperture which means you might have to make some sacrifices. Namely using the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x TC for day games(again you'll really need the 280mm for those sports) and taking the TC off and gaining the 2.8 for the night sports.

Unless, of course, you can beg/borrow/steal enough money for the 120-300 2.8 - then you get the best of both worlds :G


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 3:43 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

i wish i can BEG/BORROW/STEAL money for thhat 120-300

f2.8 is good for action while with a 2X at 600mm u still have a great tele for birds and wildlife.

I liike the weight of the lens. It more balances with the camera.

I had the weightless 70-300 initially.
I used to shake like hell when focussing at 300 mm.

I tried this 120-300 at 300mm. The wight of the lens with the camera kept my hand more stable and i didnt shake at all.

Any tele needs some weight to the lens to stabilize in hand.

400L is also a great buy. But as John said, the 100-300 F 4 with even a 1.4x at 400 is as sharp as the 400L

if cost is a concern, go for 100-300 with a 1.4X

Else go for 120-300..Even the 300 F2.8 Prime is compared to the 120-300 which incidentally acts as a prime at different focul lengths

And to get more idea abt this 120-300 at 600mm please request NHL to post some 600mm pictures.

NHL, Please share the links to the 600mm pictures with the 120-300

Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 3:59 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
I tried this 120-300 at 300mm. The wight of the lens with the camera kept my hand more stable and i didnt shake at all.

Any tele needs some weight to the lens to stabilize in hand.


Vj
True - weight does add stability.


But, at least for sports shooting, if you're usinng a lens with the weight of something like the 120-300 2.8, I highly recommend a monopod. Holding that lens for 2 hours strait is foolish if you don't have to. You'll get much better shots if you use the stability of a monopod rather than relying on your arms/shoulders.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"It's a little different with birding as you have a much wider range of movement needed at any one time - especially for in-flight shots. I would think you'd miss quite a few shots if you tried to acquire/track a bird in flight using a monopod (which is why whimbley's are so popular - but that's a size/weight issue).

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"But long field sports like this don't usually require a rapid change in direction. And while I'm quite capable, physically, of hand-holding the 120-300 - the only reason to do so for most field sports is ego. You may miss 1 or 2 shots a match because you can't pivot as fast - but you'll save a lot more shots because for the other 99% of your shots where you need to pivot & track you'll be more stable doing so.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I'm not familiar with the weight of the 100-300 f4 so I can't recommend whether a monopod is advisable. For the weight of the 70-200 2.8, it can certainly be done. But, if you feel more stable using a monopod - do so. Don't let your ego compromise the quality of your shots.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 5:26 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
wrams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 490
Default

Thanks Guys, Mark1616 already suggested the 100-300 and i was drawn towards that lens. I'm grounded at night, the "Enemy" knows i'll spend the evening shooting pints or Beer...!!! Lol

The 120-300 is abit to expensive at the moment, i'm only a bigginer and already spent abit on accessories in the last 2 weeks alone....Tamron 200-500 and a Sigma 10-20mm also a timed remote switch and other things comes to about £1,500.00

$2,900.00 USD so i gotta creep some more....Lol

Maybe 1 day....

Thanks again......
wrams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 5:40 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I don't know...
Since you already got the Tamron 200-500 - Would a Sigma 70-200 /2.8 EX Macro complement your outfit better?

-> At least you have one fast lens for late games
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 5:55 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
wrams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 490
Default

Thanks NHL, The shooting i'd be doing would be during the day mainly...It's to cold at night...Lol
wrams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 7:39 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

then mostly u dont need a 100-300..the 200-500 is more lens for the outdoor shoots.

may be u can get a 135L or a 200L

as NHL said a 70-200 LLooks like the best lens instead of 100-300

the 70-200 even takes a 1.4x and its pretty sharp at 270 f4

Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 7:58 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I really would give the Tamron a good try before you go for anything else. Yes I know it's not ideal as it is f5-f6.3 (I think) however f6.3 at 500mm is going to still give a pretty low dof (blurred backgrounds which are desirable) if you make sure you are framing as tight as possible.

While I have been shooting kitesurfing I borrowed a friends Canon 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6 L IS and decided to play with this when shooting hockey last weekend. Looking at the specs of the Tamron and at the long end you having an extra 100mmbut dropping to f6.3 I think the dof will be similar.

Here is a shot with that lens.

This was 340mm, f5.6, ISO 250, 1/2000th
Attached Images
 
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2007, 8:11 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
I'm not familiar with the weight of the 100-300 f4 so I can't recommend whether a monopod is advisable. For the weight of the 70-200 2.8, it can certainly be done. But, if you feel more stable using a monopod - do so. Don't let your ego compromise the quality of your shots.
I will be using the 70-200mm f2.8 tomorrow and if the weather is good I will be shooting 4 hockey matches (1 hour 20 each) without a monopod and although quite tiring being out that long in general will not be all that difficult. When going longer/heaver then monopod is a healthy addition to the bag.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:33 PM.