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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2011, 7:14 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9
Default Extender

What about using a 1.4 or 2.0 extender with the 70-200L? I am also in the same situation, I want to shoot night football games and wrestling matches.
pskelly99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2011, 7:37 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

70-200 2.8 does OK with a 1.4 but not with a 2.0. But with a 1.4 extender, you lose light so the lens becomes f4 which isn't bright enough for night time football.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2011, 6:48 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
jdnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 336
Default

If I'm shooting the 70-200mm, I usually try to limit the types of shots I take. I like to position myself just behind the line of scrimmage & get pictures of the quarterback passing/running or running back during sweeps, etc. heading my way. I also will position myself at the goal line & back when the offense in inside the 20, often moving behind the end zone to get the touchdowns, etc. You can get some good shots if you'll position yourself accordingly and try to take pics where the action is not more than 20 yards away.

I agree with the others, however, that 300mm provides much more range and, of course, 400 2.8 if you can afford it and want to lug it around.
__________________
Jerry

Last edited by jdnan; Oct 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM.
jdnan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2011, 3:09 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 112
Default

Jerry, I like the tips on where to position yourself on the field. They will definetly come in handy for tomorrow nights game!! Thanks!!
Chrisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2011, 7:08 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9
Default

Noticed that Sigma has a 120-300. A bit pricey at MSRP $3199. Anyone have any experience with it? Supposedly they had one that did not have IS and this one does.
pskelly99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2011, 6:53 AM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I have a non OS version of the lens. From a perspective of sports shooters, I've read numerous posts and it's a love/hate thing with this lens. I paid $1800 for mine, brand new. Sigma has jacked up the price considerably now. Reports still fall along the same lines. The people that like the non-OS version say this one is even better. Those that didn't like the non-OS version say it's slightly better but still not good enough. Realize, these people that don't like it are comparing it to Canon / Nikon 300mm 2.8 primes - which are fantastic lenses. I myself have been happy with my version. I also happen to have the canon 100-400. The 100-400 is my choice for any wildlife I do. It's lighter and more convenient. The sigma is the choice for sports (where I need f2.8). My sigma doesn't perform very well with a TC on (although other people produce great images with a TC). In a nutshell, the problem with sigma appears to be their quality control. Also worth noting it's focal length seems closer to 280mm than 300. My version front focuses - not so much an issue if you have microfocus adjust. Way too much variability in whether you get a quality lens. For $1800 it was a great choice. At the current price point Im not so sure.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2011, 7:44 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
jdnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pskelly99 View Post
Noticed that Sigma has a 120-300. A bit pricey at MSRP $3199. Anyone have any experience with it? Supposedly they had one that did not have IS and this one does.
I've seen some great shots taken with the Sigma (see JohnG's shots), but the version I tried just didn't seem to give me satisfactory results. I seriously thought about trading it for the newer version, but then saw a pristine ef 300L 2.8 IS on craigslist for $3600. At only $500 more than the new Sigma, I decided to go that route and am very happy with my 300.
__________________
Jerry
jdnan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2011, 3:50 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

This year for my kids soccer I have been shooting a 100-300 F4 Sigma and if light permits my 70-300 L. The 70-300L is a very nice lens, but you need sunlight to make it work on sports. Here are a couple from this last weekend. Steven

Name:  IMG_1902.jpg
Views: 204
Size:  108.0 KB

Name:  IMG_1869.jpg
Views: 264
Size:  149.3 KB

Name:  IMG_1963.jpg
Views: 1372
Size:  117.1 KB
waoldrifleman 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 8:53 PM.