| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
CANON: What lens is next? Suggestions?
Jason Heffran, Photographer
 |
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 02.24.10 |
->> I have two primary lenses that I use almost daily. A 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. I find times when I think a longer prime might be beneficial. I use my 50mm f/1.4 for a lot of other shots... just not sports.
So...
I am debating on what the next lens I should acquire. I primarily shoot basketball (high school and NCAA) and football (high school and NCAA - both day and night games).
Looking for a suggestion and why it's a good idea. Don't want to invest in something that may not be worth it. All my glass is Canon, but I am not against Sigma, Tamron, etc as long as someone has personally used it and can vouch for it.
Thanks in advance for suggestions. |
|
Max Waugh, Photographer
|
Bothell | WA | USA | Posted: 12:04 AM on 02.25.10 |
->> Sounds like a 300mm vs. 400mm decision, and there are many past threads about that. You may find some useful perspectives on the choice in the archives.
Max |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 12:17 AM on 02.25.10 |
| ->> Thanks. Being new here, I thought I would just throw the question out. Thanks for the heads-up. |
|
Daniel Celvi, Photographer
|
Schaumburg | IL | United States | Posted: 12:51 AM on 02.25.10 |
->> Just because I haven't chimed in on other threads, I'll say it here. The 300 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest long lenses I've ever used. 400–great as well. But so darn big. And a lot more expensive. And big. 300—can hand-hold that for an entire baseball/softball game in daylight with good results at a low ISO. 400? Nope. Need a monopod for that.
I found the "I don't need a monopod" part really important. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 1:18 AM on 02.25.10 |
| ->> Thanks, Daniel. That's a good point when baseball is another sports I shoot frequently. Something to think about. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 02.25.10 |
->> I use the 24-70 and 70-200 a lot as well and am looking
for a longer companion lens to go with them. The Canon
300mm f2.8 obviously has a great reputation and by all
accounts takes a 1.4x TC very well yielding a 420mm f4.
I still wish Canon made a 100-300 f2.8 like Sigma.
Having that zoom range is so nice. The Sigma version
is ok but there are too many hit or miss reviews about
it's AF to risk it for me. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 02.25.10 |
| ->> If you didn't shoot so much sports, I'd say a 16-35 2.8 in a heartbeat. But, since you do. 300 f/2.8 |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 02.25.10 |
->> Jason:
One other thing to consider, especially when shooting baseball ... I did not have a great experience myself in a brief fling with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, but I did like that range for baseball and softball, and several others here in a recent thread have given the lens positive reviews. Mine was one of the first, so that might have been the problem. |
|
Don Speck, Photographer
|
Celina | OH | USA | Posted: 6:55 PM on 02.25.10 |
| ->> 50-300 f2.8 that could be hand held. I would use it for high school basketball swimming and few other sports. I know I know I am dreaming but it was a nice dream !!!!!! |
|
Walt Middleton, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 02.25.10 |
->> 300 2.8... It is my most used lens...
I'd recomend it to anyone. |
|
J.J. Alcantara, Student/Intern
|
Baton Rouge | LA | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 02.25.10 |
->> Jason, I'm on the same boat you are. I know I need a super-telephoto along the likes of a 300 f2.8 or a 400 f2.8. I just can't decide between the two.
I shoot primarily college baseball and basketball. A 300 in baseball won't reach the outfield, but a 400 in basketball is too close for the back court. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 02.25.10 |
->> @J.J. - As I leave for the Big East Tournament shortly, I am in that boat. I have basketball to contend with. So, I am thinking a 300 2.8 NON-IS and then using an extender come football/baseball season.
A night NCAA game, I'll just rent a 400 2.8. I guess that is what I have gathered from all the posts. Thanks, guys.
@Don, me too! Actually, I think a 16-400mm 2.8 would be more useful. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 9:28 AM on 02.26.10 |
->> @ Jason: Keep in mind the serviceability of older Canon lenses...do they still repair the non-IS 300mm? You may be stuck with a great big paperweight.
I would like to see Canon put out something to compete with Nikon's 200-400 f/4. That would be fantastic! |
|
Joe Morahan, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 10:11 AM on 02.26.10 |
->> I say get the 300mm f/2.8. Then buy two tele-converters. one 1.4x and one 2x. That will give you 3 total ranges with that one lens. I have had problems with the 2x converter being that I find it can degrade an image slightly. But still remain sharp and a useful image.
For me my next lens was a 15mm fisheye. Not great for the sidelines, but really cool lens in general. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|