Hiring a 300mm lens

gibtheo

gibtheo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
459
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a few football events coming up that I am thinking of hiring a bigger lens for and I wondered if anyone could give me advice on what to go for and whether it's a good idea to be trying to use a new set up for a game that I really need to make sure I cover well?

So, I'm shooting on a 7D2 and a 7D. The plan would be to hire a Canon 300mm 2.8 to use with the 7D2 and keep my 70-200 2.8 on the 7D.

I'm just concerned that trying out a new shooting technique may lead me to be concentrating more on how I'm using the equipment rather than be in my normal shooting mode. I suppose hiring the lens for a practice before the 'bigger' games would be a good option, but it's not cheap, though not too expensive so could be worth it.

I'm going for the 300mm as obviously the 7D2 is a crop sensor.

Thoughts anyone? :-)
 
I'd take the hit of hiring it for a few days and get out and familiarise yourself, especially if its something that is important. Although appreciate the added cost.
 
I would suggest asking a large retailer who does hire as well as sales if they do a credit of the rental fee against the purchase price. Not sure if there's a place like that in Brisbane though!
 
Very strangely i do find it takes time to get used to a new lens... Its not very logical as its a set piece of equipment.. but I ahve always had to work either me or the new lens in to get the best out of it... Plus its a whole new technique if you ahvent used a two body setup before..

And to continue the doom and gloom theme :) You hire a 300 and you will fall in love with it so I hope your bank balance can stand the hit :)
 
Haha! Thanks for the advice all. Yea Kipax that's what I'm scared of! Thanks Nod but I'm not in a position to buy at this moment, or probably for a while, even then I'll have to go down the second hand route.

I guess I'll look at hiring one for a couple of days before and do some local games. Though I imagine I'll still be trying to twist the barrel of the 300 as if it will zoom! I'll have a word with the rental guys and see what they can do if I book in 4 or 5 days hire.

You think it's the best lens choice for my set up though?
 
i've drooled over the 300mm only from afar.
my question for the experts is, is a 300mm prime versatile enough for what you need on the football pitch? only having shot football once or twice I wouldn't have been able to work with a 300mm (cropped) as the only option.
 
Would suggest to get it a day or two in advance if you can - especially if you haven't used long primes before.
I remember when I swapped from Sigma 120-300 to a 300mm prime... it just felt strange for the few games. 'what do you mean I can't zoom in&out of the action??'
Personally - never have got totally 'friendly' with the prime lenses (above 200mm f1.8) which is why I swapped my 400mm prime to the 200-400mm - so it is something to think about and each of us is different in the way we like to snap our photos :-)
And guess even if you test it out at your backyard on birds for a day.. it won't be the same as covering lots of running footballers on a pitch.
 
DizMatt said:
i've drooled over the 300mm only from afar.
my question for the experts is, is a 300mm prime versatile enough for what you need on the football pitch? only having shot football once or twice I wouldn't have been able to work with a 300mm (cropped) as the only option.
Click to expand...


depends on the football and what type of shots your looking for.... a 300 is perfect for junior sport, womens football and a lot of grass roots.. you can sit half way and get both ends of pitch...in the examples I give its a different way to shooting pro football say ... any of those games the players turn and head back to the center to celebrate.. for me the celes are more important than face on scoring...

theres lots of ways to shoot lots of different types of football depending on different requirements.. so you cant say a 300 is good or bad until you know all the variables..
 
having a read (as a non-pro) I think the 300mm IS will be my choice for the versatility overall.
most of my sport is close up or on ice, so wide for the former and f/2.8 for the latter.
300mm is just a self-indulgent bonus.
 
As you've already got the 7DII, and taking into account GGB's comments, it might be worth hiring a Sigma 120-300 Sport if you can find a place that has them.

The combo of that body and lens really is very good.
 
GooGaBu said:
Would suggest to get it a day or two in advance if you can - especially if you haven't used long primes before.
I remember when I swapped from Sigma 120-300 to a 300mm prime... it just felt strange for the few games. 'what do you mean I can't zoom in&out of the action??'
Personally - never have got totally 'friendly' with the prime lenses (above 200mm f1.8) which is why I swapped my 400mm prime to the 200-400mm - so it is something to think about and each of us is different in the way we like to snap our photos :)
And guess even if you test it out at your backyard on birds for a day.. it won't be the same as covering lots of running footballers on a pitch.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
As you've already got the 7DII, and taking into account GGB's comments, it might be worth hiring a Sigma 120-300 Sport if you can find a place that has them.

The combo of that body and lens really is very good.
Click to expand...

Good thinking. I think they have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX DG HSM not the new one. Any good?
 
gibtheo said:
Good thinking. I think they have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX DG HSM not the new one. Any good?
Click to expand...

Used this lens myself sometime back - it does a good job (IMHO) and you can always experiment with it and leave it at the 300mm range and see how you like it.
That is if you can avoid your hand going to the zoom-ring ;-)
The newer versions might have something over this one - but haven't used them myself, so can't comment.
 
Bit of lateral thinking? I needed a 300mm last year and faced the same dilemma. I thought about renting, and although the cost wasn't as bad as I expected, it meant going into a major event using a lens for the first time, and that worried me no end. I then looked at 2nd hand and reckoned that if i bought a Nikon 300mm on EBay at a reasonable price, I could use it for the summer and, if it didn't work out, sell it and get most of the outlay back. It seemed worth a gamble and certainly less of a cost than long term rental.

The outcome? As predicted by the long-suffering Mrs G the lens was never destined to be sold on and now seems permanently welded to the D3s. The calculation still stands though; looking at EBay they still go for around the figure I paid back in Dec 13, so it might be an option.
 
& thats why I'd buy it - assuming you have the disposable income. Buy a mint 2nd hand version, try it for 6 months - when you sell, even if you lose £500 its only cost you £22.50 a week...
 
Yeah, buy the right lens at the right price and you won't suffer much, if any, depreciation. I've had a Mark 1 non-IS version for a few years and would guess I would get pretty much what I paid for it if I decided to sell it.
 
Though I appreciate you are all right about the lens not depreciating etc. I can't afford to tie up any money in a lens that isn't going to make me much back at this point, so buying one is out of the question. Most of the local games I cover, the 70-200mm suffices on a crop camera for what I need from the game, don't get me wrong I'd love to have a 300mm or the 120-300mm Sigma, that's something that is at the back of my mind for now.

I have decide to hire the 300mm. I'll take it out to a local game first. So next question, I'm using a 7D and a 7Dmk2. I'm thinking that I use the 300mm on the 7D as the further away action will be slower to track than the nearer stuff, so the faster 7D2 will be better used with the 70-200mm IS2? Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks for all the help!
 
gibtheo said:
I'm using a 7D and a 7Dmk2. I'm thinking that I use the 300mm on the 7D as the further away action will be slower to track than the nearer stuff, so the faster 7D2 will be better used with the 70-200mm IS2? Any thoughts anyone?!
Click to expand...

I cant say I follow the question..How is furthur away action slower to track and in what way is 7dmkII faster ?
 
KIPAX said:
I cant say I follow the question..How is furthur away action slower to track and in what way is 7dmkII faster ?
Click to expand...

Further away action requires smaller physical movement of the camera, that's all I meant, if someone runs 10 yards with the ball on the half way line, you'd need to move less than if they moved 10 yards right in front of you.

The 7D2 is faster to acquire focus and has a higher frame rate, I would have thought that would be more useful to get the generally faster action in and around the penalty box.

That was my thinking anyway, comments welcomed!
 
Hello again!

More advice needed form those in the know if possible!

Currently have a 7D and a 7D mk2. I have the 300mm f2.8 Canon lens available to me. I also potentially have a 1DX available to borrow. So I'm thinking I borrow the 1DX and lose the 7D (well, stick a wide lens on it and keep near by!), set up as follows...

7D mk2 with Canon 300mm f2.8
1DX with Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS2
7D with f2.8 wide lens (17-50mm)

Anyone any thoughts? How would you set up for rugby and football with these lenses and bodies available to you? My position is restricted to behind the goal/try line in both circumstances.

Thanks for any help you can give.
 
Last edited:
Must admit I wouldn't approach any "one off" event with a borrowed camera. Use what you are familiar with.
 
shreds said:
Must admit I wouldn't approach any "one off" event with a borrowed camera. Use what you are familiar with.
Click to expand...


agreed..... a 1dx needs easing into to get the best out of it.......the difference between 1dx and a 7d is massive...
 
My setup for football is: 1Dx with 70-200II and 7DII with Sigma 120-300, and when it gets too dark I put the Sigma on the 1Dx and just use that.
 
I use my 5D3 with a 300mm and my 7D with a 70-200, works well. I tried the 300mm on my 7D but didn't like it. I would guesstimate 75-80% of my shots are with the 300mm, I love it. I shoot grass roots, Southern League level.
 
I'd guess will be different than the local football league where you practised. Bear in mind the people in the front of you as they surely will jump when the action takes place.
I reckon 300mm would be better than a 70-200 though.
 
gibtheo said:
Hello again!

More advice needed form those in the know if possible!

Currently have a 7D and a 7D mk2. I have the 300mm f2.8 Canon lens available to me. I also potentially have a 1DX available to borrow. So I'm thinking I borrow the 1DX and lose the 7D (well, stick a wide lens on it and keep near by!), set up as follows...

7D mk2 with Canon 300mm f2.8
1DX with Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS2
7D with f2.8 wide lens (17-50mm)

Anyone any thoughts? How would you set up for rugby and football with these lenses and bodies available to you? My position is restricted to behind the goal/try line in both circumstances.

Thanks for any help you can give.
Click to expand...

I'd put my better camera on the shorter lens - unless you're sitting on the half way line.
 
tophatter said:
I'd put my better camera on the shorter lens - unless you're sitting on the half way line.
Click to expand...
Me again Dave. Can I use your experience please.
I have been covering football for about a year and use the following

Canon 1d mark IV with 300m f2.8 is mark II
Canon 7 d with 70-200 f2.8 II is

I leave my 5d my III at home as it is restricted on fps

I am now shooting, as you know, league football. Would,you change anything in my choice of camera and lens combination?
 
Plumtreelad said:
Me again Dave. Can I use your experience please.
I have been covering football for about a year and use the following

Canon 1d mark IV with 300m f2.8 is mark II
Canon 7 d with 70-200 f2.8 II is

I leave my 5d my III at home as it is restricted on fps

I am now shooting, as you know, league football. Would,you change anything in my choice of camera and lens combination?
Click to expand...

Hiya :)

I used to shoot with the same equipment (excluding the 5d which I have used for MMA but found it too slow to focus). However, I used the Mark IV on the 70-200 and the 7D on the 300. The 7D is a 1.6x crop so gives a bit more reach rather than the Mk IV which is 1.3x. The main reason though is that the Mk IV is a much better camera and the goal and cele shots (i.e. the money shots) are more likely to be on the short lens. This way you're getting the best quality, quicker focussing etc.

I hope this makes sense?
 
tophatter said:
Hiya :)

I used to shoot with the same equipment (excluding the 5d which I have used for MMA but found it too slow to focus). However, I used the Mark IV on the 70-200 and the 7D on the 300. The 7D is a 1.6x crop so gives a bit more reach rather than the Mk IV which is 1.3x. The main reason though is that the Mk IV is a much better camera and the goal and cele shots (i.e. the money shots) are more likely to be on the short lens. This way you're getting the best quality, quicker focussing etc.

I hope this makes sense?
Click to expand...
Makes absolute sense and I will give it a go.

By the way, enjoys looking through football images in your web site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top