Longer lens for sports

T

tris101

Suspended / Banned
Messages
670
Name
Tristian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I have canon 70d and canon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 and a canon 17-55 f2.8. But I could do with a longer lens for sports, Kayaking, skiing, hockey, karate to get some better photos of my daughter enjoying her sports. The 70-200 is good but I'm often at 200 and need a bit more length. I want the lens to be FF compatible as at a later point I think the Canon 5d iv might be the body for me if and when funds allow, I find the 70d can be noisy for indoors sports at higher iso's in dim sports halls.

I don't have budget for a canon 100-400 mkii so what would be the next best option? 2nd hand canon 100-400 mki? or maybe a sigma or tamron what do you all think are the best options.

karate as its indoors will mainly be with 70-200 f2.8 the other sports are outdoors.
 
You could hire a 1.4x III to try on you 70-200mm. That will tell you if 300 is going to be enough (280 is close enough to 300 so as to be insignificant) and may not be a bad solution. You only lose one stop and may not impact strongly on the overall lens performance. I picked up a used one on here to go with my 100-400 ii and it works well.
 
Canon 70-300mm L ... peach of a lens. I don't use mine since getting the 100-400mm MKII but I had the 100-400mm MKI and the 70-300mm was sharper wide open. Nice and compact as well. The 1.4x III does work well on the 70-200mm II if you are after a cheaper option.
 
Last edited:
1.4x converter might be a cheap fix and still allow lower ish f stop with 70-200mm that could be worth a go.

How does the sigma 150-600 compare to the canon 100-400 mki? what's the sharpness like? is the autofocus quick and accurate? not sure I need 600 length on my crop body I was thinking 400 would be enough but its worth a look for sure.

Any other lens worth thinking about.

The canon 100-400 mki are getting a little long in tooth and I wondered if other makes might be a better bet.
 
tris101 said:
How does the sigma 150-600 compare to the canon 100-400 mki? what's the sharpness like? is the autofocus quick and accurate? not sure I need 600 length on my crop body I was thinking 400 would be enough but its worth a look for sure.
Click to expand...

The 150-600 is a big lens, significantly bigger than the Canon 100-400 L II, and I believe the autofocus will probably be quicker on the 100-400 II as well. Tamron do a 100-400 which is about half the price of the Cannon Mk2, but then again, I'd want to see how the autofocus preformed before I bit on one. If 300 is enough for you perhaps have a look at the new(ish) EF 70-300 IS Mk2 (non L), by all accounts the autofocus is lightning quick on that, particularly with the new duel-pixel Canon DSLRs. It's not L build quality, and maybe not quite as good image quality wise, but great image quality is only going to be apparent if you get an in-focus shot.. or a shot at all.

The 70-300 IS L is apparently a good lens, but f/5.6 at 300mm on an L series lens? What were they doing there?

Anyway, a bit for you to think about and find some reviews and tests of there... but if you're like me you'll keep coming back to the Canon 100-400 IS L Mk II and pawing at the glass on the camera shop window and whining pitifully! ;) Now if they could only do something about the price!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
.... If 300 is enough for you perhaps have a look at the new(ish) EF 70-300 IS Mk2 (non L), by all accounts the autofocus is lightning quick on that, particularly with the new duel-pixel Canon DSLRs. It's not L build quality, and maybe not quite as good image quality wise, but great image quality is only going to be apparent if you get an in-focus shot.. or a shot at all.
Click to expand...

The non-L EF 70-300 II Nano USM is an excellent lens (missus has one). Focusing is as fast or even faster than my 100-400 II and the images it produces seem to be just as sharp too, though I've not done a controlled comparison. Nice lens, I sometimes use it instead of lugging the 100-400 about.
 
Thanks for the input.

What is the difference between the 1.4 mkii and mkiii converters and is it worth the price difference?

The 100-400 canon mkii looks a great lens but the price is more than I have available. I was thinking maybe a 2nd hand canon 100-400 mki might be the way to go but as its quite old technology I wondered if a tamron or sigma could be a better buy. Speed and accuracy of focus are important to me along with a low ish f stop. The 70-200 for the most part is great but I find a have quite a few pics at 200 and I'm cropping. Hence the longer length, maybe 300 would be enough. The 100-400 range sounds about right.

I will take a look at the 70-300 and see what the review are like. The sigma 150-600 looks a bit of a beast nice image quality but a little slow on the f stop. Budget wise I was thinking maybe up to £850 for either new or 2nd hand.
 
I've previously owned a Canon 100-400 mk1 and I now own the Tamron 100-400 which to me is as sharp as the Canon. I couldn't justify the used price of the Canon to buy another as the Tamron was cheaper new from e-infinity.
If 300mm is enough for you I also recommend the Canon 70-300 L. I've recently bought one to use on holiday as I don't want to take the Tamron and it's a very sharp lens .
Read a few reviews of the Tamron if you want 100-400 before buying the Canon mk1.
 
Last edited:
tris101 said:
The 100-400 canon mkii looks a great lens but the price is more than I have available. I was thinking maybe a 2nd hand canon 100-400 mki might be the way to go but as its quite old technology I wondered if a tamron or sigma could be a better buy. Speed and accuracy of focus are important to me along with a low ish f stop.
Click to expand...

Remember both the Tamron and Sigma are f/6.3 at the long end so (in my opinion) if you are happy with that then you may as well go for the 150-600mm and make use of the extra length. If you can put up with a prime and no IS then the 400mm L f/5.6 is a fantastic lens, old now but as sharp as anything I have used on Canon.
 
Personally I would pick the 300mm f4 over the 100-400mm mk1 or the the Sigma/Tamron offerings. But then again I always prefer prime over zoom. For the money(used) I think you would struggle to better the IQ from the 300mm.
 
I think a prime would be hard work as I'm not that able to pick where I want to stand and I think with no zoom I will miss lots of shots.

I will try f5.6-6.3 with my 70-200 and see if it cause me any issues. bright days I guess it will be fine some of the dull winter matches I guess might be more changeling. The sigma 150-600 and canon 70-300L both get good reviews, I will also take a look at the Tamron 100-400.

More reading needed..
 
tris101 said:
Hi All,

I have canon 70d and canon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 and a canon 17-55 f2.8. But I could do with a longer lens for sports, Kayaking, skiing, hockey, karate to get some better photos of my daughter enjoying her sports. The 70-200 is good but I'm often at 200 and need a bit more length. I want the lens to be FF compatible as at a later point I think the Canon 5d iv might be the body for me if and when funds allow, I find the 70d can be noisy for indoors sports at higher iso's in dim sports halls.

I don't have budget for a canon 100-400 mkii so what would be the next best option? 2nd hand canon 100-400 mki? or maybe a sigma or tamron what do you all think are the best options.

karate as its indoors will mainly be with 70-200 f2.8 the other sports are outdoors.
Click to expand...


Sigma 150-600 contemporary version is a very good lens.
 
Sigma also do a 100-400mm that has had good reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top