Which Glass on Full Frame for Ringside shooting ?

Jwar1976

Jwar1976

Suspended / Banned
Messages
530
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Last weekend I had a brilliant time at a local wrestling event as I was actually at ringside taking countless action shots with my 7D & Tamron 17-50 2.8. Now in the next few weeks I will be upgrading to Full Frame most probably the 5D MKIII as it seems to be the best camera within my price range that will allow me to do most types of photography especially with the extra focus points. However it is to my understanding that the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not fully compatible with Full Frame bodies & so I will need to get another lens, which doesn't weigh a tonne as I will need to be able to move it quickly into position & allow me to get the required action shots at Wrestling events and possibly Boxing / MMA in the future. The main Photographer at the event is a Nikon user & wasn't able to advise me on what Canon lens would be ideal to get, all what he stated was that he didn't think that the 24-105 F4L wouldn't be capable due to the Low Light and suggested that F2.8 would be a lot better.

If anyone can advise it would be much appreciated.

Many Thanks

John
 
I can't see it being an issue what iso were you shooting with the 7d?

You could look at the tamron 24-70 f2.8.
 
rjbell said:
I can't see it being an issue what iso were you shooting with the 7d?

You could look at the tamron 24-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...

I was shooting at 640 ISO with the 7D at F2.8 using the ranges of about 20mm-50mm

minnnt said:
Obvious answer is the 24-70 f2.8 if you have the cash.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies :), I will be able to afford to get a used 5D MKIII with either the 24-70 F2.8 or the 24-105 F4L. The other thing that I need to take into consideration is that as the 5D MKIII will become my primary body, I would be using it in most cases, like landscapes, Zoo visits, Macro & especially models for both studio & on location shoots. I know that I will be able to use my 75-300 IS, Nifty Fifty 1.8, 100mm 2.8L lenses on the full frame, with only the 17-50 2.8 & 10-18, being made redundant to my 7D kit bag. The ringside action shoots will be done about once a month, sometimes more than once a month, but other things I would be doing on a weekly basis.
 
You will be fine you'll lose a stop on the lens so you'll shoot at iso1600 to compensate. I'd rather the 24-70 2.8 though.
 
The 24-70 will be the better bet. I'm not a canon shooter but the quivalent lenses for Nikon were a world apart in performance. Similar IQ but the focus speeds were very different. As was the build quality.

As was the price....
 
rjbell said:
You will be fine you'll lose a stop on the lens so you'll shoot at iso1600 to compensate. I'd rather the 24-70 2.8 though.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that information, I will have a look to see how good it handles noise at that ISO. Thanks again :)
 
minnnt said:
The 24-70 will be the better bet. I'm not a canon shooter but the quivalent lenses for Nikon were a world apart in performance. Similar IQ but the focus speeds were very different. As was the build quality.

As was the price....
Click to expand...

Having seen the price of some glass I can well imagine, but thank you for the reply :)
 
minnnt said:
The 24-70 will be the better bet. I'm not a canon shooter but the quivalent lenses for Nikon were a world apart in performance. Similar IQ but the focus speeds were very different. As was the build quality.

As was the price....
Click to expand...
Not the case with Canon though.

The 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is comparable optically, if not perhaps slightly better, than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM is stunning, but has a price tag to match. The brand new 24-105mm f/4 L IS II USM should be just as good, one would expect, and a bit cheaper.
 
@KIPAX would be your man here for input
 
StewartR said:
Not the case with Canon though.

The 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is comparable optically, if not perhaps slightly better, than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM is stunning, but has a price tag to match. The brand new 24-105mm f/4 L IS II USM should be just as good, one would expect, and a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks for the info. So you're basically paying a shed load of cash for a stop of light but losing IS and 35mm at the long end?

When I used to shoot boxing I used a D7000 and the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. Found it to be a great combo personally. I believe @KIPAX is fond of shooting ringside with a 35mm prime.
 
minnnt said:
Interesting, thanks for the info. So you're basically paying a shed load of cash for a stop of light but losing IS and 35mm at the long end?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about a "shed load" of cash if we're talking about the Mk I lenses, but otherwise yes.

When I was buying lots of them, I used to think of the 24-70 as a £1000 lens and the 24-105 as a £800 lens. I don't think that's a very big difference in the cosmic scheme of things.

Now, however, the 24-70 Mk II launched at around £1800 and is currently £1459. Meanwhile the 24-105 Mk II is available on pre-order for £1129, so in time it will probably come down to around £900. That is a big difference. And if the image quality from the 24-105 Mk II is what I and many other people are expecting, it could be a real bargain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top