Amateur photographer needing sports lens (Page 5): Dude, You do not understand - the EXTENDER will slow the AF irregardless of the f-stop or the light ..... especially because the 300...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg wrote:

Dude, give it a rest. With the 1.4 converter her 300f4 will be a 420f5.6, the lens you are recommending is a 400 6.3, so the slowed af will still be faster than the Tamron.

Dude, You do not understand - the EXTENDER will slow the AF irregardless of the f-stop or the light ..... especially because the 300 f4 IS is so old and not a series II lens AND, because the Tamron is a MUCH newer lens than the Canon 300 f4 - even at f6.3 the Tamron will probably have better AF - of course I cannot prove this - but I cannot dis-prove it either - and, neither can you. One thing for sure, the Tamron will be easier/lighter to manage.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

Dude, You do not understand - the EXTENDER will slow the AF irregardless of the f-stop or the light ..... especially because the 300 f4 IS is so old and not a series II lens AND, because the Tamron is a MUCH newer lens than the Canon 300 f4 - even at f6.3 the Tamron will probably have better AF - of course I cannot prove this - but I cannot dis-prove it either - and, neither can you. One thing for sure, the Tamron will be easier/lighter to manage.

The weight difference is trivial (55 grams) and even with the extender the difference is minor. As far as IQ, I’d take the older L series prime from Canon over a 4:1 zoom from Tamron any day regardless of age - many of the older L series primes are great glass . At 300mm, it’s ~1-1/2 stops faster and at 420, it’s still ~ half a stop faster. As far as 1 stop from the extender making a noticeable difference in AF speed, I don’t buy that - it’s a little faster than the classic 300 f2.8L which is a great sports lens. Plus the poster already has the 300.

btbg

TriX wrote:

The weight difference is trivial (55 grams) and even with the extender the difference is minor. As far as IQ, I’d take the older L series prime from Canon over a 4:1 zoom from Tamron any day regardless of age - many of the older L series primes are great glass . At 300mm, it’s ~1-1/2 stops faster and at 420, it’s still ~ half a stop faster. As far as 1 stop from the extender making a noticeable difference in AF speed, I don’t buy that. Plus the poster already has the 300.

You are right on the money.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You fan boys are living in the past ....

Yes, I have shot Canon from 1976 - I still have Canon stuff. I had the Canon 300 2.8 and got rid of it - GREAT lens but I was tired of the size and weight. Of course if she has the 300 she should keep it - IF - she can manage it properly. With $2K to spend there are some pretty good options. Optimally, she should loose the full frame 6D, get a 90D with the 70-300 IS II - maybe keep the 300 f4 for low light - or not. That is my bottom line suggestion.
Full frame and sports do not mix well = Lots of $$$$ and lots of weight - especially for indoor.
.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

…Full frame and sports do not mix well = Lots of $$$$ and lots of weight - especially for indoor.
.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous assertion. If you believe that FF and sports do not mix well, then you have never shot low light indoor sports and apparently also have never watched professional Sports shooters work. It was indoor sports that drove me from a 7D2 to a 5D3 and 5D4. That extra stop of high ISO performance is golden and can be traded for double the SS. Yes, a FF is typically heavier, but thats the price for good results.

btbg

imagemeister wrote:

You fan boys are living in the past .... br br Ye... (show quote)

As Trix has already pointed out all you have to do is look at sports on television and you will see that all the sports photographers are using full frame cameras. Are seriously trying to claim that all of them are wrong?

I was trying to be polite and nice, forget it. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg wrote:

As Trix has already pointed out all you have to do is look at sports on television and you will see that all the sports photographers are using full frame cameras. Are seriously trying to claim that all of them are wrong?

I was trying to be polite and nice, forget it. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

THIS OP does not need full frame - unless she is working for Sports Illustrated - that is my assertion - but I guess you pro fan boys do .....but so many of you ARE living in the technological past.

btbg

imagemeister wrote:

THIS OP does not need full frame - unless she is working for Sports Illustrated - that is my assertion - but I guess you pro fan boys do .....but so many of you ARE living in the technological past.

It isn't a matter of whether or not the OP needs full frame. The OP already has full frame and isn't buying something else. But the issue is you said that full frame is bad for sports. That is just plain insane. That's what the professionals use. It is what works best. As to living in the technological past that's laughable. Your assertion that Trix and I responded to had nothing to do with the OP it was your statement denigrating full frame cameras for sports photography. If you ever get to Central Oregon, look me up, and we can go shoot any sport that is going on at the time and we will see who is living in the technological past.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg wrote:

It isn't a matter of whether or not the OP needs f... (show quote)

You don't READ so good - I said FF is bad for THIS OP !

FF is not really necessary for anything - unless you are making BIG prints - especially in low light - AND, you have a muscular physique to carry it all AND deep pockets to pay for it.

btbg

imagemeister wrote:

You don't READ so good - I said FF is bad for THIS OP !

FF is not really necessary for anything - unless you are making BIG prints - especially in low light - AND, you have a muscular physique to carry it all AND deep pockets to pay for it.

You better look again you said "Full frame and sports do not mix well = lots of $$$$ and lots of weight especially for indoors." Then in your next post you said "so many of you (sports photographers) ARE living in the technological past."

So, no you were not just responding to the op, and yes I can read. I do not know of a single sports lens that is designed for a cropped sensor and big lenses bakance better on big cameras than on small cameras. It makes the weight distribute better.

Where you really miss the mark is that the fast lenses are most necessary for indoors but the really big heavy ones are primarily used outdoors.

In addition the op has already said she is going with the 70-200 yet you are still trying to convince her and everyone else that she needs to change camera bodies, go with a different lens and get rid of the lens she already has that is a pretty good sports lens for the budget.

You are also ignoring what every sports photographer who responded said. And in case you didnt notice it is the sports photographers that she asked the question to.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg wrote:

Where you really miss the mark is that the fast lenses are most necessary for indoors but the really big heavy ones are primarily used outdoors.

Yes, this is the one of the parts that makes no sense at all .......unless it is at night....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Here - https://dustinabbott.net/2017/12/tamron-100-400mm-f-4-5-6-3-vc-usd-review/ is a good review of the Tamron 100-400 for anyone interested ....8-)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

Yes, this is the one of the parts that makes no sense at all .......unless it is at night....

Obviously you have not shot indoor sports in a poorly lit gym recently. Give it up. There are those of us that do it regularly and actually know what we are talking about. I wouldn’t presume to give you advice about shooting BIF

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

You don't READ so good - I said FF is bad for THIS OP !

FF is not really necessary for anything - unless you are making BIG prints - especially in low light - AND, you have a muscular physique to carry it all AND deep pockets to pay for it.

There is an entire world of professional photographers that can’t believe you’re actually making such a ridiculous statement.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

TriX wrote:

There is an entire world of professional photographers that can’t believe you’re actually making such a ridiculous statement.

Yes, I can see It would take a lot of explaining to get through to you people - which I am not going to pursue.....