ggab Loc: ?

I have see rumors of an updated version of this lens for years. Currently, I do not see it on the roadmap coming to market anytime soon. It appears that Canon is focusing on bringing new lenses for their Mirrorless cameras.

I have recently started shooting sports video for H.S. age youth soccer teams using my EOS 6D MKII. I shoot on a Monopod with a fluid head. I have tried my 100 - 300 lens and my 70 - 200 lens. I find that the positions I am forced to shoot from require a wider view than 70mm at times and often a zoom further than 200 mm at times.

Frankly, a 50 to 210 would serve me well however I can't find one.
The closest range I can find is 28 - 300.

Has anyone used the Canon 28 - 300 L lens for video?
I know, very expensive.......
Push - Pull zoom..........
Tamron has a cheaper, lighter version.......

Thanks
George

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Why start another thread?

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I don't do videos, so I guess I shouldn't answer. But I have used the Canon 28-300 for years. And I also have the Tamron version. If you can afford it, get the Canon one. It focuses SO much faster and better than the Tamron. You can occasionally find used ones.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I know it’s a beast and expensive, but is the Sigma 60-600mm Sport worth considering?

ggab Loc: ?

The other didn't show up and had only one response. It was lost in the sauce.
I am really looking for responses from folks that use the lens.

ggab Loc: ?

Thank you.
Shooting action video, focus speed and accuracy are of primary concern. I expect accuracy from any lens, it's the speed that is the "X" factor.

ggab Loc: ?

Thanks for your response.
It is too much for reach for the video.
I have a Tamron 150-600 G1 & 2 for Stills. No need for a third 600mm zoom.
I can get a 28-300L for prox the same cost.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

I would recommend renting one for a couple of days before you decide.

ggab Loc: ?

Good idea.
I need it for this weekend.

I was hoping someone here would have had experience with it with video.

ggab Loc: ?

I just read Rockwell's review of the 60-600!
Either this is a heck of a Great Lens, or Ken is on the Sigma Payroll!
It may just be worth considering.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would probably NOT opt for a new and very heavy, very expensive Canon lens JUST for soccer video. For video, I would forget the Canon 6D II (an excellent stills camera and a so-so video camera) and get a Lumix GH5 ($1500) and a Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. zoom ($800) for a 24-120mm equivalent full frame field of view. Then I'd get either a Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. zoom ($1500), or an Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 zoom ($1400), or a Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 II ASPH. POWER O.I.S. zoom ($600). DOUBLE all those focal lengths to compare the field of view to your full frame 6D II. Also DOUBLE the equivalent depth of field, at a given f/stop and distance, because you're using HALF the focal length for the same field of view.

Outdoors in the daytime, you would need both 3-stop (ND8) and 6-stop (ND64) neutral density filters for your lenses. The base ISO is 200, and a proper shutter speed for 30fps video is 1/60 second.

The GH5 is a great video camera and a decent stills camera. It, and its sister the GH5s, are by far the best video cameras under $3000. The GH5s is aimed at filmmakers, not still photographers.

If you think I'm crazy, rent a GH5 with those two Pana-Leica zooms and try it.

ggab Loc: ?

I do not see myself going in this direction and NO, I don't think you are crazy.

I already have the 6D MKII. I can get a lens for <2k that I can also use for stills.
BTW, No ND filters required to date.
By utilizing Auto ISO, I have been able to keep the exposure fairly uniform so far.

Not shooting in 4k has allowed me to keep the file sizes small enough to process quickly and post without spending a small fortune on web server space.
The 60fps, 1080 size is more than sufficient.

Should I end up doing this for money in the future, I will consider these options once a paycheck comes in.
Right now, I am experimenting and learning.

Thanks
George

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Understood. My GH4 records 4K, but I usually record in 1080P. The GH5 can do the same. However, the GH5 records pristine 4K that can be downsampled to 1080P in editing to make it incredibly sharp and detailed. And if you record in 4K, your editor can crop the footage... useful for long shots that aren't close enough, or for scenes that need software image stabilization due to camera shake during recording.

While we can record in daylight without an ND filter, we likely have to raise the shutter speed to do it. What that does is create rather choppy video. For a smoother view of motion, using a shutter speed that is twice the frame rate is the preferred method. It introduces a slight amount of blur to action frames that allows one frame to blend smoothly into the next.

Another reason to record at a reasonably slow shutter speed is that in artificial light, certain types of lamps flicker on and off at the power line frequency. Under household LEDs, for instance I can record 30 fps at 1/60 second, and no faster. Using a faster speed introduces rolling dark bands to the scene. Using more expensive lights with persistent phosphors in them is one solution.

ggab Loc: ?

Interesting. I have read that I should be shooting at roughly 1/125, yet before learning that I was shooting at 1/1000. The shutter speed that I would use if shooting stills. Like I said, I am experimenting and learning.
@ 60FPS there was some choppiness, but not too much.
Here is a sample of the first video ever with a DSLR. It will ask for a passphrase, pm me if you are interested.

https://www.dropshots.com/Sterling_Phoenix

George

longrunpix Loc: eugene, Oregon

Test them out if you can. For me it always comes back to "move your feet" Kid! I shot sports professionally for many years and yes the great long lenses have their place. BUT, you are in control of what you choose to shoot with( what you have with you) and how you choose do it. So with all respect, if you need a wider angle shot as you suggest, move yer feet, kid.