Amateur photographer needing sports lens
Apr 9, 2024 14:35:43 #
lbyrdee
Loc: Proctorville, Ohio
I’m a “Grammy” photographer who got serious about it in 2014 after trying to take basketball pics of grandsons. I started with a Canon T3, then a T6, T7 and last year received as a gift a Canon D6 mark II. I have an outdated 70 -300 Canon zoom. My budget is around $2,000. I shoot all sports indoor and outdoor. Thanks so much. I have enjoyed this site for the past year but never actually joined.
Apr 9, 2024 15:22:08 #
With a full-frame EOS 6Dii, you'll probably want a lens that can get you to around 400mm to 'reach' midfield for soccer, football, similar. You can do with a 2x mounted to a used EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. You can find this lens at KEH.com today around $1000 with EX rating. Use the balance for a used copy of the Canon 2X EF Extender III Teleconverter.
Apr 9, 2024 16:48:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
With a full-frame EOS 6Dii, you'll probably want a lens that can get you to around 400mm to 'reach' midfield for soccer, football, similar. You can do with a 2x mounted to a used EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. You can find this lens at KEH.com today around $1000 with EX rating. Use the balance for a used copy of the Canon 2X EF Extender III Teleconverter.
That would be a workable solution. Pretty good advice.
Apr 9, 2024 17:13:56 #
lbyrdee wrote:
I’m a “Grammy” photographer who got serious about it in 2014 after trying to take basketball pics of grandsons. I started with a Canon T3, then a T6, T7 and last year received as a gift a Canon D6 mark II. I have an outdated 70 -300 Canon zoom. My budget is around $2,000. I shoot all sports indoor and outdoor. Thanks so much. I have enjoyed this site for the past year but never actually joined.
The Tamron 100-400 is the lightest in the class and SHARP - optional tripod collar available - save some money ! https://www.ebay.com/itm/335337327300?epid=3009234077&itmmeta=01HV2APZA83SD59AJXEB3Y3XTA&hash=item4e13a98ac4:g:lO4AAOSwVsRmEn1R&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA8G3RbPDxZy4sKUuygeNc%2FvS%2Bx9PXE1xr3%2BOQ5knl4LX%2FyLUezir4kzBeT3RD4inuY3z5tqQFLLH70Z2P3DdkTitcX2V8xxQ2670r77g0mlOW2ZgC6PE%2BY89sTFiCIWrwDyNQ6P3XNjGXZv1%2BW0iAzH8NyDPw33Zqy2YYKy%2FC3WubLKDv3kW%2B2n%2F6xloL4EAeaMGzI0smdiiRY2yDFEiRIXVLlhN8OP3lJzLbXDjlPA5dZAHr6cvoVQdcApOcI0UICCtTXAtfyo4Egy5q7CPXUvS6ylplNIFMaZfEwdMWhOT%2FE%2BIEBh0%2BS2bX5S6naTnj%2Bw%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMovXbythj
The Canon 70-200 is HEAVY ....and, costly but worth it if you are serious about indoor .....
..
Apr 9, 2024 17:18:58 #
imagemeister wrote:
The Tamron 100-400 is the lightest in the class an... (show quote)
The op wants a sports lens. That is not a sports lens. Indoor sports generally need to be shot at f2.8. Not possible with that lens. The gym I shoot in most frequently had a correct exposure of f2.8 iso 12,800 at 1/100th of a second. How are you going to use the Tramon in that kind of light?
Apr 9, 2024 17:50:03 #
btbg wrote:
The op wants a sports lens. That is not a sports lens. Indoor sports generally need to be shot at f2.8. Not possible with that lens. The gym I shoot in most frequently had a correct exposure of f2.8 iso 12,800 at 1/100th of a second. How are you going to use the Tramon in that kind of light?
It IS an OUTDOOR sports lens ......No, it is NOT an indoor sports lens......Outdoor is cheap and easy - Indoor is expensive, heavy, and hard
Pick your poison ! - OR - get BOTH ! For $2K you could get BOTH/used ....Apr 9, 2024 17:56:45 #
imagemeister wrote:
It IS an OUTDOOR sports lens ......No, it is NOT an indoor sports lens......Outdoor is cheap and easy - Indoor is expensive, heavy, and hard Pick your poison ! - OR - get BOTH ! For $2K you could get BOTH/used ....
Pick your poison ! - OR - get BOTH ! For $2K you could get BOTH/used ....The op asked for a sports lens for indoor and out. She has already been advised to purchase a used lens. The Tamron is not suitable for indoor. Perhaps you should read the original post. The Tamron might be fine outside, although the Sigma sport 150-600 is a better lens. If she wants to purchase both used imstead of a 70-200 with a 2x converter that would be an option but just the 100-400 is a really strange choice for what was requested.
By the way even Tamron in their adds for the lens does not claim it is a sports lens, they refer to it a s a super zoom.
Apr 9, 2024 18:02:51 #
btbg wrote:
The op asked for a sports lens for indoor and out.... (show quote)
I don't think she wants to carry/manage a 70-200 2.8 much less a 150-600 6lb "sport" - the 100-400 is the lightest/cheapest/sharpest so, not so strange - in MY book. Covers most all the bases, no changing lenses, manageable, no missed shots .....She is is NOT a PRO - like you ...
Apr 9, 2024 18:11:40 #
imagemeister wrote:
I don't think she wants to carry/manage a 70-200 2.8 much less a 150-600 6lb "sport" - the 100-400 is the lightest/cheapest/sharpest so, not so strange - in MY book. Covers most all the bases, no changing lenses, manageable, no missed shots .....She is is NOT a PRO - like you ...
Im sure its a good lens just not for indoor sports which was part of the question. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, my advice was based on the request for advice on what to get for a sports lens for indoor and out. The 70-200 is absolutely the lens of choice for a first sports lens. The 100-300 f2.8 is probably a better choice for Canon shooters but is far out of her price range. Weight is just part of the deal if you want to shoot sports.
Apr 9, 2024 18:23:26 #
btbg wrote:
Im sure its a good lens just not for indoor sports which was part of the question. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, my advice was based on the request for advice on what to get for a sports lens for indoor and out. The 70-200 is absolutely the lens of choice for a first sports lens. The 100-300 f2.8 is probably a better choice for Canon shooters but is far out of her price range. Weight is just part of the deal if you want to shoot sports.
She is a Grandmother wanting to shoot her grandsons - did you miss that part ??
Apr 9, 2024 18:31:15 #
imagemeister wrote:
She is a Grandmother wanting to shoot her grandsons - did you miss that part ??
Nope. Just curious how you propose shooting in a dark gym at f4.5. Not trying to start an argument, although it probably looks that way, for which I apologize. I would love to be able to use lighter and less expensive lenses. It would certainly be more comfortable and would have saved me thousands of dollars. I understand she's a grandmother. Most grandmothers who currently have children in school are in their late 40s to their 50s or 60s. I'm a grandfather, but my grandchildren are no longer in sports and are starting college. My mother, who is in her late 80s still uses a 70-200 on occasion, well she did before she fell on some ice in Alaska this past winter and broke her arm. Right now she is only using her Nikon P1000, which is hardly a tiny camera. How much weight people are comfortable using has little to do with their age and more to do with strength and adaptability.
Apr 9, 2024 19:12:03 #
btbg wrote:
How much weight people are comfortable using has little to do with their age
REALLY !
I have already said that the 100-400 is not optimum for indoor - What else do you want from me ?? Outdoors the 70-200 with 2x will give up much AF speed ...... and you will loose shots fiddling with the extender ....Apr 9, 2024 19:13:22 #
btbg wrote:
Not trying to start an argument, although it probably looks that way,
YES, it DOES ....
Apr 9, 2024 20:58:43 #
imagemeister wrote:
REALLY ! I have already said that the 100-400 is not optimum for indoor - What else do you want from me ?? Outdoors the 70-200 with 2x will give up much AF speed ...... and you will loose shots fiddling with the extender ....
I have already said that the 100-400 is not optimum for indoor - What else do you want from me ?? Outdoors the 70-200 with 2x will give up much AF speed ...... and you will loose shots fiddling with the extender ....It wont give up af speed. That would make it a 140-
400, which is still faster than the 100-400. I use a 2x converter on my 400 2.8 and it focuses very well. It also doesnt require fiddling with it. You put it on if you need it and take it off if you dont.
Apr 9, 2024 21:25:35 #
imagemeister wrote:
I don't think she wants to carry/manage a 70-200 2.8 much less a 150-600 6lb "sport" - the 100-400 is the lightest/cheapest/sharpest so, not so strange - in MY book. Covers most all the bases, no changing lenses, manageable, no missed shots .....She is is NOT a PRO - like you ...
Shouldn’t you be suggesting the even lighter option? The Sony RX10MKIV? I thought it was your do everything camera. 😜🤪
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.