Amateur photographer needing sports lens (Page 2): LOL ....you keep thinking that ....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg wrote:

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.

LOL ....you keep thinking that ....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Shouldn’t you be suggesting the even lighter option? The Sony RX10MKIV? I thought it was your do everything camera. 😜🤪

Only to ISO 400 - I have talked about this before ....

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Using a teleconverter reduces the effectiveness of the aperture. With a 1.4 teleconverter, f/2.8 becomes the equivalent of f/4 and a 2X teleconverter loses another stop on top of that. Plus there's a loss of image quality.

wireloose

For outdoors a good monopod with the Wimberley mh100 head makes life much better, keeps the camera at eye level without killing your arms, the heavier lens and camera combo gains a lot of weight towards the end of any game. On the lens I’d agree with the 70-200 and 1.4 combo, shoot at a fixed shutter speed and aperture and auto ISO for best results. Have fun!

agillot

Why not the tamron or other 18/400 , you are covered on anything .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

wireloose wrote:

For outdoors a good monopod with the Wimberley mh100 head makes life much better, keeps the camera at eye level without killing your arms, the heavier lens and camera combo gains a lot of weight towards the end of any game. On the lens I’d agree with the 70-200 and 1.4 combo, shoot at a fixed shutter speed and aperture and auto ISO for best results. Have fun!

For outdoors, a smaller/lighter LENS makes life much better ....no extender, no monopod, no gimbal head .....

clansman Loc: wendover,england

wireloose wrote:

For outdoors a good monopod with the Wimberley mh100 head makes life much better, keeps the camera at eye level without killing your arms, the heavier lens and camera combo gains a lot of weight towards the end of any game. On the lens I’d agree with the 70-200 and 1.4 combo, shoot at a fixed shutter speed and aperture and auto ISO for best results. Have fun!

Certainly agree with the monopod and the 70-100. Bear in mind that the 70-200 with the 2x Extender still gives 5.6 at the 400mm. The 100-400 only starts at 4.5. The 70-200 has always been the go-to sports lens. The RF version has been deemed by a number of pros as an unnecessary replacement, which shows how good the EF one is.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

clansman wrote:

Certainly agree with the monopod and the 70-100. Bear in mind that the 70-200 with the 2x Extender still gives 5.6 at the 400mm. The 100-400 only starts at 4.5. The 70-200 has always been the go-to sports lens. The RF version has been deemed by a number of pros as an unnecessary replacement, which shows how good the EF one is.

Apols, first mention should of course say 70-200.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

agillot wrote:

Why not the tamron or other 18/400 , you are covered on anything .

The Canon 6D II is a full frame camera with good high ISO quality performance .......

ELNikkor

The 70-200 2.8 will work indoors for basketball, volleyball, etc. (without that TC of course). Best solution is still by CHG Canon. I would add that a 1.4 TC is also an option for outdoor. Our school's sports photog. used that option on his 70-200 2.8, but was using a 70D.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

I think an 85 prime works well for indoor sports. A 70-200 works well outdoors & you could add a 1.4 converter if you need to get closer.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I prefer the results of the 1.4xIII. Alas, the 40% increase on a shorter 200mm lens is a bit too modest, giving just an equivalent 280mm focal length. I've seen enough real world results of the 2xIII on camera's premier 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to be confident in recommending this configuration over a longer lens for outdoor / midfield results. Indoors using the f/2.8 is near ideal.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I’d opt for a wide to moderate zoom like an 18-200 and use cropping in PP to get closer if needed in big field outdoor situations. Indoors I rarely need more than 135mm. A good sensor that can handle noise is helpful too.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you need FAST AF, as in sports scenarios, I cannot recommend a 2X extender ......out of focus is not sharp !

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

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 my suggestion as well