This should make someone giggle. I'm looking at buying a 300mm L lens to use as a sports prime. My main question is:
I know it's possible to add a teleconverter to increase the focal length, but is there any way to add some kind of wide angle adapter to effectively "zoom out"??
My other issue is:
Why is it that everyone who's taking pics at any kind of outdoor sporting event seems to be using a big fat white prime? I know they're sharp, and they're fast, but it looks like it would cause you to miss out on a lot of action. Especially at something like a football game, where you may have a good crop on the quarterback with your 400mm prime, but as soon as he makes the pass the play is out of your zoom range or right on top of you, etc. It just seem impractical to use anything other than a zoom for sports where the action is constantly changing its distance from you, but that seems to be the lens type of choice.
300mm isn't actually that long for sports like football or baseball. You'd be suprised at how often you have to crop in post-process with a 300mm lens. So, you don't miss much action.
I haven't shot much sports with my cropped sensor Rebel, but that is my experience from shooting sports with film for newspapers. I would have killed for one of those big honkin' lenses.
I think that if you look they also have a second body and lens, most likely a 70-200, at their side. At basketball games and the like the second body will be carrying a wide lens for under the hoop.
I think that if you look they also have a second body and lens, most likely a 70-200, at their side. At basketball games and the like the second body will be carrying a wide lens for under the hoop.
The problem wouldn't be when I was at football and baseball games. For my personal use, I take a lot of photos of watersports. To do this, the only option I have is to take from the boat. Therefore, I have a very limited focal length I can use. I have to be inside the boat, so I can't move around at all. The wakeboarder/skiier/wakeskater/etc. is exactly the same distance from me at all times, which I can good coverage with at about 150-200mm. So my question is... can I take a 300mm prime and convert it down to 150mm or so?
I've never heard of anyone doing this, so i'm guessing if you want to keep autofocus, you can bet on no you can't do this. There may be some way to do it, but not with canon made equipment.
oh and if you need 150-200mm why don't you just buy a lens in the range you need? Or do you also need 300mm for something? If not sell it and get a lens that works better for you.
This should make someone giggle. I'm looking at buying a 300mm L lens to use as a sports prime. My main question is:
I know it's possible to add a teleconverter to increase the focal length, but is there any way to add some kind of wide angle adapter to effectively "zoom out"??
My other issue is:
Why is it that everyone who's taking pics at any kind of outdoor sporting event seems to be using a big fat white prime? I know they're sharp, and they're fast, but it looks like it would cause you to miss out on a lot of action. Especially at something like a football game, where you may have a good crop on the quarterback with your 400mm prime, but as soon as he makes the pass the play is out of your zoom range or right on top of you, etc. It just seem impractical to use anything other than a zoom for sports where the action is constantly changing its distance from you, but that seems to be the lens type of choice.
I think the main reason you see those big white primes at the outdoors sports events is because they are some of the very best lenses available today, and those pro sports shooters (and their employers) can afford the best. And, like jb said, they usually have a second body with a shorter zoom. Once you get beyond 300mm there aren't any fast aperture zooms that are comparable in image quality to the big Canon and Nikon primes.
I have a 300mm f4 and have used it for football and lacrosse, but as Fotoman says, you wind up doing a fair amout of cropping. That's acceptable if you have a decent number of megapixels like your 30D and my 20D. Especially if you are just shooting for web and prints up to about 8x10. A 70-200 with a teleconverter is another reasonably priced alternative that can work.
There are a few wide angle converters on bhphoto, but they are all WAY too small to fit that 300mm lens. Are you looking at the f/2.8L or the f/4L? You might be able to get one to fit with a step down ring...but then you're not putting L glass in front of L glass which will degrade the image quality heavily. That and you will probably get some vignetting. I'm pretty sure the only way to do this is to buy a shorter lens. Maybe the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS? Since you want to do water sports, I'm going to guess that there won't be that many situations where you'd need the low light capability of an f/2.8 lens.
Since you want to do water sports, I'm going to guess that there won't be that many situations where you'd need the low light capability of an f/2.8 lens.
Yeah, highly unlikely. More than likely f/8 or higher will be demanded by lots of light and highly reflective surfaces such as water.
Since you want to do water sports, I'm going to guess that there won't be that many situations where you'd need the low light capability of an f/2.8 lens.
Yeah, highly unlikely. More than likely f/8 or higher will be demanded by lots of light and highly reflective surfaces such as water.
Right, so...
Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS - $3900
Canon 300mm f/4L IS - $1100 (sale on bhphoto right now)
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - $1400
There is the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens at $2100 also, but a few reviews say it's not nearly as good as the big lenses.
In the end, save yourself several thousand and go for the cheaper lens and pick up the entire range you need and then some. :)
and another one... Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... There's a second hand one sitting in the local shop right now going for around 1200 US. I hear it's very good.
and another one... Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... There's a second hand one sitting in the local shop right now going for around 1200 US. I hear it's very good.
ARE YOU SERIOUS!? That's about half price for a lens some claim to be sharper than a 70-200L.
and another one... Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... There's a second hand one sitting in the local shop right now going for around 1200 US. I hear it's very good.
If I had the money, I sure as hell would be sending you $1200 tonight. That's an awesome price.
This should make someone giggle. I'm looking at buying a 300mm L lens to use as a sports prime.
Not only giggle, but at first I didn't think you were serious. :)
Originally posted by ibkc:
My main question is:
I know it's possible to add a teleconverter to increase the focal length, but is there any way to add some kind of wide angle adapter to effectively "zoom out"??
You can buy a 1.3x crop or FF camera. You can't use a wide converter on these lenses, and neither can I see any reason to do so. If you don't need 300mm, buy a 70-200.
Originally posted by ibkc:
My other issue is:
Why is it that everyone who's taking pics at any kind of outdoor sporting event seems to be using a big fat white prime? I know they're sharp, and they're fast, but it looks like it would cause you to miss out on a lot of action. Especially at something like a football game, where you may have a good crop on the quarterback with your 400mm prime, but as soon as he makes the pass the play is out of your zoom range or right on top of you, etc.
Sure it's a bit impractical, but for most sports you _need_ those lenses to make your pictures. You need the reach to fill your frame, and you need the big aperture not only to have enough light when shooting at night but also to isolate your subject. Most people also shoot with two to three bodies with a different focallength on each. A 600/400/300 on the main body, a 300/70-200 on the second and a 70-200/24-70/16-35 on the third.
I found this combination to work very well for soccer. I used my 400/2.8 on my main body and my 70-200 on the second body.
