Which long lens for sports?

[karen_s]

I currently shoot with a Canon 50d and have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS. I like both and they do me well in good light and bad, but I am looking for some extra reach in the good light. I would use this lens for daytime sports like golf, football, softball, baseball, soccer, track and field, and mountain biking. I may also use it for a bit of wildlife work.

I've been saving so my budget is anything under 2 grand, as long as it is worth every penny :-)

I'm open to any suggestions but the two I keep coming back too are the following ...

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

A couple of particulars:
1. I could care less about weight
2. the push pull of the zoom is not an issue for me
3. I own a tripod and a monopod but never use them
4. I don't use extenders so that is not an issue either
5. I'm after image quality and sharpness worthy of making a few buck here and there
6. I like nice bokeh
7. And I'll probably upgrade to a 5d or it's replacement in a few years

Any insight would be most appreciated.

[rediguana]

I've got the 400f5.6 and it is a good complement to the 70-200f2.8IS which I used to own. I did a little sports shooting with both of them, but now mainly use the 400 for birding. The 100-400 will give you greater convenience and flexibility, but I believe (from reviews) that the 400f5.6 is sharper at 400mm and also focuses faster. Older versions of the zoom also had a bit more copy variation. This was less of an issue with the prime.

I have used the 400f5.6 on 1D/5D/7D and 20D - it is a great lens. If you had two bodies - the 70-200 on one, and 400 on the other, you'd have a great daytime combination for sports or wildlife.

Another option if you don't want to go as long may be the 300f4.

To me, having the 70-200 and 100-400 seems little a little too much zoom overlap for me. But, depending on the sports you're shooting, you may not have the positioning choice you'd like, and may be forced to go down the 100-400 zoom path - defined purely by the type of sports you're shooting and access to the game.

[RichardTaylor]

I shoot motor sport, birds, and a small amount of other stuff with the Canon 100-400 F4.56 F5.6 IS L lens on a 40D.
It is a very versatile lens but not as sharp as my Canon 135 F2 L.
It can get heavy on a long shoot (8 hours or so) and unless I am panning I am usually on a mono pod.

I have a friend who shoots motor sport with the 400 F5.6 (on a 50D) and he loves it. Shaper than my zoom wide open and probably focuses a bit faster. The downside is that is not as flexible. He is quiet often seen changing to/from a Canon 200 F2.8 (he loves primes).

Bokeh (depending on the background, and lighting) can be pretty good.
Some examples - all taken with the 100-400:
(1)


Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 180 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

(2)

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

(3)

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture: f/9.0
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

[karen_s]

Thanks for responding.

Rediguana, very useful info. My goal is to eventually have two working bodies so I don't have to change lenses. And I hadn't given much thought to the overlap of coverage so that is something else to consider. I'm going to check out the 300mm too, to see if it's long enough. I shoot some golf and the farther away the better. But, for other sports, might be too much? I don't know as I've never had that long of reach.

Great shots RichardTaylor. The landing bird is exceptional and it's very helpful to see the variety of shots. It looks like you can still get pretty fast shutter speeds even in the shade. The bokeh is pretty nice too. The focus speed and sharpness comparison is very helpful.

Thanks again!

[inkista]

The 400mm prime can be awkward because of the focal length. It's more suited for situations where you'd really prefer to have a 500mm lens, so you're not running backwards all the time. When I'm shooting birds in flight, I love my 400L. When I'm at the zoo, I tend to curse it.





But yeah, the 400L autofocuses very quickly.



Still, I'd say go for the 100-400L, or the 300 f/4L and a 1.4x tc for the added versatility.

And as Richard says, I also find the 135L is my preferred fave. The 135 f/2L USM is more of a sub for a 70-200 f/2.8Ls, though, as it's the center of that specific zoom range, and can help you nail some miracle action shots:

[karen_s]

Thanks for the feedback Inkista! And great shots, very impressive. Catching a butterfly in flight is no easy task for sure. Anyway I'm still on the fence but think I am down to two, and not the original two. After reading the feedback and thinking more about what I will be using the lens for, I'm thinking the 400 may be too long. I'm now between the 100-400 and the 300 prime. I'm thinking of renting them and seeing which I like best.

Does the 1.4 teleconverter work better on the 300 prime than the 70-200 zoom? I tried one with my zoom and didn't get too excited about the image quality, but maybe combined with the 300 would be better?

[lowbone]

I have both the 100-400 and the 400mm f 5.6. I don't know if I would recommend either of them for sports. Of course you have to do what your budjet dictates. The 400f 5.6 focuses pretty fast, is a very sharp lens and is fairly light as far as lenses in this category go but the f5.6 is a problem with anything but the brightest light. The 100-400 has a focus that is not quite as fast but it does have IS and that will help you when the light is not ideal both as far as exposure is concerned and also to keep the image from jumping arouind in the viewfinder. If I were you and were really serious about sports I would save some more money and get the 300mm f 2.8, an extremely sharp and fast focusing lens that is a favorite of sports photographers. This lens also works well with a 1.4 teleconverter and a 2X teleconverter giving you a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f 5.6 lens. If you cant come up with that kind of money thern go with the 100-400. It isn't the ultimate lens for sports but it will get the job done in many situations.

[karen_s]

Thanks for responding lowbone! I really appreciate your insight into the lenses, really helps me narrow down my choices. I had started with the 100-400 for price and flexibility but after reading the previous posters thoughts and some reviews, I decided to check out the 300mm range and I accidentally googled the 300mm 2.8 instead of the f4. I saw the kind of quality it produces and now, I am leaning towards holding off and saving for that monster :-) The fact that the TC's work well is a big bonus as I'd like to get into a little wildlife photography too.

Thanks again for the insight.

[MikeFF]

The 300 2.8 is the lens if you can wait long enough to save up for it. Did you say you already have a 70-200 2.8? If so I would get the 2X converter now. I have a 70-200 2.8 and the 2X tele converter. They work pretty good together and it will give 400mm at a f 5.6. to play with until you save the money for the 300 2.8. Also the 300 is a big heavy beast. I am a big guy who likes shooting hand held. For that reason I have stayed away from the big primes (ok I really cant afford them). So keep in mind that if you get the 300 and plan on taking more than a few frames at a time you will need a sturdy tripod and or monopod.

[inkista]

This is just me, but for daytime sports, I'm not sure I'd be willing to fork up nearly 4x the price for the f/2.8 over the f/4 300L IS. The f/4 is also less than half the weight of the f/2.8 version (2.6 lbs vs. 5.6 lbs). You could still add the 1.4x tc to the 300L to get a 420mm equivalent, and my guess is it would be sharper and faster to autofocus than using a 2x on a 70-200 f/2.8.