Canon 100-400mm for sports?

helios

Hey all,

I've been throwing around the idea of grabbing one of these beasts. I'd like to try my hand and sports photog, but I'm worried that f/5.6 might be a bit too slow. I know it has IS, but would a prime be better?

Tks.

Ricky91t

I think you'd be better off with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a tc will be much quicker and if you want you can get the IS version and you always have a good f/2.8 general purpose lense to fall back on if you dont like sports photography!The 100-400 will be fairly slow i think and wont do for floodlit matches

City-Exile

Depends on what sport you want to cover, but unless you're making money from it, you'd be better off with the 70-200mm f/2.8
Then it's about positioning yourself.

It's a really versitile lens & will serve you well, even if sport doesn't work out for you.

challengemaster

The thing you want with sports is to freeze the second in time, usually requiring about 1/400 or faster.

IS only reduces your shake, for sports its no use if you ask me. you'll get the light if you bring it down to 1/150, but you'll have blurred images. You really want to be getting a f/2.8 lens for sport, so you can get fast shutter speeds

Borderfox

I used the 100-400L for a lot of work and only recently sold it for a 120-300 f2.8. Worked out really well for daylight sports but any sort of dull day and the ISO had to be bumped up quite a bit. Its a very versatile lens though.

Borderfox

Simon had some great shots from Croke Park using a 100-400L

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

The thing you want with sports is to freeze the second in time, usually requiring about 1/400 or faster.

IS only reduces your shake, for sports its no use if you ask me. you'll get the light if you bring it down to 1/150, but you'll have blurred images. You really want to be getting a f/2.8 lens for sport, so you can get fast shutter speeds

dunno about that now!iv been shooting sports at 5.6 for a good while with good results even you have!

challengemaster

True, but I mean the day I was shooting there was plenty of light, for dark days or floodlit matches, forget it.

Eirebear

5.6 is useable for sports but as has been mentioned before, any loss of light and your going to struggle.

2.8 will give you much more reliability leaving you less worry about shutter speeds and able to concentrate more on getting the shots.

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

True, but I mean the day I was shooting there was plenty of light, for dark days or floodlit matches, forget it.

Thats allready been mentioned!:p

The 100-400 will be fairly slow i think and wont do for floodlit matches

by me

What will you be shooting as sports is a huge and varied subject?

leinsterman

I orignally got the 100-400 to shoot wildlife ... and having just come back from a months shooting in Africa I can say that this is where this particular lens really comes into its own ... it is totally made for Safari's ... though even at 400mm reach can be a problem ... I found myself needing to use it with a 1.4TC on a 1.3 crop body ... (making it an effective 728mm lens which can only shoot at F8 if using AF) ... but for the most part I was well pleased with the results ... it is really nice that you can hand hold it ... and it is more portable than the big primes too ...

At the time I bought it I was starting to really get into shooting at Croke Park ... I was unsure if it was the lens I needed for that environment until I got chatting to one of the pros in front of the hill at the All ireland hurling semi-final three years ago ... he was shooting with one and swore by it ... especially since the big primes are useless once the action gets close (in Croker you can be very close ... in fact so close I've been nearly trampled by a rampant Kerryman once or twice) ... so I took his advice ...

To be honest having used it now a few times in Croker and Donnybrook I would not recommend it for sport ... I have had some nice results from it but I find I get more from the 70-200 F2.8L IS ... what it lacks in reach it makes up in sharpness and contrast when backed off to F4 ...

In reality if you are serious about sport you need a fast prime of the 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm variety ... the 70-200 is used extensively as the lens of choice on the back up camera by nearly all the pros ... it is very handy when things get close ... and great just after the game for getting those winner/loser portraits ...

Ok these primes are crazy money ... but the 100-400 is too much of a compromise ... it is too slow ... and not sharp enough at F5.6 ... so you'll find yourself shooting at F8 a lot ...

So in conclusion if you are on a budget I'd recommend the 70-200 F2.8L IS and a 1.4 TC ... otherwise get the 300m 2.8L ... PaulW has one ...

Borderfox

It might be a compromise but I replaced the 100-400L with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and its working out really well at what I do. I get all the benifits of a 300mm f2.8 with the flexibility of a zoom.

OnLooker

Have to say I got a 70-200mm f2.8 before xmas. I am very glad I got it because the light can be quite bad when shooting sports games. It also gives you the flexibilty to shoot floodlit games.

You can also pick up some great shots if you can move around using it but I definintely want that Sigma 120-300mm.