Advice on Canon lens for Motor Sport

[Noel_Carboni]

Yee gads, that Sigma is a MONSTER!

I have done some sports shooting fieldside with my Canon 100-400, and as long as your event is in good daylight its a good performer. It's easy to handle, quick to focus, and sharp enough for all but the extreme perfectionists. I like the way the bokeh look, too. And the push-pull is quite to my liking; 'course I go way back with push-pull zooms into the FD days...

The 100-400 is not really good for evening/night events, though, unless you're willing to shoot at ISO 3200 or above.



-Noel

[SeanOch]

Yeah the sigma is a monster, I couldnt even find a spec for how much it weights. The other nice thing is its supplied with a dedicated 2x tele converter. It also has a digital readout for the focal length rther than the analog number ring like most....or all lens we have now. It will be nice to see how this beast preforms when its finally in mass production.

[Scott_Hughes]

Needs are track/access dependant, but you're lacking on the long end. The 300/2.8 would be on my list, along with a 1.4TC.

[ssim]

I agree that the 300 2.8 with a 1.4TC is a combo that would serve you well. Even with the tc attached you would be hard pressed to find a lens that is superior to this.

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Now that it has been brought up, I was wondering if anyone here had anything good or bad to say about using the 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4TC and 2.0TC, particularly as an alternative to the 100-400mm zoom or the 400mm, 500mm and 600mm primes. I'm particularly curious about practical considerations beyond the obvious when shooting wildlife. Are the TCs really such a hassle? Is the 300mm f/2.8 + 2.0TC grossly inferior to the 600mm f/4 (in addition to being slower)?

[Raul_Sanchez]

Originally Posted by Martin_Doudoroff

Now that it has been brought up, I was wondering if anyone here had anything good or bad to say about using the 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4TC and 2.0TC, particularly as an alternative to the 100-400mm zoom or the 400mm, 500mm and 600mm primes. I'm particularly curious about practical considerations beyond the obvious when shooting wildlife. Are the TCs really such a hassle? Is the 300mm f/2.8 + 2.0TC grossly inferior to the 600mm f/4 (in addition to being slower)?

Martin,
I use the 300 2.8 IS for sports and nature (wildlife mainly). I use it with the extenders. With the X1.4 the image quality slightly decreases but it still is superb. With the X2 the image quality decreases more. I normaly stop down the lens when I use it with the X2.0 to control a bit the loss in image quality.
If I need to use the X1.4 I don't even think about it. The loss in image quality is small. I however only use the X2.0 when I have no choice.
For me the use of bigger glass is not a choice. When shooting sports I like to move around. When shooting wildlife I normally have to trek. I can't imagine trekking with something bigger/heavier than the 300. The 300 (together with all the other gear) is as much as I am willing to carry in the field. I normally use a high quality vest to do so.
Ir you shoot from a vehicle and/or small subjects maybe bigger glass is for you.
With the good high ISO performance of newer Canon bodies I however often wonder if I would be better off with something like the 100-400: less weight/bulk and the convenience of a zoom.

[David Barry]

Thanks for all the advice.

The 300mm 2.8 looks like a fantastic lens, but is a pretty expensive proposition for dabbling in the field.

I am leaning towards getting the 100-400mm L IS zoom, and adding a 24-105mm f4.0 L IS, and having the pair as my outside sports basic kit.

Seeing all the mention of usage of TCs, I wonder how much worse the results would be at the long end if I just added a X2 TC to my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS? I'd still only be at f/5.6. But presumably the image quality would be much worse, and of course I could use my X1.4 TC on the 100-400 and still retain autofocus on the 1Ds while getting 560mm.

David.