Long lens for outdoor action shots needed

[Joe Fisher]

I wish my 70-200L were longer but it is what it is. I really need the f2.8, and can't afford (and don't want to haul around) a Canon Prime 400mm f 2.0
The 2.8 worked great last weekend at a dog agility shoot.

I"m looking at a lens for outdoor shooting, I do primarily dog agility. Think small fast moving targets. I need a fast lens indoors, but outdoors with natural light a slower lens should be fine.
I have a good manfrotto carbon fiber tripod. I used it extensively last weekend with the 70-200, it worked very well.

I'm looking at a Sigma 50-500 from B & H. So far, I've read mostly positive reviews. Of course, as with everything, your mileage may vary, but the trend seems to be positive.
This is the lens I'm looking at.
http://tinyurl.com/5p8yfg

Canon has an L series 400 mm f 5.6, but I hesitate to get that big of a prime since if I need a shorter focal length, say a jump or other obstacle is close to me, I'm out of luck.

Any suggestions?




Joe Fisher
Kalispell, MT
Canon EOS 40D
Canon 85mm f 1.8
Sigma 18-200 IS
Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L

[Joe Fisher]

Another lens that was suggested to me is the Sigma 100-300 f4, along with a 1.4x teleconverter.
The 100-300 has a wider f stop at the long reach than the Sigma Bigma, might come in handy on those overcast days.
Here's a picture I took a couple weekends ago. It came out alright, but I'd like to frame tighter. I took it with my Sigma 18-200

Joe
Kalispell, MT
Canon EOS 40D
Sigma 18-200 f 3.5-5.6
Canon 85mm f 1.8
Canon 70-200 IS L f 2.8





I'm looking at a Sigma 50-500 from B & H.
Any suggestions?

[Joe Fisher]

I forgot the attachment and couldn't figure out how to edit it on.:(

[TenD]

The 50-500 isn't exactly fast so that would put the 100-400 in the running. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 would probably fit the bill exactly for what you do, but it costs a lot of bills and it's huge. I have been very happy with my Canon 100-400 so far, and it would also do a good job for you as long as you have good light.

[cwphoto]

I'd use a 200/2.8 II and a 1.4x TC. Cheap, sharp, and extra length when you need it.

The 100-400 would be fine in good light - but AF wouldn't be as good.

Don't see why you need a zoom for this kind of stuff. Just position yourself in the right place for the framing you want. The dogs are somewhat predictable I would guess.

[Joe Fisher]

I looked at the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I can deal with the size (I always use a tripod), but the expense is another thing.
My Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L is my good low light lens. I can't afford to get another one.

I'm leaning more towards the Sigma 100-300 f4
Although, the 400 reach would be nice, just a couple things.
f4 on the Sigma constant, at the long end of the Canon it's 5.6
I think the f4 on the Sigma would make it better for the fast sport shooting that I do.

Thanks for the input!

The 50-500 isn't exactly fast so that would put the 100-400 in the running. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 would probably fit the bill exactly for what you do, but it costs a lot of bills and it's huge. I have been very happy with my Canon 100-400 so far, and it would also do a good job for you as long as you have good light.

[Joe Fisher]

I'l get the 1.4X TC in any case, but I think I'll want the longer reach of the 300.

I don't need a zoom necessarily, although I don't want to be switching lenses all the time.
Even besides that, the only good Prime lenses I see are the Canon L series, I"m not gonna pay over $4,000 for it.:-) Also, I saw a guy using a Canon 400mm 2.8 at an agility trial a couple weeks ago. That mother is ****huge****! If I got it, I'd want a body just for it cause I can't see me wanting to switch it once I got it on.
I'm looking on Adorama for used lenses, not seeing anything suitable so far.
Thanks for the input!

I'd use a 200/2.8 II and a 1.4x TC. Cheap, sharp, and extra length when you need it.

The 100-400 would be fine in good light - but AF wouldn't be as good.

Don't see why you need a zoom for this kind of stuff. Just position yourself in the right place for the framing you want. The dogs are somewhat predictable I would guess.

[DonSchap]

Consider the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-12.html) (35.9 oz) which is one of the lightest long zooms available.

Personally ... this is my "walkaround" long zoom, because of its lightweight and reasonably good overall performance. It performs easily as well as a 70-300mm, but with that extra reach. You might just want to take a look at it.

The other long lightweight zoom (43 oz) you might want to look at is the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD ... which is sharp, relatively quick to focus, and affordable. It starts where your current zoom ends, so there is that. I will assume that the overlap is far more desireable.

[nqjudo]

I would definitely go for a TC. Give it a try and if it works for you then you have saved yourself the hassle and expense of getting a new lens. I have the 70-200, a 300 prime and the 1.4x TC I never use the 300 without the TC because the difference between 280 and 300 is fairly negligible.

[DonSchap]

The T/C truly impacts (negatively) the focal response of most lenses, because of gearing changes that occur within them between the camera body and the lens drive. Earlier models were different and much faster.

A good test: Place a T/C on a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens and let the fun begin. Go ahead, focus on something ... I'll wait ... and so will you. LOL By the time Lassie finishes the dog course, you might have a solid focus. That's not an "action lens", in my book, that's just plain unneeded annoyance.

You want speed and sharp focus ... buy the glass.

[TenD]

Yes, anything smaller than f/5.6 and the lens won't focus, but that isn't what the TC was designed for. It was designed for fast primes and recently has become popular on zooms. On his 70-200 it will focus just fine. I am really happy with my Kenko Pro DG 300 1.4x.

Canon 300 f/4 Kenko 1.4 TC
I don't have any focus issues with this combination
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r7/casaflyer/CanonEOSDIGITALREBELXT3735.jpg

[Joe Fisher]

I just went ahead and ordered the Canon 1.4 TC. After looking at what I've spent on my hobby since December, I realized I didn't need to spend another $1,000.



I would definitely go for a TC. Give it a try and if it works for you then you have saved yourself the hassle and expense of getting a new lens. I have the 70-200, a 300 prime and the 1.4x TC I never use the 300 without the TC because the difference between 280 and 300 is fairly negligible.