I totally agree regarding the 70-200 and the 50mm prime. Proper workhorse lenses. I have just updated to the RF versions and will be using them for the first time at a game on Sunday. For Prime tele I have gone for the 400mm f4 DO. lens. I chose that over the 300 f2.8 as I'm using full frame bodies so wanted the longer reach and couldn't afford the 2.8. I have to say I have been delighted with it. Lightweight and although it isn't 2.8 I usually manage at f4. Great image quality and did I say lightweight? It is a joy to use and could be handheld easily. I do use mine on a monopd but that is mostly to be able to park it on shoulder when grabbing the 70-200. I also own the 100-400 which as you mentioned is a bit slow for low light but great quality and very useful on a bright afternoon. I shoot a lot of wildlife where it becomes the equivalent of the essential sports 70-200.
Hi Robert, thanks for watching and some great info there. Let me know how you find the RF versions. The 70-200 and 50mm are so good to have in the bag at pretty much any event!
@@sadeqsegaraga8766 no big difference between the II and III. The III has better fluorite coatings for flare resistance. Between the II III and one, big difference! I has no image stabilization. I is not as sharp as the II and III.
I think the most under rated tele lens for sports photography is the EF400/F4 IS USM MKII DO. I sold my 400/f2.8 L IS MKI due to the weight and to be very honest in terms of size, weight , IQ, AF, etc the DO is fantastic. Also with the high ISO capabilities of the Canon mirrorless cameras I can easily shoot at 12,800 ISO without any problems. Also the 400 MKI is no longer serviced by Canon. Mind you mine was build in Dec 1999 and it worked flawlessly even with the R6!!!
Thank you for your video, really good overview for the entry level lenses! I do have a question: I shoot football (you know, that sport where you actually kick the ball more than one 10 times per match with your feet 🙃). I use two R6 bodies, one with the 70-200 MKii. I now have to decide between the 200-400 f4 and the 400 MKii 2.8. Both are around 6400 Euro used. Do you have an opinion about these lenses or have you talked to other sport photographers about the 200-400 f4? I do shoot a lot of lower league football and I am afraid that f4 would drive up ISO too far (25k). Thank you again for your interesting videos. Greetings from Germany.
Hi Sven, thanks for watching. Sorry it has taken so long to reply. Because you're shooting lower league football and have the 70-200 ii already, I'd personally opt to go for the 400mm 2.8. I have similar challenges with some really poor floodlights, hence my decision to add the 400mm 2.8 to the 70-200mm 2.8 ii. Be good to know what you decide and how it works out for you!
@@Talru Hey, thanks for answering. I bought the 400 2.8 MKII - I am very satisfied but I will have to wait for the first floodlight games to see what happens with ISO and grain.
Hi John, thanks for watching and commenting! That's a great shout, it is indeed a brilliant bit of kit and if you're shooting sports of wildlife, it can be super useful to have!
My 2 cents. The Sigma 120-300 is discontinued and the Canon 300mm f2,8 is discontinued and no longer serviced and no parts available at Canon. Just be aware/
you stumbled a bit with your review of the sigma 120-300 f2.8 as only f2.8 at the 120 focal range, that's incorrect it is actually f2.8 constant from 120mm to 300mm I own this lens and its excellent, 120-300mm f2.8 dg hsm os
I have if you see this, works great with a R3 R5 R6 can't comment on the R7 as I don't have one, im keeping my 300, 400 and 500 im older now so don't see the point selling them and shelling out a mint for the RF versions if and when they come out, but ive not checked the website but 12,000 grand is a lot of money to spend if the new ones come out
I found the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD is truly versatile and affordable For those situations where those players get close to you and for down the field Fast zoom ring, fast autofocus If they made this variable range with a f/2.8 I'd snap it up as it would truly be "the lens"
The lens I'd add to the list is the Canon 300 f4 IS USM. It's ridiculously cheap at this point in time and so much more portable than the 2.8 version. For daylight sports, I prefer it over my 2.8 because of its portability. Plus, it works well as a 420 f5.6 with a 1.4x TC
I totally agree regarding the 70-200 and the 50mm prime. Proper workhorse lenses. I have just updated to the RF versions and will be using them for the first time at a game on Sunday.
For Prime tele I have gone for the 400mm f4 DO. lens. I chose that over the 300 f2.8 as I'm using full frame bodies so wanted the longer reach and couldn't afford the 2.8. I have to say I have been delighted with it. Lightweight and although it isn't 2.8 I usually manage at f4. Great image quality and did I say lightweight? It is a joy to use and could be handheld easily. I do use mine on a monopd but that is mostly to be able to park it on shoulder when grabbing the 70-200. I also own the 100-400 which as you mentioned is a bit slow for low light but great quality and very useful on a bright afternoon. I shoot a lot of wildlife where it becomes the equivalent of the essential sports 70-200.
Hi Robert, thanks for watching and some great info there. Let me know how you find the RF versions. The 70-200 and 50mm are so good to have in the bag at pretty much any event!
another superb video
Good info! Buying my 70-200 2.8 L III really made a huge difference in my photography!
A great lens, the mark 3 is incredible! Glad the video was helpful and thank you for watching!
Big difference between the iii, ii and i?
@@sadeqsegaraga8766 no big difference between the II and III. The III has better fluorite coatings for flare resistance. Between the II III and one, big difference! I has no image stabilization. I is not as sharp as the II and III.
The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 is also a fabulous lens as well. Better than the VC.
I think the most under rated tele lens for sports photography is the EF400/F4 IS USM MKII DO. I sold my 400/f2.8 L IS MKI due to the weight and to be very honest in terms of size, weight , IQ, AF, etc the DO is fantastic. Also with the high ISO capabilities of the Canon mirrorless cameras I can easily shoot at 12,800 ISO without any problems. Also the 400 MKI is no longer serviced by Canon. Mind you mine was build in Dec 1999 and it worked flawlessly even with the R6!!!
i use the 300mm f/2.8 also from 1999!
Thank you for your video, really good overview for the entry level lenses!
I do have a question: I shoot football (you know, that sport where you actually kick the ball more than one 10 times per match with your feet 🙃). I use two R6 bodies, one with the 70-200 MKii.
I now have to decide between the 200-400 f4 and the 400 MKii 2.8. Both are around 6400 Euro used.
Do you have an opinion about these lenses or have you talked to other sport photographers about the 200-400 f4? I do shoot a lot of lower league football and I am afraid that f4 would drive up ISO too far (25k).
Thank you again for your interesting videos. Greetings from Germany.
Hi Sven, thanks for watching. Sorry it has taken so long to reply. Because you're shooting lower league football and have the 70-200 ii already, I'd personally opt to go for the 400mm 2.8. I have similar challenges with some really poor floodlights, hence my decision to add the 400mm 2.8 to the 70-200mm 2.8 ii. Be good to know what you decide and how it works out for you!
@@Talru Hey, thanks for answering. I bought the 400 2.8 MKII - I am very satisfied but I will have to wait for the first floodlight games to see what happens with ISO and grain.
It's not called football because you kick the ball 🤦🤦🤦🤦
Timestamp 11:53 Don't be cut up about how they look. 😂That's called, "buying street cred." 🤪
What about the 28-300 l lens brilliant bit of kit
Hi John, thanks for watching and commenting! That's a great shout, it is indeed a brilliant bit of kit and if you're shooting sports of wildlife, it can be super useful to have!
My 2 cents. The Sigma 120-300 is discontinued and the Canon 300mm f2,8 is discontinued and no longer serviced and no parts available at Canon. Just be aware/
you stumbled a bit with your review of the sigma 120-300 f2.8 as only f2.8 at the 120 focal range, that's incorrect it is actually f2.8 constant from 120mm to 300mm I own this lens and its excellent, 120-300mm f2.8 dg hsm os
I think he meant the widest end is only 120mm, so if a player gets close to you, you may not be able to frame the shot.
have you ever used the frst version of the 400 2.8 on the new mirrorless systems (R7 R6 mk2 etc) Talru?
No I haven't as of yet, would love to give it a try. I'd really love to try one out on an R3 someday!
I have if you see this, works great with a R3 R5 R6 can't comment on the R7 as I don't have one, im keeping my 300, 400 and 500 im older now so don't see the point selling them and shelling out a mint for the RF versions if and when they come out, but ive not checked the website but 12,000 grand is a lot of money to spend if the new ones come out
I found the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD is truly versatile and affordable
For those situations where those players get close to you and for down the field
Fast zoom ring, fast autofocus
If they made this variable range with a f/2.8 I'd snap it up as it would truly be "the lens"
The lens I'd add to the list is the Canon 300 f4 IS USM. It's ridiculously cheap at this point in time and so much more portable than the 2.8 version. For daylight sports, I prefer it over my 2.8 because of its portability. Plus, it works well as a 420 f5.6 with a 1.4x TC
Hi Brian, thanks for watching and that's a great shout on the 300mm f4! Super lens
I have the 400mm sibling and would love to see this 300 IS in my kit bag