300 or 400mm for Runners?

I’m a runner who’s participated in hundreds of races (from 5Ks to marathons) and an amateur/hobbyist photographer.

When I’m not racing, I usually bring my Canon 5D Mark III and a 70-200mm lens. It’s worked very well for what I’m trying to get—some close-ups, and some wider angle shots. If you’d like an example of my photos using this combination at a recent race, here’s a link: https://gojim.smugmug.com/Sports/Bridge-Dam-Half-Marathon-10K-5K-2018/ Most of these photos were cropped to some extent, and reduced in size for web viewing. I don’t sell photos (this is strictly for fun), but I’m not sure that I’d do anything differently if I did.

I might add that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pro photographer at a marathon using anything as long as a 400mm. May I suggest you go to a large running race, where you can talk to some of the photographers at the start/finish line or out on the course, to ask for their thoughts? They’ve always been willing to share their thoughts when I’ve stopped to ask questions. (I’m so slow, it doesn’t really matter. :) )

Hope this helps.

Jim
 
Upvote 0
Go_Jim said:
Hope this helps.

Jim

Helped immensely. Thanks and all of the wavers confirmed the selection of a 400mm lens. There has to be a way to prevent runners who wave at the camera during a race to not have children. I think that thumbs ups might even be worse; if that's possible.
On a side note, just started Marine Corps Marathon 2018 training.
 
Upvote 0
Oh, Cory, Cory, Cory. You don’t understand runners. They’re the BIGGEST hams in the world, and LOVE to be photographed smiling, giving a thumbs-up, doing heel clicks, flexing biceps, etc. I’d wager that most runners don’t like photos showing a blank, pained stare on their face. Other than at the finish line, they’re suffering (and show it on their faces), and are usually looking at the pavement ahead of them. Who needs or wants a memory of that?

Good luck at MCM!

P.S. I usually carry a small point-and-shoot camera with me during marathons, and bring home some great memories. You might think about doing the same. Here are two examples:

GO! St. Louis Marathon 2017: https://gojim.smugmug.com/Sports/GO-St-Louis-Marathon-Half-Marathon-7K-2017/

Chevron Houston Marathon 2015: http://gojim.tv/Photo_Files/Chevron_Houston_Marathon_2015/Race_Photos.html
 
Upvote 0
Thanks Jim:
I don't know what it is - runners waving just makes me nuts.
This Sunday's race is for 2 organizations that serve the sight-impaired.
I've totally decided to keep my day job and am doing it for free and maybe using my 135 to capture a barn in the background that's on the course.
Doing it for free is nice because I run the show and not the Race Director; although he's super nice in this case.
 
Upvote 0
I photograph a lot of cross country running. With a crop camera, I tend to use 35mm, 60mm and 135mm lenses - but that is mostly because you can position yourself anywhere and be as close as you want. I think the final answer just comes down to access to the track and what sort of image you want. 300mm is usually too long for me, but I still use it when I can get a reasonable distance in front of the runners and want a shot of everyone running towards the camera.
 
Upvote 0
There are many reasons to go to a long lens like a 300 or 400. Reach is obviously one. I can't walk closer, but I can shoot closer.

But style is another. A long lens photo looks very different. In many ways it "says" sports photography. I looks like the photos in sports illustrated.

And of course today you might be shooting with $5000 of the best DSLR and wide angle lens, and the guy next to you is using an iPhone and getting similar results. But he is not going to be shoot at 300mm f2.8...

My advise is if you do pick up a long lens, use it!, but don't use it exclusively.
 
Upvote 0