Looking for zoom lens beyond 200mm for r6 2 for high school sports that is within a $2-3k budget.

[KKCFamilyman]

Looking for zoom lens beyond 200mm for r6 2 for high school sports that is within a $2-3k budget.

Something beyond my 70-200. Possibly a r7 for crop reach or not sure what else is affordable.

 

[Loswr]

Refurbished R5 and cropping. Or an R7. Or if you’re not using DxO for RAW conversion, that for NR and an RF 100-500 might work (I find ISO 25600 usable with DeepPrime XD. If your 70-200 is an adapted EF, perhaps a 1.4xIII behind it.

That’s Canon. Perhaps people here know of third-party options for EF that would be adaptable.

Unfortunately, getting past 200mm with a fast zoom in that range is costly. The RF 100-300/2.8 is great for high school action indoors or under lights, but it’s $$$.

I’ve seen used 300/2.8L IS MkI primes under $3K.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

Refurbished R5 and cropping. Or an R7. Or if you’re not using DxO for RAW conversion, that for NR and an RF 100-500 might work (I find ISO 25600 usable with DeepPrime XD. If your 70-200 is an adapted EF, perhaps a 1.4xIII behind it.

That’s Canon. Perhaps people here know of third-party options for EF that would be adaptable.

Unfortunately, getting past 200mm with a fast zoom in that range is costly. The RF 100-300/2.8 is great for high school action indoors or under lights, but it’s $$$.

I’ve seen used 300/2.8L IS MkI primes under $3K.

Do you think the R7 would be cleaner vs 100-500 with higher iso? I am torn as I do not have an R7 to test. I do want the 100-300 2.8 rf but the cost is insane.

 

[Loswr]

Do you think the R7 would be cleaner vs 100-500 with higher iso? I am torn as I do not have an R7 to test. I do want the 100-300 2.8 rf but the cost is insane.

Depends on the framing you need. Your 70-200 with an R7 is equivalent to 112-320mm for FoV. If that's enough, you'll probably be better off with the R7. But if you need to crop that 320mm to the FoV of 500mm on FF, you'll be better off with the 100-500 on the R6, IMO. Note that I'm assuming you have a 70-200/2.8, if you have an f/4 lens then the differences with the 100-500 will be less.

 

[DhlcadR6]

RF100-400 is always available, for cheap.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

Depends on the framing you need. Your 70-200 with an R7 is equivalent to 112-320mm for FoV. If that's enough, you'll probably be better off with the R7. But if you need to crop that 320mm to the FoV of 500mm on FF, you'll be better off with the 100-500 on the R6, IMO. Note that I'm assuming you have a 70-200/2.8, if you have an f/4 lens then the differences with the 100-500 will be less.

I have the 70-200 2.8

 

[jd7]

Only suggestion I've got if you want longer than 200mm and wide aperture in that price range is to look into a second hand sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and EF/RF adapter.

I have never used one so I can't speak from experience about the lens. However, here is a starting point if you are interested in investigating the Sigma lens (and note Sigma made several versions of it over the years)

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens Review

Is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review - Page 4 of 6

photographylife.com

 

[AlanF]

Only suggestion I've got if you want longer than 200mm and wide aperture in that price range is to look into a second hand sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and EF/RF adapter.

I have never used one so I can't speak from experience about the lens. However, here is a starting point if you are interested in investigating the Sigma lens (and note Sigma made several versions of it over the years)

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens Review

Is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review - Page 4 of 6

photographylife.com

It weighs about 3.5 kg. I once tried to hand hold one and gave up, so you either need to be strong or use a mono or tripod.

 

[kaihp]

I would consider the RF 100-400, or one of the Sigma 150-600mm lenses (C/S).

 

[scyrene]

I would consider the RF 100-400, or one of the Sigma 150-600mm lenses (C/S).

Given the narrow aperture, I'm not sure the RF 100-400 would be suitable for high school sports, people who shoot it regularly talk about low light levels?

 

[unfocused]

What sports are you shooting? Indoors the 70-200 f2.8 is best. Outdoors in daylight the 100-500 RF is best. For nighttime games it depends on the quality of the lighting. If you can shoot at ISO 6400 or less then adding an R7 and using the 70-200 is your least cost option. If you need to go above 6400 then things get expensive because you will want to stick to full frame and use a fast lens. Field position is important too. The closer you are to the stadium lights the brighter the lights will be.

Edit- if you shoot from the end zone and the players are running towards you, you can get away with a slower shutter speed than the sidelines.

For fall evening sports shooting early in the season when there is some ambient light helps depending on your time zone and how far north or south you are.

 

[edaniels6902]

Looking for zoom lens beyond 200mm for r6 2 for high school sports that is within a $2-3k budget.

Something beyond my 70-200. Possibly a r7 for crop reach or not sure what else is affordable.

Not zoom, but have you considered a used 300 2.8? I'd wager you can find a used ef 300 2.8 or even 400 2.8 in that price range. I see used 300 2.8 locally on a regular basis for under $2k, and every so often a 400 2.8 in that range also.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Not zoom, but have you considered a used 300 2.8? I'd wager you can find a used ef 300 2.8 or even 400 2.8 in that price range. I see used 300 2.8 locally on a regular basis for under $2k, and every so often a 400 2.8 in that range also.

Same thoughts, EF 300/2.8L IS(1st gen) used is around 2k USD. Pair it with R5/R6/R7 is quite decent.

 

[axtstern]

Sigma 120-300 OS HSM Sport for canon is used 2300$ and a brand new one not much more expensive.
If you want to go even lower in price take the older Sigma 120-300 2.8 (which I have) and use IBIS instead of OS
If you want to go low in price and weight than the Sigma 100-300 4,0 HSM. Looks antique with his 3 time outdated exterial design but I use it when the Canon EF 300 4.0 L is not flexible enough and while others complain about the optical flaws it is still sharp enough for the picture sizes I use

All above mentioned lenses work with the Canon RF adapter if you go with the R6 and even the speedbooster adater from Viltrox (if you choose the R7)