Next purchase?

[LovePhotography]

So, I've got a 70-200 2.8 II, 6D, and a 2.0 Tele III, and many other lenses, but, currently nothing longer than that. I really want a 200-400 1.4 but am hesitating because of the price. But, I was talking to photo professor at a local big time university, and he said with my 6D, I shouldn't buy the 200-400 unless I also (or first) buy a 1Dx body. I was holding off until the next generation since I like the 6D sensor, although I realize the 1Dx can do other stuff the 6D can't do. Which is more important to own- the 1Dx or the 200-400 1.4? If I get the 200-400 is it that important to get the 1Dx? Thoughts? A 200-400 1.4 with 1Dx total like $17,000! Ouch.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Buy Canon 200-400mm presupposes that you will shoot sports like football, or wildlife, and 6D has slow autofocus for these uses. I think 5D Mark iii can do almost everything in the autofocus department, and the price is more friendly. If you shoot with good lighting, even 7D Mark ii can be much better than 6D, when requires fast focus and many photos per second.

 

[Dylan777]

What kind of photography do you shoot?

Latest deal on 1dx: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23020.msg446487;topicseen#new

 

[Jim Saunders]

What about a 5D3?

Jim

 

[Steve]

What kind of photography do you shoot?

Most important question.

Next most important question - how is your current gear limiting what you want to shoot? Is there some reason the (very large, very expensive) 200-400 f4 is the required lens for your purposes rather than, say, the (much smaller, much more affordable) 100-400 f4-5.6?

 

[LovePhotography]

I shoot a little bit of everything from Friday night football to landscape.

 

[LovePhotography]

And I'm big into resolution. If I'm gonna take the time to shoot the shots, within reasonable expense (not Zeiss Otus, but Sigma Art, or maybe Canon 200-400 1.4 since there seems to be no alternative) I'd like them to be high res. I tried out my 2x tele III on the 70-200 2.8 II the other night at football, but it clearly is not a long term solution (at least not on that lens).
I hesitate to even post this link, because I shot a lot of the pics with the 70-200 with the 2x tele, and I'm not at all happy with the outcome. (
http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-Homecoming-9/

The guy with the 200-400 1.4 is the guy I talked to.

 

[Dylan777]

And I'm big into resolution. If I'm gonna take the time to shoot the shots, within reasonable expense (not Zeiss Otus, but Sigma Art, or maybe Canon 200-400 1.4 since there seems to be no alternative) I'd like them to be high res. I tried out my 2x tele III on the 70-200 2.8 II the other night at football, but it clearly is not a long term solution (at least not on that lens).
I hesitate to even post this link, because I shot a lot of the pics with the 70-200 with the 2x tele, and I'm not at all happy with the outcome. (
http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-Homecoming-9/

The guy with the 200-400 1.4 is the guy I talked to.

If you shoot sports often and budget is on tighter side, I would suggest 5D III + 300mm or 400mm f2.8 IS II.

This combo will give more adv AF system & faster shutter speed for indoor/night time games. I've seen some great sport photos from 6D shooters, just not sure what is their keeper rate is.

1DX is of course the best body in current Canon line up. However, you going to need reach and fast prime(s) to shoot sports.

 

[LovePhotography]

I am not really considering long white primes. I understand the resolution and the price, but they are too limiting. I'm gonna get a Sigma 50 Art when the figure out the focus issues for resolution, and maybe a 24 T/S II for wider resolution, but with you are too close with a 400mm prime there is not a damn thing you can do about it except walk backwards 50 yards!

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Unlike others I am not lusting after the Canon 200-400 - mainly because I would rarely use it at 400mm and mostly use it at 560mm.
However, having used one, I think it is a great lens if it suits your needs. The first thing that struck me was how fast the AF is. It made my 600 F4 IS seem distinctly pedestrian and was VERY nearly as quick as my 300 F2.8 - maybe as quick! Even on a 6D it is going to AF pretty quick.
I don't own a 6D (yet!) but I am a fan of this camera, nevertheless I can't help feeling that for sports etc a significantly faster camera may be a better first step. I replaced my Canon 1D4 with the 1DX and find it to be a significantly faster responding camera with superior AF.
I would normally advocat glass before camera bodies but perhaps you should try a 1DX before you decide.

 

[Steve]

If you shoot sports often and budget is on tighter side, I would suggest 5D III + 300mm or 400mm f2.8 IS II.

If you absolutely must buy gear, this post makes more sense than the 200-400. I'd emphasize the 300 2.8 with a 1.4TC/2xTC in your pocket for when you want to shoot out to the pitchers mound. It's (relatively) light and maneuverable, ultra sharp and ultra fast. If resolution is what you're after, this seems like the setup.

I honestly didn't see anything in your gallery that says you are being limited by gear. Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but local newspaper guys work with a lot less, often Rebels/xxD's and 70-300's, and get good shots. I've seen guys shooting basketball with Oly m43. The answer is almost always more practice, not more gear.

 

[tiger82]

I shot this with a 1D Mark IV and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS from the sidelines on manual 1250 f/4 Auto ISO. I'd like a 200-400 too but I have to get the best with the gear I can afford. Can you get closer to what you are shooting? Come out of the stands to the sidelines

 

[tiger82]

BY the Way, my 70-200 focuses much faster with the 1D series 11.1V system than the 5D or 70D 7.2V system. Even my old 1D3 focused faster than the 5D3 I had on CPS loan

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a good idea to balance quality of camera body with lens. However, the AF speed of the 6D center point is fine. Its weakness comes in the off center focus points and the plastic construction. One series cameras have a higher battery voltage which can drive a focus motor faster, and, of course, construction is supurb.

With your 6D, I'd be tempted to pre-order the $2,000 Sigma Sport 150-600mm lens. Its not really going to be a handheld lens, but neither is the 200-400.

 

[tiger82]

Used, good condition 1D Mark IV = $2500
Sell 6D =$1300

Total cost $1200 beats $2000 for a new Sigma

Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0

 

[Steve]

Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0

This. Unless its mens collegiate or above, it shouldn't be too difficult to get access. Shots from field/court level are a million times better.

 

[tiger82]

High School should be easy and non major college men's sports as well. I'd suggest reading up on sideline rules for both levels.

 

[LovePhotography]

Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0

This. Unless its mens collegiate or above, it shouldn't be too difficult to get access. Shots from field/court level are a million times better.

I've already shot from the sidelines, or in front row of bleachers. I just thought I'd try this because you get a better view of the whole field, better orientation of where on the field, not dealing with players on the sidelines as much (or in this case with 6 man football, a couple yards onto the field), dealing with players on the field blocking the view of the ball handler, and dealing with the crown of the field. TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot. But, here is what my sideline, or near sideline shots look like. http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-9192014/i-vLpGDMK
For these I did not use the 2x tele III

 

[Steve]

TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot.

TV and stills are entirely different animals. TV needs much wider coverage so the audience can see what's happening and follow the action. Stills need to create a sense of drama and conflict in order to pull out the emotion from the players. You need to be able to see the expressions on their faces. You need to pull the players in close with stills. Shooting from the sidelines/courtside at eye level with the players gives you a sense of intimacy and allows the viewer of the picture to connect emotionally. Shooting from the stands makes it look like a board game and pulls you away from the human drama happening on the field. This is fine for wide shots on TV where you often want to see the bigger picture but you'll notice that TV still uses courtside closeups to pull you in. A really good rule of thumb I've tried to stick to for sports photography is Two Faces, One Ball. Its not 100% required for a good shot but its a good goal to shoot for.

I've not had the opportunity to shoot handegg but I've shot plenty of basketball, hockey and soccer and there isn't a lens that's being manufactured that can make shots from the far end of the field/court look good. A 300 or 400 or 200-400 is great, but you're still going to need to shoot the closer half of the field/court pretty much always. Shooting in closer gets you those facial expressions and it gets you subject isolation - your background will be more out of focus and less distracting. You have to know why you're using that long lens. It doesn't work well as a telescope to shoot the back end of the field.

 

[tiger82]

You can't sit in one place and expect to cover all of the angles. You'll have to move closer and change positions relative to the action.