Quote Originally Posted by WAFKT


However, there are some situations where 200mm just doesn't quite have the necessary reach (e.g. shooting hockey from an NHL arena’s balcony and 280mm with the 1.4x extender is too slow; or shooting track/field sports where even 300mm can still be a bit wide).


Either you need to tell all of us how to get media passes to NHL games as an "aspiring sports photographer", or you need to realize that she'll almost never get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 into an NHL arena, monopod or not. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to get a 100-400 into an NHL event in many cities. I've seen Rebels in our local arena for a minor league hockey game, but I almost had a 1D Mark III and 24-105 taken away at an Alan Jackson concert in the same arena.


For what it's worth, my high-level (read that as "dream") plan is to get the "odd telephotos" first: 135/2, 300/2.8, 500/4 (mixed in with other standard and wide primes, bodies, lighting, etc.) before I get the "even telephotos" last: 200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6. To me, the 300 and 500 are far more versatile since they don't demand a monopod or gimbal head tripod.


That brings up a thought: what about the 200/2? I've heard it's amazing with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. I know she'd end up at 400/4, but it might be a more versatile option in the end.