Agreed, Sinh Nhut.
The monopod is the way to go. Like I said before, I'd go with the 400, for versatility.
Agreed, Sinh Nhut.
The monopod is the way to go. Like I said before, I'd go with the 400, for versatility.
I can rent the 300mm f/2.8 locally, I'll likely let her give that a
try. If she find the weight of that to be close to her limit then I suppose
I'll buy her that one (sounds like it will make a great indoor sports lens at 300mm f/2.8, and a decent outdoor sports lens at 420mm f/4 with 1.4x extender). However, if she handles the 300mm f/2.8 just
fine, but finds that it doesn't have the reach she desires, then I'll buy her the
400mm f/2.8 and hope for the best.
Thanks for all the great insight.
WAFKT,
You may want to take in account if you'll be going from the 50D that she currently owns (1.6X crop factor) to the new 1D Mark IV (1.3X crop factor) she will lose focal length. If you get the 300 2.8 it's a 480mm on the 50D but only a 390mm on the 1D Mark IV. The difference is even more pronounced with the 400mm with the difference of 120mm loss. Just something to think about if you're serious about her getting the 1D series.
Fred~
Originally Posted by WAFKT
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.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
I use both lenses quite a lot. I can say that you will not be disappointed with either lens and you really aren't handicapped by your choice. I think the question of weight is quite relevant. I can handhold the 300 for an entire game if necessary, but the 400 is out of the question. Even on my monopod, the 400 is very heavy and very akward. I've compared the 400 to having a small child on top of your monopod. I'm not a small guy (6-2, 215) and I find the 400 hard to use for an entire tournament weekend. It's just that big and akward. The IQ from both lenses is spectacularly good.
The first picture is with the EF300mm f/2.8, the second picture is from the EF400mm f/2.8. Both ran front page...I think you can use either lens and shoot great stuff.
You'd be surprised what they'll let a
cute little thing walk-in with. Full Disclosure: She's never taken her
gear into the arena for an NHL game (they're pretty strict on that;although she's never actually tried -
she usually brings her G10 to those games), but she has got her gear
into the same arena for WHL and NLL games (supposedly they have the
same restrictions on photographic equipment, but they seem a little
less strict at enforcing it - I've seen a few guys with 200mm get
tossed, but they seem to leave my wife alone). I agree, she'll likely
never get a 300mm or 400mm in the door (regardless of the event)
without a press pass. There are some sports photography internships
available for students, but you have to have your own pro gear - I'm
just trying to do my part to give her every advantage over other
applicants.
We hadn't given any thought to the 200mm f/2.0 L IS
USM - was really hoping to narrow down the choices not add a third one to the mix, but thanks for the recommendation. In all
honesty, I hoping that if I dropped $9K on the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM I'd
get to play with it too - I saw some cool shots that someone had taken
with a 400mm and 2.0x and 1.4x extender stacked - 1120mm f/5.6
equivalent (the 1200mm f/5.6 at B&H is only slightly out of our price range - sarcasim if anyone missed that); 560mm f/4 just doesn't seem as cool? I know, it's all
about what's best for my wife... Certainly one nice thing about the
200mm f/2.0 L IS USM at the moment is the $500 rebate (there's no rebate
available at the moment for the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM or 300mm f/2.8 L
IS USM) - maybe a good time to pick it up.
Not to sidetrack the discussion about the big lenses, but media credentials or not necesaarily impossible to obtain. Try these steps in your area.
1. Shoot a decent portfolio of actions shots from some local high school events. Don't worry about volume, just get some spectacular shots.
2. Choose your best two or three and send them to the Director of Photography at your local paper asking if theyneed freelancers.
3. If your portfolio is up to the paper's standards, expect to receive a 12-page Word document in the return e-mail asking you to sign away your first born in return for a small fee per published assignment. Expect to spend more on gas and food covering the event than you actually get paid! Repeat the chant, I do this for the art, not the money.
4. Discuss upcoming events with the DoP and ask him / her to send the required fax to a team's media relations requesting credentials. This may be no more than an e-mail with your name if the paper and team have a long relationship. Expect to get obscure high school or college events until you seem reliable to the DoP and don't be suprise when the "best shot of your life" appears in a 1" sqaure on page 16.
5. Once published, start collecting your tear sheets...
Okay, then I apologize for this. If the 400 isn't too heavy, fine. If the 300 has enough reach, fine. But if the 300 isn't long enough and the 400 is too heavy, it seems that your only option is to abandon f/2.8. One stop buys a lot of portability. Eg, even the 500 f/4 is lighter than the 400 f/2.8. I've never used it, but I'm told it is much easier to deal with than the 400 f/2.8.
</div>
Great advice, my wife is chasing down some leads to do just that - getting good gear is also part of that equation; no one's interested in sport photos you shot on a Rebel with a kit lens at f5.6 (eventhough I've seen some that try). Fortunately for her the mortgage payment and equipment purchases don't hinge upon her making money at it - although it would hurt!
Photography seems like a pretty lousy field to make money. I know that some people do, but for what you've got to do and accomplish to make the kind of money... you've got to be pretty exceptional, and put in a whole lot on the front end, at least it seems so.
That said, I really wish I was one of those who could/did/does. Assuming you're working in an environment you like, it seems like one of the best jobs ever. Probably why there's so much cheap competition.
I guess if there was an EASY way to make a lot of money, everybody'd do it.
However, from what I've seen, it seems like the people who really make good money at what they do spend most of their time telling OTHER people what to do for them. But it takes a certain perspective on things to make that any fun. Probably why so few people do it well enough to actually make it lucrative... Tangent.
FWIW, I thought you were a part owner of the team or something. I think that would probably get her access, probably.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
