New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
Neen303 New Member • Posts: 3
New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography

I’m a VERY amateur Mum photographer of my (adult) kids’ sports - mostly field hockey. I currently photograph their games with my Canon EOS 60D with a Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 L USM lens that I’ve owned for seven or eight years.

While I’m mostly happy with the shots I take, I’m thinking about trying to buy something with a longer zoom. Spending thousands to buy a 400mm+ zoom is out of the question - I’m looking at the very cheap end of the market.

So, I’m trying to decide between buying a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens or getting a Canon 1.4x EF Teleconverter Extender Mark III to use with my existing lens. The extender is about double the price of the 75-300mm lens, but I’ve read good reviews about using it with L series zoom lenses like the one I already have.

The question is, am I wasting my time (and money!) thinking about either of these solutions? Will the increase to 300mm come at the expense of image quality if I buy that lens? What about the extender? Is it a reasonable solution to achieving what I want, with less loss of quality than using a cheap lens? Or do I just stick with my 70-200mm and try to manoeuvre myself closer to the action?

Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice!

Janine

Canon EOS 60D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Scott Larson Veteran Member • Posts: 6,930
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography

If you're shooting with the Mark II version of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 then that lens works great with a 1.4X teleconverter. I've been using that combo with soccer. The photos might be a little soft on a 1.6X crop camera though.

 Scott Larson's gear list:Scott Larson's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X +16 more
gavin
gavin Veteran Member • Posts: 8,005
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography
1

used 100-400 mk I? It is good for large field sports. I used it for a while until I got the mk II which is much better but a lot more expensive.

-- hide signature --
 gavin's gear list:gavin's gear list
Sony RX100 III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM +5 more
tdbmd Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography
2

The photos and reviews that I have seen regarding the 75-300 are not good.  I would go with a 1.4x extender before that lens.

 tdbmd's gear list:tdbmd's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS R6 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM +7 more
jh2bh Contributing Member • Posts: 798
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography
1

Definitely go with the 1.4x.  It works well even with the first version of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.

bwbrock Contributing Member • Posts: 804
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography
1

The 1.4x on your 70-200/f2.8 will provide better results than the slightly longer 300 zoom. You may very likely find out, however, that the 1.4x or even 300mm will still be a bit short. I use all Canon glass but for a few exceptions; If you can find a used Sigma 150-600c (contemporary) zoom, it has very good AF performance, quite decent image stabilization and will give you more than enough reach. The best part is used you can find them in the $600 (U.S.) range. Perhaps try to rent one first? Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

-- hide signature --

'Warning labels defeat the effectiveness of natural selection.'

MartyMarathon New Member • Posts: 22
Re: New zoom lens vs teleconverter extender for sports photography
2

Have you considered a Sigma or Tamron 100-400 for a little more reach?

Have you considered renting and doing a little testing?

John_A_G Veteran Member • Posts: 8,022
agree

First, the 75-300 is a rather poor lens. The 70-300 is better performing.  But, they're both a bit on the short side - especially if you can't get right on the sideline.

The Sigma 100-400 is about $800 USD.  If that's too much money and you're only able to spend 1/2 that then buy the TC - but it will still be very short for field hockey unless you are right on the sideline.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads