I rented the new Canon RF 100-300mm, f2.8 telephoto lens (from lensrentals.com—shameless plug) to shoot basketball this week and at the Chicago Elite Classic. So here are my thoughts on using it to shoot basketball.
I know this is all inside baseball for all but the nerdiest sports shooters. The Canon 300mm 2.8 is a staple, a legend. Ubiquitous one might say. Sun-Times photographer Allen Cunningham told me several years ago that when he got a 300/2.8, it changed for his photography. It made him feel like and shoot like a pro. That’s pretty damn high praise from maybe the best sports photograher in the State of Illinois.
I recently got a Canon R3, the flagship mirrorless camera, the best sports camera that I have used. So the new RF (meaning Canon mirrorless) lens 100-300mm would be nice.
Word is that Canon no longer manufactures its iconic 300mm 2.8 prime. If one wants that legendary, life-changing lens, it will have to be one like the new RF 100-300mm, 2.8 telephoto zoom that I rented.
Except it costs like $9,000. I know, it will last a lifetime and change your life, make you into a pro-level shooter. But . . . $9,000? Plus tax. That’s a lot of money. Like a car. The first car that I bought was a lot less than that, new.
I own a Canon 300mm zoom but it is not f2.8. It’s a good useful lens, especially for daylight football, but it is not razor sharp like the legend.I have use the EF 300 prime quite a few times. I rented the 300mm 2.8 prime when the occasion called for it.
So, is the new 300mm zoom better than the old 300mm prime?
Sure seems to be it is to me. It’s just a razor ship and quick on the auto focus as the legend. No issue there. It’s seems a little longer and a little heavier. Not an issue when it comes to the old versus the new.
But that is not the comparison that interests me. The question now is does the new 300/2.8 take out the other legend, the truly ubiquitous Canon 70-200mm/f2.8 lens that everyone needs, everyone has and everyone loves. It is the basketball lens. One cannot shoot a basketball game without one. One cannot hardly live life without that great lens. It is the most, and I write this without the slightest bit of exaggeration, the best and most important lens in the history of the world.
What if one just extends the reach of the GOAT another 100mm? Does the new lens to that? Does this lens give one the fully reach to the other end of the court for the tight shots without the unacceptable crop factor? I thought to myself, I am a big guy heavy lens have not bother me before. The significant weight should not be an issue.
Could this new lens revolutionize the world of photography. A revolution, even at the cost of $9,000, might be worth it.
I shot seven games with it, and parts of a couple other. It was big and heavy to use for basketball in place of a 70-200mm. I found that I really needed the 24-70mm for right under the basket. I also found the 70-200 is indispensible for the near court action. the 70-200 is quicker to pick up, point and shoot than the 100-300.
Admittedly, the 100-300 was great for the far court action. I got some shots in the Kenwood v. Thornton game at the Chicago Elite Classic that I have never gotten before.
So the conclusion? The 100-300 is just too heavy and the throw from 100mm and 300mm is just to slow.
So I guess the long and longer of it is that for basketball the 100-300 is a bit of a luxury. It has an application on a big college-sized court. I might and probably will rent one for a state championship finals. But for $9,000, at this stage in my career, such as it is, it is just too expensive of a piece of glass.
But for football, I could definitely use one. Just no way around it. If one is going to shoot a high school football night game, one must have one. But I already knew that.
This was about the impact of the lens on basketball. So no. The new lens does not take over basketball.
I guess when I win the lottery I will get one to use for football, soccer and lacrosse and occasionally for basketball. The 70-200 is safe.
