Upgrade help! - Lens or Camera?

[kailash6759]

Hey guys I’m a sports photographer and I’m currently shooting with a canon m50 alongside a 24-70 2.8 lens. I’m willing to upgrade either my camera body and I also want to get a 70-200 2.8 lens. For sports photography what is more needed first. Upgrade from m50 to canon R5 or R6( my options) or just get a 70-200 2.8 for now and upgrade the body later on

[rs-eos]

If you have enough budget for it, I would strongly recommend getting the RF 70-200 f/2.8 lens along with an R-series camera.

If keeping your existing M50 body, you wouldn't be able to get the RF 70-200 lens as it's not compatible (no adapter exists).  See Will Lens X work with Camera Y for details.   Thus, you'd end up spending on the EF version of the lens.   And while you could later get an EF to RF adapter when moving to an R-series body, I feel this is not the best.

[amfoto1]

It's not an either/or thing.  You need BOTH! M50 is not a great camera for sports photography. And 24-70mm isn't long enough telephoto for a lot of sports.

l would recommend getting the less expensive R7 (which has the same APS-C format sensor as your current camera) and looking for a good deal on a 70-200mm f/2.8L II or III or a 70-200mm f/4 IS (either version). The f/4 lenses are smaller, lighter, but very capable too. 

Both the R5 and R6 are full frame cameras, so you will need longer lenses with either of them to get the same angle of view you do now. You'll need a 70-300 or 100-400, instead of the 70-200mm.

Compared to R6, the R7 is $1000 less expensive. Compared to the R5 the R7 is about $2000 cheaper. $1000 isn't enough to get a new or very recent 70-200mm f/2.8, but can probably get you the f/4 lens used or refurbished. $2000 is plenty to get you any of the EF 70-200mm lenses. 

But if you go with an R7 you might want to get an RF 70-200mm instead. You probably won't find them used, yet. They are too new for that. There is choice of f/2.8 or f/4, same as with the EF lenses. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is about $2600. But the RF 70-200mm f/4 is about $1500.

There also is a very affordable and compact RF 100-400mm f/5.6-6 IS USM.Yes, it's a smaller, variable aperture... but the mirrorless R-series cameras can handle it. And it only costs $649.

Another, more expensive option is the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM. Great lens, but $2699 (on sale).

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

 

[Tronhard]

I agree with the posts from my colleagues that neither body, nor lens is suitable for sports work.  I concur with Alan that for sports you want the tracking and focus of the R-series bodies and the R7, with its IBIS, crop sensor and tracking is the best-performing candidate.  As far as a lens goes - not knowing how far away you are going to be from your subjects (e.g. an inside table tennis tournament in a relatively dimly lit hall is a different situation entirely from a football or baseball match played outside in good light), is a bit of a challenge.  For inside work it would be desirable to have a fast lens - to save money and weight for that scenario, something like the 70-200L f/4 (you could do well to get the EF version with the EF-RF adapter. 
For more distant work, especially in more reasonable light ,you want reach over fast aperture, so a minimum of the EF 70-300 IS USM MkII, or if you can afford it the RF 100-400 IS STM lens.   You might even consider the Sigma (or Tamron) 150-600 lenses, designed for the EF mount, but can be used with an EF-RF adapter.

[ebiggs1]

"It's not an either/or thing.  You need BOTH! M50 is not a great camera for sports photography. And 24-70mm isn't long enough telephoto for a lot of sports."

I would have said the same thing exactly so I will just quote it again. However, I would add that depending on what sport you are shooting the 70-200mm f2.8L may not be the correct lens either. I am not a sport photographer but over the years I have been asked to cover some games. I love having my ef 70-200mm f2.8L I never go anywhere without it. But I find my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens a better choice and my Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Sports DG OS HSM Lens the best choice for football and baseball.

As a matter of fact I bought the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens from an NCAA pro sports photographer that shot NCAA basketball games with it. (He was switching brands!)