lenses for sports photography

happysmileylady

I shoot portraits mostly, with little bits of whatever else sprinkled in here and there.

One thing I don't shoot much of, or at least not for the purpose of shooting photographs, is sports photography. My dd plays soccer, and next summer will be trying out for the high school team (she's in 8th grade now) and has a pretty good chance of making the team.

When we go to the games, I have a 70-300mm lens, but it's not a great one. As a mom/spectator, I obviously am not able to get too many different angles, though I try to move around the field some, so I don't have a billion snapshots from the same spot/angle.

But, for the most part, that's what I have, snapshots, with a lens that can zoom close. I don't have any money to go lens shopping at all now, or in the near future, but am wondering what lenses you might suggest that have enough zoom to "get close" but are also fast enough to get better action shots. Price is obviously an issue...however, since I am not buying anything any time soon:D

JohnBiggs

happysmileylady wrote:

I shoot portraits mostly, with little bits of whatever else sprinkled in here and there.

One thing I don't shoot much of, or at least not for the purpose of shooting photographs, is sports photography. My dd plays soccer, and next summer will be trying out for the high school team (she's in 8th grade now) and has a pretty good chance of making the team.

When we go to the games, I have a 70-300mm lens, but it's not a great one. As a mom/spectator, I obviously am not able to get too many different angles, though I try to move around the field some, so I don't have a billion snapshots from the same spot/angle.

But, for the most part, that's what I have, snapshots, with a lens that can zoom close. I don't have any money to go lens shopping at all now, or in the near future, but am wondering what lenses you might suggest that have enough zoom to "get close" but are also fast enough to get better action shots. Price is obviously an issue...however, since I am not buying anything any time soon:D

I'm not sure exactly what your problem is. If you want shots that don't look like snapshots perhaps work on composition better. Try getting lower, learn to time your shots, etc. If you need faster shutter speed, then just up the ISO.

If you want a better lens (perhaps for blurring the background) then get the Tamron 70-200 2.8. It's one of the cheaper options for stellar performance.

mercphoto

The die-for lenses for field sports like soccer and football and such are the big prime lenses. A 300mm or a 400mm lens. Canon has f/2.8 varieties but they are really pricey. Canon also makes a 300/4 and a 400/5.6 for far less money, and both are stellar lenses. For photography like this a zoom is almost a waste of money compared to a prime lens. If you had a 70-200 you'd find yourself at 200mm all the time anyway (and it would be too short as well).

Will you be shooting day only? Or also night?

Another thing to consider is purchasing photos from the official photographer, assuming the games are covered. Far less money and hassle than a $4,000 300/2.8 lens.

JohnBiggs

mercphoto wrote:

The die-for lenses for field sports like soccer and football and such are the big prime lenses. A 300mm or a 400mm lens. Canon has f/2.8 varieties but they are really pricey. Canon also makes a 300/4 and a 400/5.6 for far less money, and both are stellar lenses. For photography like this a zoom is almost a waste of money compared to a prime lens. If you had a 70-200 you'd find yourself at 200mm all the time anyway (and it would be too short as well).

Will you be shooting day only? Or also night?

Considering your budget, I was trying not to mention a $1200 lens even. But yes, the 300 would be even better.

Since you are also a portrait photographer the 70-200mm is also very popular for that. In all it will be a very versitile lens.

Still, what were you after when you said you wanted something 'FASTER'? That has several meanings.

jmphotocraft

happysmileylady wrote:

But, for the most part, that's what I have, snapshots, with a lens that can zoom close. I don't have any money to go lens shopping at all now, or in the near future, but am wondering what lenses you might suggest that have enough zoom to "get close" but are also fast enough to get better action shots. Price is obviously an issue...however, since I am not buying anything any time soon:D

Unfortunately your criteria seem mutually exclusive. Fast and not snapshot-looking = background blur = long fast primes (300/2.8, etc), but those are very expensive and less flexible not being zooms. You might look into the 100-400L, which is f/4.5 - 5.6, so I'm not sure it will be fast enough for you or create the blur you're looking for, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much blur it could create when I borrowed a friend's. And in good daylight the speed was not an issue. Two other not stratospherically expensive options are the 300/4 or the 200/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. (I wouldn't get the 70-200/2.8 to use with a TC.)

Qarik

unfortunately the 70-300mm on crop body is probably going to be your best bet. It should do fairly well in daylight. If you want more reach then 400mm lanes are going to run you >$1500 unless you want to go sigma route. You best bang for buck is the sigma 50-500ma for about $1K. A little pricy if you are not shooting anything else.

Perhaps you can simply get better with your current lens.

divamum

One of Canon's best-kept-secrets is the 200mm 2.8L. You can pick them up used for around $500-600, and it's a terrific lens - superfast focusing, sharp wide-open and nice and light (MUCH lighter and smaller than the 70-200 zooms). Because it doesn't have IS - and the DOF at 2.8/200mm is razor-thin - there's something of a learning curve at first as you find the way to get the most out of it (for the record: tripod/monopod, and DON'T use center-focus-recompose unless you're sure you can keep it in the same place vertically as you do so!), but once you figure out how to work with it, it does a wonderful job.

BGtom

Shocker! 300mm lens is TOO big. Film at 11...

happysmileylady wrote:

One thing I don't shoot much of, or at least not for the purpose of shooting photographs, is sports photography...

I have a 70-300mm lens, ...

But, for the most part, that's what I have, snapshots, with a lens that can zoom close. I don't have any money to go lens shopping at all now, or in the near future, but am wondering what lenses you might suggest that have enough zoom to "get close" but are also fast enough to get better action shots. Price is obviously an issue...however, since I am not buying anything any time soon

I assume you mean the canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens? I have used this lens for soccer for a whole season. I now use the canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS. The 70-300 is definitely NOT the lens to use if you want to sell your pix, but it's still good lens. I still use my 70-300 when I can't risk loosing my 200, like on a trip to china. Yes, I know...that's the best place to take it, but it's my bread and butter!

I would LOVE Canon's 300 2.8...it is sharp enough to cut you, and, as a guy, it really makes me feel, well...special. ;-D But it's not going to happen. But after considering my needs, maybe not such a big deal anyway. I shoot/have shot youth baseball, soccer and football. For baseball [I am able to shoot on the field around the dugout] if I have only one camera to use, I would choose the 70-200 because parents want to see ALL of their kid, not just the zit on their nose. For football I am positioned right on the sidelines and can move between the 30 and endzones...I would still choose the 70-200 over a 300mm prime. Why? I have some great shots from 10 yards away that might have benefited from a 50mm, let alone a 70. Again, this is for someone restricted to a single camera body. But even with 2 cameras from the 40 yard line looking at the opposite goal, even 300mm may do nothing for you. You'll get lots of shots, but the action is too compressed and indistinct because of the angle you're shooting at. Those shots are never my keepers because you can't discern any dramatic movement. Great shots [as opposed to snapshots] show faces in concentration and convey movement. For that, you need to be no more than 20 yards down-field. and that's well within 200mm.

My experience w/ soccer was: no bleachers; folding chairs on the sidelines full of parents and umbrellas. So, not being a parent, I was relegated down field in either direction. This is great, though, because now the players are coming toward you 50% of the time and you get faces. Of course, much depends on the position of the player you are trying to get. Forward? Great. Fullback? Nada. In this case, the lens is not the problem. My son played halfback and fullback. I have NO good action pictures of him [but lots of shots of him standing there slack-jawed waiting for his 1 minute of glory in a 90min game]. It also really helps if you know the game; I was never a sports guy...EVER. But I took the time to learn the game so I would know what might happen next to try and stay ahead of the action and whether moving position would benefit my next shot. The other thing to know is: If you want to see the game, don't take pictures. If you want to take pictures, understand that you will miss the game. Great pictures come from shooting hundreds of pix in a game to find 10 great ones.

So, if you don't have the need/budget for spending $1700 for the lowly 70-200 2.8 IS L, or even a measly 1D mkIII second camera body to mount it on, fear not. Your 70-300 is fine. But you need to crop your shots. Frankly, everything out of my camera looks like a snapshot; there is no way around this. You need to post-process your shots and crop them for composition. Unfortunately, this will also make it clear exactly how much your lens cost, but if you avoid cropping too aggressively, you'll have some nice close-up shots. I use Lightroom for this, but Aperture does as well. And since you're on a budget, drive on over to http://www.journeyed.com/ and buy the educational version for a C note: You have a kid in a k-12 school, and Adobe will let you do this. No upgrades, but you can still buy a new version every year for less, and you still get maintenance updates!

Cheers!

mercphoto

Hmmm.... I gotta disagree. The 300/2.8 is THE LENS for field sports. 200mm is just too short. YMMV.

20DNoob

mercphoto wrote:

Hmmm.... I gotta disagree. The 300/2.8 is THE LENS for field sports. 200mm is just too short. YMMV.

While I love my 300 2.8 I've found it at times to not be enough, I'd love for Canon to come out with a 200-400 f/4 like Nikon has.

jmphotocraft

20DNoob wrote:

While I love my 300 2.8 I've found it at times to not be enough, I'd love for Canon to come out with a 200-400 f/4 like Nikon has.

Have you tried the 1.4x teleconverter? Seems 420mm at f/4 would be nice!

Jamfore

lense
I use nikon and have been shooting sports for a while.
I find that the 80-200 2.8 is just fine.

I do have some trouble with the sideline shots being too close sometimes so you have to really watch to see where the action is heading and be ready. This is a good lense and is fine for football. I am not full frame so I do get some conversion factor adding length in there as well.

zack75144

divamum wrote:

One of Canon's best-kept-secrets is the 200mm 2.8L. You can pick them up used for around $500-600, and it's a terrific lens - superfast focusing, sharp wide-open and nice and light (MUCH lighter and smaller than the 70-200 zooms). Because it doesn't have IS - and the DOF at 2.8/200mm is razor-thin - there's something of a learning curve at first as you find the way to get the most out of it (for the record: tripod/monopod, and DON'T use center-focus-recompose unless you're sure you can keep it in the same place vertically as you do so!), but once you figure out how to work with it, it does a wonderful job.

I love this lens and have sold hundreds of photos taken with it.

BGtom

mercphoto wrote:

Hmmm.... I gotta disagree. The 300/2.8 is THE LENS for field sports. 200mm is just too short. YMMV.

I would LOOVVEEEE this lens. But if i MUST choose, it would be for the zoom. The 300 would mean I have to give up any action up close. When i can afford to carry a second camera body and find someone to buy my first born to pay for the 300...:D I'll will TOTALLY be gettin' one!

ziggy53

The combination of 70-200mm zoom on one body and a 300mm or 400mm prime on another body is fairly common amongst professional sports photographers.

JohnBiggs

Ok, if we are talking about near $1000 lenses, I would recommend the 300mm f4 IS L. It's about 4 times cheaper than the 300 2.8, it still works with the 1.4x TC, and it gets great reviews.

Airedrifter

I got to pitch my latest lens the 100-400
That's a nice lens, plenty sharp and somewhat reasonably priced.

I've used it a good bit this Summer in whitewater.

20DNoob

jmphotocraft wrote:

Have you tried the 1.4x teleconverter? Seems 420mm at f/4 would be nice!

I use the set up Ziggy mentioned for Rugby and Baseball, while I have thought about slapping on the 1.4TC it would prove a very limiting combo. Now if I were able to find a Siggy 120-300 at a decent price I'd give the 1.4TC a go without hesitation.

JohnBiggs

20DNoob wrote:

I use the set up Ziggy mentioned for Rugby and Baseball, while I have thought about slapping on the 1.4TC it would prove a very limiting combo. Now if I were able to find a Siggy 120-300 at a decent price I'd give the 1.4TC a go without hesitation.

Ohh the siggy sure is appealing. Its like the lens that canon should be making. Something like 200-400 f2.8 IS DO. since I'm dreaming.

20DNoob

JohnBiggs wrote:

Ohh the siggy sure is appealing. Its like the lens that canon should be making. Something like 200-400 f2.8 IS DO. since I'm dreaming.

Well if it's gotta be a 2.8 we may as well go with the existing Siggy 200-500, your Canon version would cost about the same given the IS DO.

But what would be the reason to keep my lovely 300, I mean aside from it being a lightweight walk around by comparison.

gryphonslair99

ziggy53 wrote:

The combination of 70-200mm zoom on one body and a 300mm or 400mm prime on another body is fairly common amongst professional sports photographers.

That's my typical field sports setup, the 400 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. Often I will add a third body for those before and after game shots with the 24-70 f2.8.

joeinmiami

Another opinion
I too was faced with the same situation having a godson that plays in his HS Baseball and Soccer teams.

I try using a 70-300 on my Nikon 80 and found that, for the most part it did not have the reach for soccer games and not quite there for Baseball. Since my last name is not Gates, am not a close friend of Warren Buffet, I could not afford one of the fast primes.

I did some research and found the Sigma 50-500mm (a.k.a the Bigma) it did have the reach I needed and it had good reviews.

I went ahead and order the lens (I paid about $980.00 for it) I have not been disappointed, the lens takes very good action photos which are, for the most part very sharp.

There are some things to know about this lens, first is is NOT a fast lens, not to be use at night, it is at its best under a bright day, which in my case, all the games are in the day time.

It is also a heavy lens, with the camera attached, it is close to 9 pounds, and since it is not VR ( stibalized ), it requires, at the very least, a monopod.

Once you go over its learning curve, it does have one, you may find that it is a very usable lens for sport photgraphy.

I hope that my 2 cents (Is all I can affort after buying the lens) help you out, and have fun taking photos.

Joe

rpcrowe

If you are shooting from the stands...
IMO, if you are shooting from the stands, you will generally get "snapshot" quality imagery - no matter what lens you use. The stands are NOT the place from which to shoot efffective sports images.

The place to shoot sports images is from the sidelines or the end-zone or whatever they call the scoring area in soccer.

Posters will pontificate that you ABSOLUTELY need this lens of that lens to shoot sports or that you CANNOT shoot sports with another lens. That is a bunch of malarky.

Sure certain lenses are better for sports than other lenses but, here is a link to a posting of sports images shot with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro. That lens is CERTAINLY not one which comes to mind when we think of the best lenses for sports. However as the imagery on this posting proves, you can shoot very good sports images with a lens such as the Sigma. I am not recommending this as a sports lens, simply calling attention to the fact that the photographer is really more important than the gear used.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18145257

The VERY best combination for sports shooting would be the 400mm f/2.8L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses on a pair of 1DMKIII cameras but, this is ridiculous to think that a soccer mom would spend that much for shots of her daughter.

I shoot sports with a 300mm f/4L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras. Not the absolute best but, a very good setup for other than indoor or night sports. However, This would still be far beyond what the occasional shooter would want to spend on equipment.

I would suggest that you

1. Improve your technique with your present equipment by reading and Internet research along with actual field experience.

2. See if you can have access to the sidelines which will probably do more to improve your imagery than new equipment.

Here is a link to several You Tube videos by Scott Sewell regarding sports photography. Although Scott shoots football with professional equipment, his tips carry over to just about any sports venue with any equipment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMgZ13X_pr4

The more you shoot, the easier it becomes. Even just standing on the side of a street and photographing moving cars can improve your technique of shooting moving subjects.

rpcrowe

Add IS

20DNoob wrote:

While I love my 300 2.8 I've found it at times to not be enough, I'd love for Canon to come out with a 200-400 f/4 like Nikon has.

That would be great, especially if it had IS capability.

But if we are wishing, why not extend it to a 200-500mm f/4L IS ?

mercphoto

rpcrowe wrote:

That would be great, especially if it had IS capability.

But if we are wishing, why not extend it to a 200-500mm f/4L IS ?

Any idea how big a 500/4 is? Let alone a 200-500 zoom at f/4??? Let alone the $$$. That's why we don't wish for it.

I agree that shooting from the stands will always give snapshot results. And if that is your vantage point stick with the cheap consumer lens. Buy pics from the working photographer, if there is one. The pics will be better, and you'll spend less on pics than you would the lens.

20DNoob

rpcrowe wrote:

That would be great, especially if it had IS capability.

But if we are wishing, why not extend it to a 200-500mm f/4L IS ?

But we already have a 200-500 option, and better yet it's hand holdable!



Picture from http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/index.htm.

mercphoto

20DNoob wrote:

But we already have a 200-500 option, and better yet it's hand holdable!

Holy smokes! $29,000!!! :O