Best Canon Lens for Sports Photography

tshaddick

I am looking at upgrading from my current lens 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens to a better lens, but I don't know which lens is the best. I shoot mostly motorcycle racing, and have had good results with my current lens, but wondering if the results would improve with a new lens. More zoom would be nice (whether a 400mm or a 300mm L with TC). Any suggestions would be appreciated, as I am looking to make a purchase relatively soon.

Thanks!

kdog

Best lenses for the given criteria would be the 300 F2.8 or the 400mm F2.8. Feel free to refine that criteria.

-joel

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

Best lenses for the given criteria would be the 300 F2.8 or the 400mm F2.8. Feel free to refine that criteria.

-joel

Seeing the gear he has...I would say your suggestion is inappropriate.

The 300L IS f/4 + 1.4 tc would be a reasonable place to start and expect a dynamic difference over what is currently being used.

kdog

Ric Grupe wrote:

Seeing the gear he has...I would say your suggestion is inappropriate.

The question posed was "Best Canon Lens for Sports Photography" with no other criteria given. Given that I qualified my response with "for the given criteria", I believe my response was perfectly appropriate.

Besides, even if the lenses I mentioned are out of his price range, it's still useful to look at them and understand why these lenses are the very best and to see where the trade-offs lie when you downscale in price.

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

The question posed was "Best Canon Lens for Sports Photography" with no other criteria given. Given that I qualified my response with "for the given criteria", I believe my response was perfectly appropriate.

Besides, even if the lenses I mentioned are out of his price range, it's still useful to look at them and understand why these lenses are the very best and to see where the trade-offs lie when you downscale in price.

My response was qualified too as stated and in that light. A little touchy aren't we?

tshaddick

You're right, I do not to qualify my question slightly. I would like to spend no more than $2,000. Therefore...I am looking for the best sports lens for $2,000 or less.

Also, would an upgrade of the body (currently T1i) improve the quality of the photos? I have been looking at the 7D.

tshaddick

Ric Grupe wrote:

Seeing the gear he has...I would say your suggestion is inappropriate.

The 300L IS f/4 + 1.4 tc would be a reasonable place to start and expect a dynamic difference over what is currently being used.

Is this better than the 100-400L IS??? If so, what makes it better

photokandy

I suspect that upgrading your body will usually have less effect on your results than will upgrading your glass. The T1i is a 15mp sensor, and the 7D has 18mp in the same space (both are APS-C). I would expect the image quality using the same glass on either camera to be very similar.

What might make the difference for you is the focusing points the 7D has -- a lot more than the T1i. However, if you have no problem focusing on the T1i, then the 7D isn't going to appreciably improve your pictures.

What it will get you, though, is a better made camera with lots of excellent goodies... :-) But at this point, I think I'd rather invest in good glass than buy a new body... unless it was a 5D Mark II (but that's outside your price point). That's just me, though... (as you can see in my sig... Rebel bodies with L glass.... Mmmm...)

mercphoto

tshaddick wrote:

I am looking at upgrading from my current lens 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens to a better lens, but I don't know which lens is the best. I shoot mostly motorcycle racing

For fun, or for profit? And if for profit, are we talking a serious amount of money or a modest amount? You don't have to answer publicly, but consider what your answer is. If for fun or for only modest profit then the 300/4L is a good choice, as is the 100-400/L. If you're making some decent money then the 300/2.8 is a fantastic choice. Very, very sharp. Extremely fast focusing. Well worth the money if you are bringing enough money in to pay for the added cost.

I would also suggest getting the best lens you can budget for now, and getting that 7D later. It will make some difference, as the auto-focus will be faster and will track better. But won't make as much a difference as a better lens will. Glass is key.

I'll give an example. I know a very good professional auto racing photographer who uses a 40D but uses the best lenses possible, rather than using a 1-series and lesser quality glass. His budget is skewed towards the glass and for good reason.

kdog

tshaddick wrote:

Is this better than the 100-400L IS??? If so, what makes it better

It's a full stop faster, and a little sharper. The zoom range of the 100-400 makes it a very attractive lens. But for sports, fast glass rules. Of course, when you add a TC1.4X to the 300 F4, you end up at 420mm @F5.6. In that case, you're actually better off with the 100-400 zoom, or even the 400mm F5.6 prime.

Focal-Length, Speed, Price. Choose any two.

photokandy

tshaddick wrote:

Is this better than the 100-400L IS??? If so, what makes it better

It depends upon your shooting conditions. The 300mm f/4 is faster than the 100-400L will be at the same focal length (as it goes from 4.5 to 5.6). IQ may be similar, but you've already lost some light with the 100-400L.

So if you shoot in low-light, the 300 is going to win hands-down (minus the extender). If low-light isn't an issue, you also have to understand that the 100-400, being a zoom, will always have its share of visual compromises. The 300, a prime, will almost always produce superior results.

Once you add the 1.4x extender, though, you've negated your light advantage, and so you might want to look at versatility a little more, but that's a personal decision.

If you're looking at either of them, check these links:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Personally - I'd lean towards the 100-400L simply because I can zoom ;-) Price-wise, putting a 1.4x on a 300L is going to be pretty close to the cost of the 100-400L, so that wouldn't factor in my decision. My suggestion would be rent both lenses first, and try shooting with them -- then see which one you like better.

(Of course, faster glass is always better for sports; so if you can get a 2.8, then you'll be even better off.... vs. 5.6, I'd go for the 2.8 every time if price wasn't a consideration...)

Ric Grupe

tshaddick wrote:

Is this better than the 100-400L IS??? If so, what makes it better

At 300 it is better...adding the tc gives you more reach for cheap and still good quality images. Unless you are shooting in low light...the way to go IMO. Also the 100-400 (my favorite lens) might suck in dust at your venues. Being used to a zoom you may not like the prime though...all things to consider.

davev

If you figure what you're using now is working pretty well, I'd say go with the 7D.

You'll have a few more pixels, that will act a little like more zoom. (not much though)
With the better iso performance, it will be like getting another stop out of the lens.
You'll go from what, 3 frames a second to 8 frames a second.

If you go with a lens, and if 300mm is long enough for what you're doing, a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 and 2x tc might be the ticket.

All the lenses, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400, 300 f4, 400 f5.6, 300 f2.8, are all good to great lenses.
You won't go wrong with any of them.

Take your lenses to the store and try a 7D next to your camera.
See if there's any improvement.

mutti_wilson

Bear in mind that ISO performance of a new body will allow you to get that extra shutter speed with no degradation to image quality.

Are you dead set on Canon brand lenses? There are a few 3rd party lenses out there that would be solid for the price.

AlbertZeroK

mutti_wilson wrote:

Bear in mind that ISO performance of a new body will allow you to get that extra shutter speed with no degradation to image quality.

Are you dead set on Canon brand lenses? There are a few 3rd party lenses out there that would be solid for the price.

Do you shoot in low light conditions?

The only real reason I think for upgrading the body would be for a faster shooting, my 50d is 6.3 Frames Per Second. But you will loose your video feature with the 50d.

I love my 70-200 IS USM f/2.8, but it doesn't have a very long reach. I do have a 2x converter for those long reach needs.

tshaddick

I mostly shoot during the daytime, so low light isn't usually a problem, however there have been instances when the race event wasn't over, but I could no longer shoot because it got too dark for my images to turn out.

borrowlenses.com

The best lenses for sports shooting are the F2.8 lenses, but those are not always financially possible. The F4 copies aren't terribly bad alternatives, especially given the price.

The Bigma 50-500 is another solid contender but it is not good in low light conditions.

Basically, for your needs you should probably be checking out the 100-400 or the 300 F4 if money is a big factor.

Also, going to a better/faster body could give you the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and get a better frame rate in low light but in the short term a new lens would probably be best.

And don't forget -- you can always rent gear before you buy

jonh68

For under 2000, I would get the 70-200 2.8 and thrown in a 1.4 TC for extra reach in the daytime.

If you are serious about shooting sports, a 2.8 lens is a must because most sports, at least when you get into the middle school and above are at night or indoors. I would get the 70-200 over the 300 f4 if sports is the main reason for getting the lens.

Ric Grupe

jonh68 wrote:

For under 2000, I would get the 70-200 2.8 and thrown in a 1.4 TC for extra reach in the daytime.

If you are serious about shooting sports, a 2.8 lens is a must because most sports, at least when you get into the middle school and above are at night or indoors. I would get the 70-200 over the 300 f4 if sports is the main reason for getting the lens.

Yes...if you can get close enough.

Of course the wrong lens is always the one that's on the camera.:D

pathfinder

The OP might find a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 somewhere near his price point. It does not have IS, and its focus is not as fast as a Canon 300 f2.8 IS L, but it is very sharp, and slightly smaller and maybe a few ounces lighter. The zoom range is really nice for sports.

Tamron makes a credible 70-200 f2.8 zoom and it is more inexpensive than the comparable Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L if the shorter reach will work.

I am curious about the image quality with the new 1DMkIV and the new Nikon also that sport ISOs up to ~ 104,000. 6 - six - full stops faster than ISO 1600. That will have a real impact on sport shooting if the ISOs are actually useable.

jcdill

tshaddick wrote:

Also, would an upgrade of the body (currently T1i) improve the quality of the photos? I have been looking at the 7D.

I started shooting sports with a Canon 300D body ($999 with the kit lens) and Canon 75-300 lens ($150 used). I shopped around and found a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for $1600 on eBay. The difference in image quality when I upgraded the lens was DRAMATIC. Later I upgraded the body to the Canon 1D MII. The image quality didn't change all that much - not nearly as much of a change as the dramatic difference when I upgraded the glass. What changed most was the high ISO image quality, and how fast I could take action shots. For lower ISO images (ISO 400 and lower) the images were much higher quality with the 300D and 70-200 lens than with the 1D MII and the 75-300 lens.

I strongly urge you to spend your money buying the very best glass you can afford, and wait to upgrade the body until you have a compelling reason why the new body will solve an existing problem that your current body can't solve. If possible, wait until the body that solves your problem is no longer the latest model - e.g. if a 5D solves your problem, it became MUCH more affordable when the 5D MII was released - and you can get an even better deal by buying a refurb (with a warranty) or used model from a photographer who is upgrading. With the money you save by buying a 1-version-old body you can buy more excellent lenses!

jc

Zanotti

Ric Grupe wrote:

At 300 it is better...adding the tc gives you more reach for cheap and still good quality images. Unless you are shooting in low light...the way to go IMO. Also the 100-400 (my favorite lens) might suck in dust at your venues. Being used to a zoom you may not like the prime though...all things to consider.

The 300mm f4 is quite the performer if you have any light at all. The camera can do pretty high ISO, so in any decent light sports with the f4 is pretty easy.

I have used this lens on wildlife as well, with good success.

Reasonable priced, and readily available on the used market.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_4_0L.html


You have to get used to the fixed forcal length if you are used to zooms, but tight crops in sports look pretty good anyway.

Plus its lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 and about $800 cheaper.


Z

rwells

jonh68 wrote:

For under 2000, I would get the 70-200 2.8 and thrown in a 1.4 TC for extra reach in the daytime.

If you are serious about shooting sports, a 2.8 lens is a must because most sports, at least when you get into the middle school and above are at night or indoors. I would get the 70-200 over the 300 f4 if sports is the main reason for getting the lens.

I agree completely with Jonh68.


Every serious sport shooter that I personally know has a 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or not) in their kit. It's that important of a lens. And, portrait shooters flock to this same lens also. So, for sports and "people" photography, you really can't go wrong with this lens.

I highly recommend it

aj986s

I do a lot of car photos at various track events. I really like the flexibility of my 100-400 Canon L series. IMHO, a prime lens would be very good if your objective is to shoot the same shot of every participant. I know some track photographers who have their choice "spots" based upon light throughout the day, and use certain prime lens, up to 600MM. But if your objective is to capture action of all sorts and directions, a good quality zoom lens give you a lot more flexibility to crop within the camera. The 70-200 2.8L is another awesome lens, but based on how well you can position yourself relative to the action, it may be lacking in focal length.

20DNoob

pathfinder wrote:

The OP might find a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 somewhere near his price point.

Exactly what I was going to suggest.

TnPhotoMan

This is my first post since joining, so - be gentle.....

As someone who has shot basketball, football, soccer and baseball, the big difference I would say the 7D has over your T1i is speed. The T1i is 3.6 frames per sec and the 7D is 8. I went from an Xti to a 50D prior to the 7D for that very reason. With sports shooting you want the shutter to fire immediately - you will get that with the 7D. It has dual Digic 4 processors. I agree with the other contributors regarding the quality of the files. Regarding lens, I use the 70-200 2.8L.

ziggy53

TnPhotoMan wrote:

This is my first post since joining, so - be gentle.....

As someone who has shot basketball, football, soccer and baseball, the big difference I would say the 7D has over your T1i is speed. The T1i is 3.6 frames per sec and the 7D is 8. I went from an Xti to a 50D prior to the 7D for that very reason. With sports shooting you want the shutter to fire immediately - you will get that with the 7D. It has dual Digic 4 processors. I agree with the other contributors regarding the quality of the files. Regarding lens, I use the 70-200 2.8L.

TnPhotoMan, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments.

StevenSzabo

pathfinder wrote:

The OP might find a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 somewhere near his price point. It does not have IS, and its focus is not as fast as a Canon 300 f2.8 IS L, but it is very sharp, and slightly smaller and maybe a few ounces lighter. The zoom range is really nice for sports.

The Siggy 120-300 is far to slow to focus for sports...I've tried...lol

Tamron makes a credible 70-200 f2.8 zoom and it is more inexpensive than the comparable Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L if the shorter reach will work.

The tamron has been getting pretty average at best reviews, I'm not sure if the canon version is perhaps better than the nikon, I know the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is rated as much better in the nikon mount.

I am curious about the image quality with the new 1DMkIV and the new Nikon also that sport ISOs up to ~ 104,000. 6 - six - full stops faster than ISO 1600. That will have a real impact on sport shooting if the ISOs are actually useable.

The nikon is MUCH more usable in the ultra high ISO range, in fact even in the 25'600 ISO range from the samples I've seen the Canon is basically unusable, where the nikon is very good, and in a pinch even the 102'400 ISO samples from the D3s are usable...here's a link to the nikons samples(not to derail this thread to far)

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10045-10329[/FONT]

*edit* hey, just noticed who the OP is...lol, hey terri :P
The image quality of the long primes is truly unbeatable, and the focus speed, but the down side is that if the action comes close to you, you're stuck, the Nikon 300 2.8 is pretty much useless within 10 feet for example. The 100-400 is very good, Glen out at the track shoots with it fairly often. The 70-200 F4 is what Dave from up in edmonton shoots with, it's a great lens as well. I like the 2.8 lenses because at F4 they're as sharp if not sharper than the F4 lenses, but when you need that extra light, with the 2.8 lens it's there. On a budget the sigma 70-200 2.8 is definitely worth looking at. I shot almost all year with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and teleconverters...the big lenses that I rented were the 200-400 F4 for nationals weekend, and the 300mm 2.8 for the last two weekends(sure you saw it)...I purchased a 300 2.8 last week, they're that good.

Vistek downtown rents all the Canon lenses that have been mentioned in this thread for very cheap rates http://vistek.ca/rentals/rentalequipment.aspx?categoryId=456 and actually even rents the 1.4 TC...go give em a shot before you shell out the cash.

jonh68

StevenSzabo wrote:

The Siggy 120-300 is far to slow to focus for sports...I've tried...lol

You must of had a bad copy, bad camera, or improper settings because the main application for this lens is sports and it does it pretty good in the focus dept, nearly as good or as good as the canon, nikon sports lenses.

StevenSzabo

jonh68 wrote:

You must of had a bad copy, bad camera, or improper settings because the main application for this lens is sports and it does it pretty good in the focus dept, nearly as good or as good as the canon, nikon sports lenses.

it's much slower than the nikon equivelants according to every review I've ever read and my personal testing. and in my own use of the lens unless I was prefocusing it was pretty much useless...being the OP shoots motorsports like I do I would say that the focus is to slow.

jonh68

StevenSzabo wrote:

it's much slower than the nikon equivelants according to every review I've ever read and my personal testing. and in my own use of the lens unless I was prefocusing it was pretty much useless...being the OP shoots motorsports like I do I would say that the focus is to slow.

We must be reading different reviews and using a different lens because I have a Sigma 120-300 and a Nikon 70-200 VR and I cannot tell any difference between the two mounted on a D300 and D700. Even with a TC 1.4, the sigma is able to track when photographing football, baseball and soccer.

The one criticism against the focus speed of the lens in reviews I have read is when action is coming straight at the photographer. It does have trouble in situations like that, but it isn't poor. I have had the same type of focus problems with my 70-200 when a running back is running straight at me too.

Granted motosports is a different animal, but to claim the AFS is significally slower than the canon/nikon lens is not experienced by me nor the majority of reviews I have read about the lens. The reviews will state it is slightly slower in some situations.

Here is a review of someone who photographs airplanes and his test results of the AFS aiming at moving cars. His biggest complaint about the lens is how heavy it is, which I totally agree with and is why I have been using it less and less, not because of the AFS speed.

http://www.jetzone2000.com/5_art_lenstest_sigma120300_1.htm