Reading mode: Light Dark

What lens? Indoor sports

Go to last post
A

Ann McRae

Senior Member
Messages
3,832
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta, CA
Well, I have been reading as much as I can here and in the lens forum.

When I get the 20d my first priority must be lenses for indoor sports (soccer) action and for indoor team and individual photos (they should help pay the way, ya know).

So the advice I have recieved is that the following 2 lenses are the most suitable:
70 - 200 f2.8 and/or
85 f1.8
I now need to decide between
a) the 2 lenses, or both. Only way to do both is to get the sigma 70 -200.
b) either or neither kit lens

Then I must also be able to get battery, memory etc. And I think I have to be able to do so for less than cdn $5000.

So how would you spend my money? (and all thoughts of the more gas efficient mini van to replace my durango are out the window now that I'm thinking camera! Terrible, isn't it?)

TIA

ann

--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
I guess my hunt isn't over yet! Thanks for the link.
Is it hard to manage because of the shallow dof?

ann
Gary P said:
Look here.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&thecat=2

Canon prime: 135mm 2.0 Very commonly used for indoor with excellent
results.

--
Gary USA
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2583
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Dunno a thing about Canadian prices on Canon gear (I try to forget how many American dollars I've given them). Anyhow, just wanted to say hello to an old STF colleague...

Is this Step One into dSLR land?

Joe
Ann McRae said:
Well, I have been reading as much as I can here and in the lens forum.
When I get the 20d my first priority must be lenses for indoor
sports (soccer) action and for indoor team and individual photos
(they should help pay the way, ya know).
So the advice I have recieved is that the following 2 lenses are
the most suitable:
70 - 200 f2.8 and/or
85 f1.8
I now need to decide between
a) the 2 lenses, or both. Only way to do both is to get the sigma
70 -200.
b) either or neither kit lens

Then I must also be able to get battery, memory etc. And I think I
have to be able to do so for less than cdn $5000.

So how would you spend my money? (and all thoughts of the more gas
efficient mini van to replace my durango are out the window now
that I'm thinking camera! Terrible, isn't it?)

TIA

ann

--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
 
The 135f2L was going to be my next suggestion. The 85mm is a nice lens but i think it might struggle reach wise, even on a 1.6 crop.
See
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/perspectest.htm
and
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Seems to be very relevant for your needs.

Hope this helps,

greg
Ann McRae said:
ann
Gary P said:
Look here.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&thecat=2

Canon prime: 135mm 2.0 Very commonly used for indoor with excellent
results.

--
Gary USA
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2583
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
Click to expand...
 
great info. Much appreciated.
ann
greg_thurtle_uk said:
The 135f2L was going to be my next suggestion. The 85mm is a nice
lens but i think it might struggle reach wise, even on a 1.6 crop.
See
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/perspectest.htm
and
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Seems to be very relevant for your needs.

Hope this helps,

greg
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
nice to hear from you. I moved from the 707 to the 828 in January, so my husbands eyebrows go up when I talk new camera. But at the same time I am doing more and more team photo work, and with indoor soccer coming up that won't happen without a dslr.Was this close to the D70 because of weight, but then I saw samples from the 20d at high ISO, and fell in loooove!

Great to hear from you

ann
Joe Reilly said:
Dunno a thing about Canadian prices on Canon gear (I try to forget
how many American dollars I've given them). Anyhow, just wanted to
say hello to an old STF colleague...

Is this Step One into dSLR land?

Joe
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Hi Ann. I went through this decision a year ago and opted for the 135 f2.0 also. I've shot a couple of hockey games with it (same size rink as indoor soccer) and found it perfect. It's also my favorite head-shot lens.

It has the sharpeness and speed required to accept teleconverters very well. I've used it with both, the Canon 1.4X and 2X TC (I've even stacked them) for outdoor soccer shoots of the men and women's Whitecaps here in Vancouver. Soccer galleries here: http://www.pbase.com/j_trujillo/whitecaps
 
Ann McRae said:
So the advice I have recieved is that the following 2 lenses are
the most suitable:
70 - 200 f2.8 and/or
85 f1.8
Click to expand...
Get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It is the right lens. IS and f/2.8 give you an amazing ability to shoot in low light hand held. The IS does nothing for sports, because you need faster shutter speed to stop the motion. Instead, get a 420EX, 550EX, or 580EX flash and a "better beamer" (Google for better beamer) to concentrate the flash gun further away. Let the fact that your flash gun lights the scene for 1/10000 second stop the motion, use 2nd curtain sync, and you'll get the "motion blur with the action frozen" combination of lighting.

The f/2.0 of the 135 is a single stop of light advantage, which means you get half of the motion blur. The only other lens which is faster than f/2.8 and longer than 100mm is the 200mm f/1.8L (discontinued).
Ann McRae said:
Then I must also be able to get battery, memory etc. And I think I
have to be able to do so for less than cdn $5000.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the prices are like in Canada, but the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is $1650 from B&H in US Dollars. The 420EX is only $180 US. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a very versatile lens, and it should serve you very well for sports.
Ann McRae said:
So how would you spend my money? (and all thoughts of the more gas
efficient mini van to replace my durango are out the window now
that I'm thinking camera! Terrible, isn't it?)
Click to expand...
I'd spend your money on a 300mm f/2.8L IS, because I already have a 10D and a battery, flash, etc. :) Oh, I see, I didn't answer the question you asked. :P

-Mike
 
Nice to meet you again in another forum...

I share the opinion of the others that the 135/2.0 is one of the finest lenses one can find in terms of quality but I believe that for what you need, you should also look at practical and versatility aspects.
My suggestion is, If you can efford it, go for the 70-200 2.8L IS lensl.

A soccer field is not a ping pong table and you will need to change you focal length frequently in order to cover different situations. You will be able to do much more with a zoom lens then with a prime.
The IS function is a big advantage if you won't use a tripod.

In terms of quality, it is an excellent lens and I do not think that with a digital camera, you will notice a big difference if at all compared to the 135/2.0.
The cons:

1 f stop slower than the 135mm but you can compensate by increasing the ISO. I saw very good samples even at 3200.

Size weight and white color, big drawback for candid photography but on a soccer game, everyone expects you to come with such a monster.

And of course it is very expensive, about twice as much as the 135mm but if you can efford it, this lens will make the perfect tool for what you need.

Enjoy your new E20 whan you will get it. Mine should arrive today and I'm all excited.
Cheers
Moti
Ann McRae said:
Well, I have been reading as much as I can here and in the lens forum.
When I get the 20d my first priority must be lenses for indoor
sports (soccer) action and for indoor team and individual photos
(they should help pay the way, ya know).
So the advice I have recieved is that the following 2 lenses are
the most suitable:
70 - 200 f2.8 and/or
85 f1.8
I now need to decide between
a) the 2 lenses, or both. Only way to do both is to get the sigma
70 -200.
b) either or neither kit lens

Then I must also be able to get battery, memory etc. And I think I
have to be able to do so for less than cdn $5000.

So how would you spend my money? (and all thoughts of the more gas
efficient mini van to replace my durango are out the window now
that I'm thinking camera! Terrible, isn't it?)

TIA

ann

--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
Click to expand...
--
Moti
http://motion.smugmug.com
 
I recently sold my 85mm F/1.8, mostly because the shallow DoF was too hard to manage in sports shots. I was opening it up to F/2.5 or so anyway, so I decided to stick with the 70-200 F/2.8. I have the IS model, which is great, but never use the IS for sports shots. I felt the zoom focused faster than the 85mm, but that was purely subjective "feel" (this is on a D30). I don't have any experience with the 135 F/2.0.

Consider the 120-300 Sigma, too. I might have bought that first, if it had been available at the time.

Another plus for the 70-200: nobody argues with the big white lens if you want to get right on the sidelines. If you get the 70-200 (or bigger) lens, be sure you know the answer to the question, "Who are you shooting for?"
Ann McRae said:
I guess my hunt isn't over yet! Thanks for the link.
Is it hard to manage because of the shallow dof?

ann
Click to expand...
--
See my website: http://www.photodad.com
 
Hi Julio

How close do you shoot from at the Whitecaps games? I shot from lower stands in Commonwealth with the 828 and Oly 1.7x tcon. I got nice shots, but not like yours! I envied the sports photogs on the sidelines, and probably could have gotten permisiion, as we are quite involved in the local soccer world, and knew the right people!

Thanks for your opinion, I will look at that closely - will the Oly tcon fit?

ann
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Jon Balgley said:
I recently sold my 85mm F/1.8, mostly because the shallow DoF was
too hard to manage in sports shots. I was opening it up to F/2.5
or so anyway, so I decided to stick with the 70-200 F/2.8. I have
the IS model, which is great, but never use the IS for sports
shots. I felt the zoom focused faster than the 85mm, but that was
purely subjective "feel" (this is on a D30). I don't have any
experience with the 135 F/2.0.
Click to expand...
I am coming from the sony crowd, and shallow dof is not really an issue! The 828 does much better than the 707, and I can get nice dof outdoors with the teleconvertor on. Anyway, the whole dslr is going to be a learning curve, wouldn't want to limit my success with a beautiful but difficult lens.
Jon Balgley said:
Consider the 120-300 Sigma, too. I might have bought that first,
if it had been available at the time.
Click to expand...
Will look into that one.
Jon Balgley said:
Another plus for the 70-200: nobody argues with the big white lens
if you want to get right on the sidelines. If you get the 70-200
(or bigger) lens, be sure you know the answer to the question, "Who
are you shooting for?"
Click to expand...
Funny! I watched a fellow do team shots one day last year and approached him for his card/web site/rates. He could provide none of that info. I have learned alot by watching what others do poorly! The local big time sports action company doesn't right click protect their web galleries! And take weeks to post resulting shots! So many fatal errors, I tell you!

Thanks
ann

--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Mike Fried said:
Get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It is the right lens. IS and f/2.8 give
you an amazing ability to shoot in low light hand held. The IS does
nothing for sports, because you need faster shutter speed to stop
the motion. Instead, get a 420EX, 550EX, or 580EX flash and a
"better beamer" (Google for better beamer) to concentrate the flash
gun further away. Let the fact that your flash gun lights the scene
for 1/10000 second stop the motion, use 2nd curtain sync, and
you'll get the "motion blur with the action frozen" combination of
lighting.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no flash allowed. No way, no how. The refs would have me banned.

.
Mike Fried said:
I have no idea what the prices are like in Canada, but the 70-200
f/2.8L IS is $1650 from B&H in US Dollars. The 420EX is only $180
US. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a very versatile lens, and it should
serve you very well for sports.
Click to expand...
The canon 70 - 200 IS is $2700, non IS is $1700 and the sigma is $1200. The body only is $1900, small kit lens puts it at $2100, big kit lens at $2700.

Money doesn't go far here!
Mike Fried said:
I'd spend your money on a 300mm f/2.8L IS, because I already have a
10D and a battery, flash, etc. :) Oh, I see, I didn't answer the
question you asked. :P
Click to expand...
:-)
Thanks Mike.

ann
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Moti said:
for what you need, you should also look at practical and
versatility aspects.
My suggestion is, If you can efford it, go for the 70-200 2.8L IS
lensl.
A soccer field is not a ping pong table and you will need to change
you focal length frequently in order to cover different situations.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am certainly leaning that way - I think it will be a good start up point.
Moti said:
The cons:
1 f stop slower than the 135mm but you can compensate by increasing
the ISO. I saw very good samples even at 3200.
Click to expand...
Yes, high ISO is the big draw to the 20d for me.
Moti said:
Size weight and white color, big drawback for candid photography
but on a soccer game, everyone expects you to come with such a
monster.
Click to expand...
I hope I can manage it - I am no weakling, but my hands are getting arthritis and sometimes that is an issue.
Moti said:
And of course it is very expensive, about twice as much as the
135mm but if you can efford it, this lens will make the perfect
tool for what you need.
Click to expand...
The right tool is very important. With it, I hope to earn $ to pay for more right tools!

Thanks Moti, nice seeing you here too.

ann
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!
 
Ann McRae said:
Ann McRae said:
My suggestion is, If you can efford it, go for the 70-200 2.8L IS
lensl.
A soccer field is not a ping pong table and you will need to change
you focal length frequently in order to cover different situations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ann McRae said:
Yes, I am certainly leaning that way - I think it will be a good
start up point.
Click to expand...
Since you mentioned earlier in this thread that you can't use flash, the only option you have for getting your shutter speed up is to increase the ISO. This also means that for handheld shooting of sideways moving subjects, you'll get a benefit from the panning mode IS.
Ann McRae said:
I hope I can manage it - I am no weakling, but my hands are getting
arthritis and sometimes that is an issue.
Click to expand...
An alternative to a flash that might help your arthritis is a stable tripod and a gimbal style head. Gimbal heads are expensive (up to $500 US + plates), but they allow you to let the tripod hold the lens + camera (balanced at the center of mass), and you can easily move the camera/lens combination with a single finger. You do have to bring more gear (tripod, gimbal head, plates, etc), but the weight of all the extra gear that you'll need to carry will make your camera weightless when you are using it.
Ann McRae said:
The right tool is very important. With it, I hope to earn $ to pay
for more right tools!
Click to expand...
Good luck, and practice a lot. Having the right tool is important, but learning how to use the tools you have is also important.

-Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top