What would be a good lense (note good,not ideal $$) for this type of situation? i would be close to the action,on sidelines,and be able to move the lenth of the field. I am considering a IS lense since i am not as steady as i would like to be at longer focal lenths. I am not sure how this would be with a moving subject at a high shutter speed. Thanks
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Youth Football (american)
- Thread starter dwasson
- Start date
banzai
Senior Member
Search for "IS" and "doesn't help for fast action" and you'll get about a thousand hits. Or just extrapolate from my previous statement.
If you're on a budget, forget IS (I do like IS, but only as a luxury when shooting sports).
If you can afford the $650 70-200/4L, buy it without hesitation.
If you can't afford it, I've heard there's a similar Sigma that's likely cheaper.
That's about all the help I can offer!
If you're on a budget, forget IS (I do like IS, but only as a luxury when shooting sports).
If you can afford the $650 70-200/4L, buy it without hesitation.
If you can't afford it, I've heard there's a similar Sigma that's likely cheaper.
That's about all the help I can offer!
Thats about the price range i am looking for,how well would the 70-200/4l work for me for indoor sports ie basketball,cheerleading? would i be better off spending more and getting something faster or would this handle it ? thanks in advance for your insight
banzai
Senior Member
It won't be great indoors. f/4 is slow enough that you can't call it any kind of an indoor sports lens.
But for bball and cheerleading you can go with a shorter, fast prime (e.g. 85/1.8).
The other option is to step up to the 70-200/2.8L (non-IS) for about $1000. It's bigger and heavier. Personally I wouldn't go this route. I much prefer the size/heft of the f/4L. But the f/2.8L (with or without IS) is considered a sports workhorse lens. Then again even in college gyms f/2.8 isn't fast enough. Whatever you do, save $50 of budget for Neat Image or Noise Ninja!
I think 70-200/4L plus 85/1.8 will put you just under $1000 and will make for a solid start. It's just tough to build a lineup on a budget when you want to factor indoor sports into the equation.
But for bball and cheerleading you can go with a shorter, fast prime (e.g. 85/1.8).
The other option is to step up to the 70-200/2.8L (non-IS) for about $1000. It's bigger and heavier. Personally I wouldn't go this route. I much prefer the size/heft of the f/4L. But the f/2.8L (with or without IS) is considered a sports workhorse lens. Then again even in college gyms f/2.8 isn't fast enough. Whatever you do, save $50 of budget for Neat Image or Noise Ninja!
I think 70-200/4L plus 85/1.8 will put you just under $1000 and will make for a solid start. It's just tough to build a lineup on a budget when you want to factor indoor sports into the equation.
Tom McCallion
Well-known member
I agree with banzai... I have the 70-200 f/4L and it has been great for taking pictures of my boys playing soccer. I've also used it quite a bit at motorsports events.
---
Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/tommcc
- tom
--
---
Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/tommcc
Do you use it strickly as handheld? monopod? Thanks
BillShack
Active member
My .02c worth since i am pretty much a rank amateur but i've been through a few lenses trying to shoot my sons hockey games (indoor) and some baseball games as well. The 70-200/2.8 is the one i finally settled on. I love it and even i can take pictures that look decent. I've uploaded a couple examples. I tried the 100-400 IS 4.5/5.6 but still had problems getting a good shot indoors.
The 70-200 is a bit pricey but you wil llikely use it in many different scenarios.
http://www.pbase.com/image/27964828
The Hockey Pic is taken from about half-ice and up in the stands
http://www.pbase.com/image/27964836
The baseball shot is WAY back in the bleachers, back row, under a dark overhang. Still a decent pic.
I used a monopod with both shots. Both of these are cropped pretty small but they look ok.
Good Luck on your decision.
The 70-200 is a bit pricey but you wil llikely use it in many different scenarios.
http://www.pbase.com/image/27964828
The Hockey Pic is taken from about half-ice and up in the stands
http://www.pbase.com/image/27964836
The baseball shot is WAY back in the bleachers, back row, under a dark overhang. Still a decent pic.
I used a monopod with both shots. Both of these are cropped pretty small but they look ok.
Good Luck on your decision.
Barnsie
Leading Member
My general recommendation is to find a nice, used 80-200 2.8. It's a terrific lens and can be had either side of $500. I've had mine for about six months now, and I like it much better than my coworker's 70-200 2.8 non IS. It feels a little better and I get much better results. Some of that may be familiarity, but they shouldn't handle too differently.
I tend to agree with the other suggestions. 2.8 probably won't be fast enough for indoor sports. Get a fast prime for that.
Barnsie
I tend to agree with the other suggestions. 2.8 probably won't be fast enough for indoor sports. Get a fast prime for that.
Barnsie
If you're on a budget - like most of us - check out used lens and get more for your money.
I bought a used 70-200 2.8L (NON-IS) I use it with and without the 2x TC. Here's a young lad playing football, shot from the sidelines with the 70-200 with the 2x attached to my 1D.
I bought a used 70-200 2.8L (NON-IS) I use it with and without the 2x TC. Here's a young lad playing football, shot from the sidelines with the 70-200 with the 2x attached to my 1D.
Just an added note: the 2x TC does soften the images a tad.
Gary S
Veteran Member
I'm using just about what banzai suggested to you. A 70-200 f4 L, and a 100mm f2 prime for indoor action. Couldn't be happier. They're light, easy to handle, very good quality, a joy to use. Most people choose the 85 f1.8 over the 100 f2; it was just a personal preference for me.
I shot a lot of Jr. All American Football from the sidelines last year before I had the 70-200 f4 L, and I know this lens is going to work out well this season. I also have a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter to use with it.
I shot a lot of Jr. All American Football from the sidelines last year before I had the 70-200 f4 L, and I know this lens is going to work out well this season. I also have a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter to use with it.
First, will you be shooting in daylight? This makes a BIG difference as you have to compromise more if there is not enough light.
As others have said, IS is not that needed for sports. Generally you want a shutter speed above 1/800th of a second to reasonably well "freeze" the player's action (on close ups, hand and foot motion will still be pretty blurry at 1/800th).
I have seen others suggesting in the 70-200mm range and in my opinion, that is NOT enough. Even roaming the sidelines, the players are going to be a long way away on the far sideline. I have shot Soccer from the sidelines with a 70-200F2.8L and it was not long enough. I would be looking at:
Sigma 50-500mm (big and heavy, but the focal length range is made for Football and Soccer).
Canon 100-400IS. A well regarded lens for this type of use. You get IS which can be useful sometimes but not a much for sports (although in the IS MODE-2 you can get some interesting "panning" shots).
Canon 75-300. From what I remember reading, the non-IS but with USM version is the one to get.
Personally, I now have the Canon 100-400IS. It is a wonderful lens. The range on the Sigma 50-500mm would be really nice though.
As others have said, IS is not that needed for sports. Generally you want a shutter speed above 1/800th of a second to reasonably well "freeze" the player's action (on close ups, hand and foot motion will still be pretty blurry at 1/800th).
I have seen others suggesting in the 70-200mm range and in my opinion, that is NOT enough. Even roaming the sidelines, the players are going to be a long way away on the far sideline. I have shot Soccer from the sidelines with a 70-200F2.8L and it was not long enough. I would be looking at:
Sigma 50-500mm (big and heavy, but the focal length range is made for Football and Soccer).
Canon 100-400IS. A well regarded lens for this type of use. You get IS which can be useful sometimes but not a much for sports (although in the IS MODE-2 you can get some interesting "panning" shots).
Canon 75-300. From what I remember reading, the non-IS but with USM version is the one to get.
Personally, I now have the Canon 100-400IS. It is a wonderful lens. The range on the Sigma 50-500mm would be really nice though.
Gary S
Veteran Member
Longer is better when shooting Football or Soccer. But the price gets pretty high for a high quality long lens, and you STILL won't have anything to use for indoor sports & action.
The Canon 75-300 consumer lens is longer but has some issues. To get good sharpness you need to stop it down to f8, and the shutter speed might become too slow unless you're in good bright lighting. It also "hunts" slowly for focus quite a bit which will result in more missed shots. I had one for a while and sold it on Ebay. Read the user reviews at FredMiranda.com.
Up to 200mm is too short to cover the whole field, but since you're roaming the sidelines you can cover most of it. And generally, plenty of action comes right to you during the course of a game. Also, with these 6mp cameras you have some room to crop.
A teleconverter can be used as well. The $80 Tamron 1.4x works beautifully with my 70-200 f4 L.
If money is not really an issue, disregard all my comments and go long! Also get a lens as fast as you can afford (Aperture wise). The wide apertures will give you better shutter speeds and help to isolate your subject more against the backgrounds.
The Canon 75-300 consumer lens is longer but has some issues. To get good sharpness you need to stop it down to f8, and the shutter speed might become too slow unless you're in good bright lighting. It also "hunts" slowly for focus quite a bit which will result in more missed shots. I had one for a while and sold it on Ebay. Read the user reviews at FredMiranda.com.
Up to 200mm is too short to cover the whole field, but since you're roaming the sidelines you can cover most of it. And generally, plenty of action comes right to you during the course of a game. Also, with these 6mp cameras you have some room to crop.
A teleconverter can be used as well. The $80 Tamron 1.4x works beautifully with my 70-200 f4 L.
If money is not really an issue, disregard all my comments and go long! Also get a lens as fast as you can afford (Aperture wise). The wide apertures will give you better shutter speeds and help to isolate your subject more against the backgrounds.
Tom O'Neil
Senior Member
If I had to choose only one lens for both indoor and outdoor sports, it would be the 135 f2. With a 1.4x it gives you as much reach as the 70-200, and for indoor use the f2 gives you a chance. Mine has been out on loan shooting gymnastics.
If you shoot football with a 200mm, just realize that you aren't going to get every shot. Wait for the action to come to you (and remember to get out of the way). At least several times a game, 200mm is more than enough.
If you shoot football with a 200mm, just realize that you aren't going to get every shot. Wait for the action to come to you (and remember to get out of the way). At least several times a game, 200mm is more than enough.
banzai
Senior Member
At fast shutter speeds it won't much matter if you're shooting handheld or not. In open daylight I'm usually shooting the 70-200/4L at 1/2000 or 1/1250 so I don't worry at all about handheld shake.
For sports/sideline shooters I think the monopod is more for the photographer's endurance and stability - picture the giant lenses on NFL sidelines. At an outdoor game their shutter speeds are fast enough but their 5-13lb lenses are just too heavy to handhold an entire game.
And I assumed that Youth Football was played on a smaller field where the 200mm reach would be sufficient. On a full-sized field or a soccer field, I agree that 200mm may be a little limiting. Thankfully the 1.4x extender works very well with this lens and gets you out to 280mm.
Tom McCallion
Well-known member
Handheld. The 70-200 f/4L is pretty light. That's why I got versus the f/2.8 or the f/2.8 IS, well that and cost. ;-)
cheers,
---
Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/tommcc
cheers,
- tom
--
---
Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/tommcc
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum