- This topic is empty.
Lens for sports photography
-
Last week I found myself being volunteered to take some photographs of my son’s indoor hurling team. I used my Canon 40D with the kit 17-85 lens and I think it was quite limiting.
Any advice on a suitable lens – remembering that they will also be playing outdoors in a few weeks.
Ah sports lenses. For such a field sport, you’d really want a 400mm f/2.8. But, back to real terms –
70-200mm f/2.8 is a brilliant lens. Fast, accurate and a decent reach.
For any indoor sport you will need a fast lens f/2.8 or better).
For field sports, you need a good reach, and considering price, up to 200mm is ok. For more reach, you may need to consider extenders (but light is key for using those).
I hope this is of help.
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens is probably the best/versatile for sports unless you can afford the real kit like the 400 f2.8 IS L. You can buy the 100 – 400 zoom on eBay for £700 -800. A less versatile option would be the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L. Sigma have a 50 – 500 mm zoom but I did not like it and got shot of it. The 70 – 200 mm f2.8 IS L is truly fantastic but is a bit pricey and does not have much reach. If you get really serious and are prepared to spend some big money; the 300 mm f2.8 IS L and a 1.4X converter is probably the most cost effective combination. The 400 f2.8 IS L is really heavy and seriously expensive. Avoid the older Canon non IS 400 2.8 L lenses unless they are very cheap. The autofocus on the old ones is slow and grinds to a halt if you use a converter. A bigger problem is that you cannot get spare parts for them. This means that they cannot be serviced.
Good luck.
John
I’ve actually found the 100-400mm a bit slow. Slower to focus than the 70-200mm, and also much less useful in low light, due to the extra stop difference. But, for reach, it’s good.
I guess a lot will also depend on what sport you’re photographing and also how close you can get to the action.
Avoid the older Canon non IS 400 2.8 L
I dont know about that, I’ve used one of those loads of times, and the AF is just as quick as the 500/600mm IS models. Seriously sharp too. The 400 2.8 is the lens of choice for football/field games. I hated that lens for the simple reason it’s too heavy and short for motorsport.
The larger prime lenses (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm) are seriously expensive. I’d personally love a 400mm f/2.8, but just can’t justify the cost.
No disrespect to the MkI 400 mm 2.8. As you say it is agreat lens but if anyone is thinking of buying one; make sure it is cheap. If you have a problem with the focussing motor you not be able to find a replacement.
See this sorry story from the EOS Forum.
http://www.eos-forums.com/index.php?topic=17563.0
John
Okay..this might be a silly question…but
If you are pitch side at say a football game and using a 400mm Prime lens..is that not going to be very limiting? Great for the longer shots..but what about when the action gets closer?
Is it just a case of having a couple of cameras set up?
I have a 300mm f/2.8 on one body and a 70-200mm on another.
95% of my images would be taken with the 300mm. 5% with the 70-200mm.
The joy of a long lens is that you can get good close sharp shots. Those further away, you can crop in to. Those closer ….. you miss. It’s just the way it goes.
Got a very used EF 80-200mm L f2.8 (about 15 years old). Fairly good nick. Great for sports shots.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
