Lens Recommendation

[jgaurd]

I'm just starting out shooting sports. I know the bodies I'm using can handle the job. (1Dc, 1D2n) but I don't have the right glass for the job. I'm currently trying to use a Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-5.6. Dog slow. What lenses should be in my sports kit. I plan on shooting all high school sports.

[peppelepugh]

for sure look into a 70-200mm 2.8 (canon if you can afford it, if not i just picked up a sigma and i love it!)

[JP-Eugene]

Agree with the above in a zoom but with hs sports you might be close enough to work a 85mm 1.8 with great results for most sports. Or for more reach, 135L.

[alessandro2009]

Agree about the 70-200mm 2.8 for the much flexibility.
Without IS given that is absolutely useless in these situations and you can save a lot of money.

[jgaurd]

So would you all agree that I could get by with a 70-200 f/2.8 and if I need more focal length add a 1.4x tele and still keep fast focus?

[peppelepugh]

yeah, only thing about the 1.4x extender is you turn your f/2.8 into a f/4.0 when attached. But none the less, i'd pick up a 70-200mm then decide what you need from there.

[jgaurd]

yeah, only thing about the 1.4x extender is you turn your f/2.8 into a f/4.0 when attached. But none the less, i'd pick up a 70-200mm then decide what you need from there.

Agree. Wish I could afford a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. That seems like all I would need.

[Craign]

So would you all agree that I could get by with a 70-200 f/2.8 and if I need more focal length add a 1.4x tele and still keep fast focus?

Yes. Get a 70-200 f/2.8 then go from there. I like the 70-200 plus 1.4X for youth infield, 200mm is too short for baseball or softball outfield shots. You need shutter speed and not IS for action. You might consider a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS.

Supplies are tight and prices are around full M.S.R.P. for most lenses. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS currently available from Canon at $1,159.20 might save some money, if that is a consideration. http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269491_-1

[jgaurd]

Yes. Get a 70-200 f/2.8 then go from there. I like the 70-200 plus 1.4X for youth infield, 200mm is too short for baseball or softball outfield shots. You need shutter speed and not IS for action. You might consider a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS.

Supplies are tight and prices are around full M.S.R.P. for most lenses. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS currently available from Canon at $1,159.20 might save some money, if that is a consideration. http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269491_-1
Wow, I was gonna go with the Sigma OS version until I saw that price on the Canon. Thanks for the info.

[kgarvelink]

Your 80-400 should actually work well for outdoor sports under good light. I agree that a 70-200 2.8 is a necessity for sports, but for daylight events such as soccer, baseball, softball and lacrosse the focal length of the 70-200 is just not enough, and you will be really limited on the number of shots you can get. The 80-400 will not work for any inside sports, or evening sports such as night football, but again this is a good lens for well lit outdoor events, and if you have a good copy it compares with the Canon 100-400l which also sees wide use for outdoor sports under good light. If you have enough light stop down your 80-400 a bit, and it will get even better. Just keep an eye on your shutter speed. I think the Sigma 80-400 os was one of the better lenses put out by Sigma...I would not throw it out with the bath water. Get a 70-200 2.8, and keep the 80-400 for daylight field sports. My two cents worth.

[jgaurd]

Your 80-400 should actually work well for outdoor sports under good light. I agree that a 70-200 2.8 is a necessity for sports, but for daylight events such as soccer, baseball, softball and lacrosse the focal length of the 70-200 is just not enough, and you will be really limited on the number of shots you can get. The 80-400 will not work for any inside sports, or evening sports such as night football, but again this is a good lens for well lit outdoor events, and if you have a good copy it compares with the Canon 100-400l which also sees wide use for outdoor sports under good light. If you have enough light stop down your 80-400 a bit, and it will get even better. Just keep an eye on your shutter speed. I think the Sigma 80-400 os was one of the better lenses put out by Sigma...I would not throw it out with the bath water. Get a 70-200 2.8, and keep the 80-400 for daylight field sports. My two cents worth.
I actually tried to use the 80-400 for two baseball games in bright sunlight, the image quality is not the issue, but the painfully slow auto focus. I missed so many shots i was ready to throw it on the infield and that's using a 1D Mk IIn. Here's where I'm at. I'm either buying a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x, or the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. what would you do??

[Staszek]

For indoor gyms and those older bodies, you'll probably want a bag of primes.

[jgaurd]

For indoor gyms and those older bodies, you'll probably want a bag of primes.
yes, for basketball I'm thinking a 135L.

[Staszek]

yes, for basketball I'm thinking a 135L.

Fantastic lens. I miss mine.

[LucianMuica]

I use mostly the 70-200 2.8L and it's great ... as it has been told, sometimes the 200 mm is not enought at all, but at the beginning you can manage the situation

[clarence]

What lenses should be in my sports kit. I plan on shooting all high school sports.

+1 on the 70-200/2.8L non-IS.

Then again, I haven't touched mine since getting a 200/1.8L and a 600/4L.

These were taken with the 600/4L just a couple of miles from you...

1. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1025.jpg

2. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1202.jpg

3. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1221.jpg

4. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1238.jpg

5. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1246.jpg

6. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1256.jpg

7. http://loco-photo.com/images/2010-10-11_1258.jpg

But the 70-200/2.8L non-IS is certainly more budget-friendly than the 200/2.8 or the 600.

Another great value is the 200/2.8L prime... usually $500-600 used.

[gedupsound]

70-200, all-around my most used lens.

[rady]

It all depends on what sports are you shooting most. For field sports you need at least a 70-200. a 300 or a 400 would be really great if it pays. else, a 1.4 extender should do the job just fine. for indoor sports you can go with fast primes and wide angles. a 70-200 f/2.8 also works perfectly in this situation.

[Glockfan]

Fantastic lens. I miss mine.

+1:D

[JIMMY369]

I'm just starting out shooting sports. I know the bodies I'm using can handle the job. (1Dc, 1D2n) but I don't have the right glass for the job. I'm currently trying to use a Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-5.6. Dog slow. What lenses should be in my sports kit. I plan on shooting all high school sports.

No denying the versatility of zooms but don't rule out primes like the 200 2.8L. Believe me when I say it is an incredibly sharp, well built lens that is much lighter than the 70-200 2.8 zooms, not to mention about $500 cheaper. If you find yourself shooting mostly at 200mm anyway and there's no problem moving around to compose a shot this could be the way to go. It also takes the 1.4 extender. Check out photozone.de.
300 F.4 prime another option if you need the extra reach. Also takes the 1.4 extender.

[Simonthephotoman]

theres a 120-300 sigma non os for 1300$ in the toronto area craiglist, cheaper than the 70-200