Need advice on a good lens for sports photography

[Q20D]

Hi all,

I currently own a 20d with a 50mm f1.8 and a kit lens (18-55mm). I am very interested in finding a new lens with some zoom to it that will be fast enough to capture sports photograpy that is indoor and outdoor. Now, I am a college student so my budget is really tight. I have about $300 to spend on this.
I actually tried out a 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM, but that disapointed me a bit just because it was a bit slow on the focus. Now given this may just be my opinion on it, and that I have only done portaiture until now.

Any advice would be welcome!

Thanks in advance!

Quentin

[volleybrad]

One of the flagship indoor sports lenses is the EF 85mm f/1.8.
I have it and use it to shoot volleyball. It's a great lens with a wide aperature and a fast USM.

That should fit within your budget.

[gramps]

It isn't the best for indoor but for outdoor you might want to look at the 70 - 200 f4L. It's fast and very sharp. You probally can find a good used one in the $450 - $500 range.

[Q20D]

thanks for the advice guys. Oh, i forgot to mention that I am also trying to shoot paintball...not sure how that will affect some of the advice.

Thanks again!

Quentin

[peterdoomen]

Quentin,

sports (especially indoors) might be one of the most if not the most requiring subject for lenses... you basically need:
1) long focal length since mostly you'll be relatively far from the action (200mm is a minimum, even on a 20D with crop factor 1.6)
2) a very light sensitive lens since it all happens so fast... f/2.8 is desirable

If you drop the requirement of zoom it becomes easier... Canon and Sigma both have an excellent 200mm prime at f/2.8. Which is less expensive than the 70-200 mm zoom lens of both companies. I have a 70-200 f/4 and it is indeed not suited for indoor sports, though for exterior photography, it's excellent. Crank up the ISO a bit (400 or 800) and you might be able to shoot paintball as well.

Success!

PeteR.
PS. Compare price and quality with the spreadsheet you find here: http://www.aboriginemundi.com/photo

[cfcRebel]

thanks for the advice guys. Oh, i forgot to mention that I am also trying to shoot paintball...not sure how that will affect some of the advice.

Thanks again!

QuentinThese guys seem to be the expert in paintball photography. ;) Try send them your question.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=130623

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=117611&highlight=paintball

[Kennymc]

I am very interested in finding a new lens with some zoom to it that will be fast enough to capture sports photograpy that is indoor and outdoor. Now, I am a college student so my budget is really tight. I have about $300 to spend on this.
Quentin

If you find one let me know... :lol:

[aparmley]

I asked this question one time.

the answer:

Its gonna cost alot!

Things require to successfully and consistently photograph sports:

Fast accurate Auto Focus - both lens and body requirements
Lenses that have large apertures
Lenses that have reach

70-200 F2.8 - This lens is staple in sports photography, plain and simple. Why, 1 Fast 2.8 - constant throughout the zoom range, although it won't be fast enough for everything. 2 fast focus. 3 amazing L results. Sigma has a very comparable version for about 800 bucks - You'll find plenty of people recommend this lens over the Canon.

Either way - for indoor sports the 85 1.8 will be useful, in some circumstances the 50 1.4 is the way to go. the 85 is $350, the 50 is $320 and the 70-200 2.8 is $1140.

I was in denial about having to spend that kind of money at first. So I bought the 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-300 APO 4-5.6. The result, I have spent about 300 bucks on lenses I am now looking to replace. So, I am 300 in the hole.

The zoom really is ideal as sports means movement, which means your subjects distance to you is going to vary. The fast primes are another staple the 300 F2.8 IS is about $3,900 - that is a requirment for field sports, soccer, football, baseball. But as stated above by others the 85 and below with larger apertures than 2.8 are need for poor lighting inside gyms.

Why lenses with large apertures. The biggest reason I can tell you is because you want to isolate the player under most circumstances - this is because the backgrounds can be very busy and take away from the subject of your photograph - The other reason is so the photographer can get his Shutter speeds up in available light to a speed that is fast enough to freeze the action.

So it really boils down to this: The lenses you use need to be very versatile: Fast to focus. They need to suck in a lot of light [meaning they have large apertures]. Zooms are so versatile in this area do to subject movement it is vital to have one or more. And for the field sports a long prime like the 300 is required - and most will use the 1.4x TC with for a little extra reach.

I am aware of whats required now to start shooting sports successfuly as far as gear is concerned and I am going to start by picking up a 70-200 F2.8 L + a 1.4x TC. That should be a great start. I already have the 85 1.8 in my arsenal so thats a good start for indoor sports. I eventually will be picking up the 24-70 F2.8 L as well for those sports that we can get close enough to not need the longer stuff but still a zoom is vital.

I know this is disappointing but its pretty much gospel. Others will recommend picking up third party gear to start because it is more affordable than Canon's gear. This is true but the probability that you will run into some focusing problems is a lot higher with the Sigma gear and its something that I really don't want to have mess with if I don't have to. I still don't have my mind made up completely. I really would love to go the Sigma route if I could the lenses to perform properly, as that would probably be a great start to use Sigma gear and then upgrade to the L stuff. . . But, I'm just not liking that I may end up paying $800 for a lens only to turned around and have it shipped back to Sigma so they can fix it and spend weeks waiting for it. Some will make the argument that its worth the savings, but an extra 350 bucks will get you the top of line lens in this range. . . that to me is close enough to make it within the range of probability.

Good luck!