Zoom for motorsports and soccer

[Wayne02]

I had posted in an earlier thread about this and got some great information. Rather then muck up the subject of that original thread anymore, I'd thought I'd post a new one about this subject specifically.

I've spent the better part of the last 3 days online reading the various reviews, forums etc, trying to come to a conclusion on a zoom lens for my 300D (w/ kit lens)... and now, I have a headache... Just today I went back to July in this forum reading all the threads about the Sigma and Canon lenses I'm considering. So, if you all could stand it, I would like to ask for your opinion yet again on a couple of popular lenses.

First some background on applications and such. My wife and I are new 300D owners, having used a very old point and shoot digital for a number years. The wife has an old Canon AE1 I think it is, but we have not used it for years. One of the primary uses of this camera is for my wife to take action pictures during my road race endeavors. This of course requires a fast zoom lens. Further to this, we will use this camera to take photos of my sons soccer games. In addition the camera will be used for an "all around" family type camera... shots of family members, the pets (dog, two cats, and my wife raises exotic birds). Outdoor/wildlife/scenery type pictures will be taken when we are out camping in our rv.

Finally, this camera will be used to take pictures of my 13 year old sons basketball team. I understand this is a difficult application, he plays in JR high school gyms which are fairly small and have not so good lighting. The other thing in play here is I'm not convinced he is going to stay with basketball for much more then a another year or two. But I would like to get some halfway decent shots before he quits. I was thinking for this application maybe the Canon 50mm 1.8 II would work as I can get right down court-side in these small gyms. Budget wise I would like to stay in the $1000 range.

So, I have narrowed it down to the following options:
Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L usm - $540 with
Canon 1.4 TC - $270
Plus a tripod mount - $80 for a grand total of ~$890

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ex, apo hsm - $613 with
Sigma 1.4 tc - $145 for a grand total of ~$758

As you can see, there really is not a lot of difference cost wise between these two set-ups. So, that is really not an issue. With regards to image quality, I really couldn't tell much difference in all the posted pics. It did seem however that the Canon was almost rock solid consistent in its excellent pictures. There "seemed" to be more "bad" copies of the sigma out there. But many of the sigmas had excellent image quality as well.

The sigma of course provides the 2.8 vs the f4 of the canon. This would help on indoor shots I'm sure, but then again I just don't envision ourselves taking that many indoor photos. Particularly if the 50mm 1.8 can handle the basketball, the pets, and the miscellaneous indoor people pictures. The kit lens works ok with a flash as well. So, one question in my mind is if the 2.8 "adds" anything at the race track or the soccer fields? Keeping in mind that 3 of my race weekends last year were rain races w/ overcast skys...

With regards to ergonomics and handling, I think I have to give the nod to the canon. It is lighter and slightly smaller in size. If I read the specs correctly the sigma is ~1.25 lbs. heavier. While this may not seem like a big deal, I do have to give consideration to this aspect, as my wife is going to be the one lugging this thing around the infield at the track. Something tells me she is not going to be to keen on needing a hand-truck to carry this gear.:) Or, maybe the size/weight difference is not that big of deal.... I'm just not sure.

In addition, I'm wondering if the canon w/o the tc would make a better walking around lens then the sigma because of the size/weight difference. Maybe a lens I could leave on the camera and keep the camera on the shelf where my son or my wife could grab it and take some quick photos of the wild birds out in the backyard type stuff.

Which combo would be the "faster" focusing in daylight conditions. The canon f4 w/1.4tc or the sigma f2.8 w/1.4tc?

So.... what would you do?

Wayne

[CyberDyneSystems]

The F/4 Canon will indeed be considerably lighter.. the more light that a telephoto lets in,. the larger and heavier it is.

It sounds to me like the Canon is your lens,. but,. there are two reasons why you may wish you had gotten an f/2.8 instead.

1. "basketball"
I don't know how close you get,. nor where you are shooting,. but an f/2.8 could very well be adavantageous in a ballcourt.

2. Teleconverters. The Sigma f/2.8 workks very well with BOTH teleconverters.. 1.4X and 2X. Later,. with a nominal investment of another $145.00 a 2X t-con would set you up with a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom. Giving you the focal range of the popular 80-400mm lenses and the Canon 100-400mm.

Other than those applications,. it does seem that the f/4 would be a good choice.

[Wayne02]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
It sounds to me like the Canon is your lens,. but,. there are two reasons why you may wish you had gotten an f/2.8 instead.

1. "basketball"
I don't know how close you get,. nor where you are shooting,. but an f/2.8 could very well be adavantageous in a ballcourt.

2. Teleconverters. The Sigma f/2.8 workks very well with BOTH teleconverters.. 1.4X and 2X. Later,. with a nominal investment of another $145.00 a 2X t-con would set you up with a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom. Giving you the focal range of the popular 80-400mm lenses and the Canon 100-400mm..
Very true, the basketball application is a bit illusive right now. I'm not sure if my kid is going to play much past this year or next. I'm not sure even a 2.8 is going to cut it in some of these gyms. I'm trying to "think ahead" to other possible low light applications I may have beyond the basketball, and am having a hard time coming up something.

No question the sigma lens/converter package provides great value. All the reviews and samples I've seen have been very good to outstanding. If the 2.8f stop is of no benefit in my outdoor photography (race track, wildlife, knock around family photos while camping) then the improved handling characteristics of the Canon are appealing. Having said that... and now that I think about it... the flat track go-cart racers are in full swing at the local fair ground... hmm... indoor arena, poor lighting... Gotta stop thinking like that though, else I'll end up getting back into winter cart racing to satisfy my off-season go-fast Jone's.

I've been trying to find a store around here that has both these lenses in stock so my wife and I can handle them side by side on our rebel. No such luck so far unfortunately. I learned a hard lesson about buying things for the wife that she will be operating. Purchasing a handgun for her that "I" thought would be a good weapon for her, not one that she was comfortable with... bottom line is it doesn't matter what I think would be a good gun/lens for her, it matters what feels right to her.

Thanks for the feedback
Wayne

[scottbergerphoto]

For indoor arena sports get the fastest lens you can afford (smallest f number- widest aperture). Tele extenders rob you of 1/2 your light (1 f stop) at 1.4X and drop you to 1/4 your available light(2 f stops) at 2X. They don't cut it for action shots in indoor arenas as they drop your useable shutter speeds. They also make it harder for you to focus by darkening the viewfinder. Outside on a bright sunny day you might be OK with an extender.
Scott

[DaveG]

The other choice is to wait a bit longer, save some money and get the non IS Canon 70-200 f2.8. That way you get the speed and the quality.

My understanding is that the AF in the dRebel and my 10D like fast lenses when used with an extender. With the slower zoom f4 will become a f5.6 when used with the 1.4 and an f8 with the 2X converters, and you'll probably lose the AF.

For shots inside a high school gym, the lighting seems to be very inexplicably consistent - at least around here. Why it's consistent is beyond me but 1/500 @ f2 with ISO 1600 is that exposure. So with that as the exposure estimate an f2.8 lens won't be all that useful, and you can't get to ISO 3200 with the dRebel.

Think then about the 50 f1.4 or the 100 f2. I'd personally choose the 50 for basketball as it is effectively an 80 mm lens in 35 mm format. I would sit on the baseline near the corner with my Nikkor 85 f1.8. I could cover guards moving the ball and then pivot and get the power shots near the basket. Later I'd move almost behind the basket but then I needed a 35 mm lens.

I would watch other shooters use a 300 f2.8 to shoot action at the other end of the court, but it didn't make sense to me as the players were almost always looking away from the lens. I just thought it was an excuse to look cool by using the 300. That focal length (and I've got a 300 f2.8 by the way) is just too long.

[vvizard]

Hi Wayne! I've just had the same struggle myself. Deciding which lens to get for wildlife and motor-sports. I considered the Canon 70-200 f/4 vs Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. And just before buying I also considered the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (NON-IS). I read a lot of reviews, asked a lot (probably to many =)) questions in this forum about which one to get, and even mails from some very friendly forum-members here, who've shot motorsports before, who told me their oppinions. To cut all unecessary details (you can find them at http://photographyreview.com yourself), my Sigma arrived today. Unfortunatly it's pitch black outside now, and not even a 2.8 will cut it at the moment ;) I'm looking forward till tomorrow, so I can hopefully get some pics with this lens before I go to work.

What I can tell now, is a bit about the weight, handling, size. Sure, it's heavy. That's expected. But playing around with it indoors for about an hour now, I don't see it any problem. Remember it's a quite long lens (my first zoom-lens), so you can very easily support it with your left arm. It handles very well. Good feel in my hand, and I find the weight excellent for handholding. I'm holding this baby real still. It's focusing is fast and QUIET! Compared to my 50mm f/1.4 USM, this lens don't make any sounds at all =) Of course that's less important when you got 300bhp engines roaring around you ;)

But overall, I already love this lens. It's black too. It doesn't get so much attention as a big white one I guess. I also feel that black goes better with my 10D =)

Other things you should consider. I got a tripod mount for it. Sure, the 70-200mm f/4L got one too, for $100+. With Sigma, you get it for free. The tripod-mount I find really lovely even without tripod. It's a nice piece of metal to support with your left hand when handholding.

Filter-size. This baby got 77mm, Canon f/4 got 67 or so.. Sure filters for the Canon might be cheaper then, but how many other 67mm lenses are you planning to buy? I know I'll get _at least_ one other 77mm, the Canon 17-40mm f/4L, so then I can save money on filters.

Tomorrow I find out how the image-quality looks like. I can then send you some pics from it if you like..

[scottbergerphoto]

I agree with DaveG. The Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS is a great fast lens. Even combined with the 1.4X extender it's still pretty fast (f4).
Scott

[John Arnold Ph.D.]

I mainly do soccer videography, but sometimes I do stills. Click on soccer photos, bottom, left, of the page at http://publish.shaw.ca/johnarnoldphd/. I use the cheapest (I think) zoom available, and although the autofocus focussed on the player to the left, it hints at what is required to get a great photo--AI Servo, burst mode, and get the player in the air. Ground shots are boring. Use a monopod. I will take a hundred shots in a game. Maybe one is good. Please ignore the info on my actual profession.