Ice Hockey Lens Choice - Which one?

[Hoonga]

I'm being tugged at from all sides on this one. I want to get a lens for my son's upcoming season. Some are telling me to get the fixed 85mm w/ f1.8 and others are telling me the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'm finding there is quite a $$$ difference. I'm being told the 85 is the best for the price. However, the latter seems to have such a following. Do I sell my soul, buy the 70-200 and sleep in the back yard for the next year, or go the cheaper route and maybe slip under the boss' (wife) radar? I would like to get as close as I can so I won't have to crop as much. But is it worth it to get the f1.8 (which is faster) and hope cropping it for a full shot from the other side of the rink worth the effort? If not, the tent is pitched and waiting. Which one would give the cleaner, close in shot, the 85 cropped from across or the 200 already in close?

These were taken with my new 350D, 75-300 EF 4-5.6.

Thanks to all of you who have unknowingly helped me get the light into my shots :)

109090

109091

[Spearin]

What sort of rink will you be shooting in? If it's the dark dungeon-esque sort that is frequent for youth hockey, then you should go for the 85mm f/1.8. I thought it was a great focal length on a 1.6x crop body for hockey.

But, last night I shot hockey for the first time with my 70-200mm f/2.8L and in a very well-lit arena. I will be posting my shots from that game hopefully later tonight, since I am at the office right now. It is the ideal lens for hockey shooting (in my opinion). With the 85mm, I was wishing that I could zoom out just a touch to incorporate more action. With the 70-200mm you can do that, plus have some great close ups at your end and still have enough reach to capture action around the middle of the ice and even at the far end (presuming you are shooting in a corner).

You won't need the Image Stabilized version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L if you are primarily using it for sports. I got the non-IS version because I'm on a student budget and have only wished I had IS in very low-lit concert situations.

Hope this helps.

[Little Fish]

The shots above were taken at f4.5 and a shutter speed of 1/250. That's a little slow for action but still fast enough for a lot of good shots. There were also taken in the 125-135mm range.

Both of the lenses you mentioned would gain you a lot of shutter speed which would be great. If you get the 85mm you will save money, get some great shots, and you will be disappointed with the shots you miss because they are too far away. If you get the f2.8, 70-200, you will significantly improve your shutter speed, keep your current range, and learn to love nature as you spend your nights in a tent in the backyard.

Maybe you should consider the 70-200 f/4L lens which is in the $600 range. You improve your shutter speed, you have the versatility and reach of a zoom, you don't bust the bank, and you get the awe-status of showing up at the game with a white lens. This would also be a great lens for tons of other occasions and you will get good value back if you find a need to move to the 2.8 lens. Plus, no nights spent in a tent.

[MikeMcL]

I think little fish hit it. I have the 70-200f/4L and it does a great job.

I think that the 85 is a dynamite lens, but not for the range of space you are trying to cover on a rink.

The shots above show that you won't be desperate for the 2.8

It is true that the resale valus of the 70-200 f4 will be good. you can probably get at least 85-90% of your cash back if you buy smart.

best of luck.

[lisa1969]

You could buy the magic drainpipe, I found it to do quite well and it is less expensive than the 70-200 2.8 but will give the same AP. I thought it did well with hockey last year but I am no means an expert, I am sure you will get alot of great advice here.

[Hoonga]

If you get the 85mm you will save money, get some great shots, and you will be disappointed with the shots you miss because they are too far away. If you get the f2.8, 70-200, you will significantly improve your shutter speed, keep your current range, and learn to love nature as you spend your nights in a tent in the backyard.

Thanks for the info - Not having the opportunity to try the 85, the shots that are on the opposite side of the rink were one of my concerns. I thought shots farther away may not be salvaged by cropping. I was leaning toward the 70-200 lens and will continue to debate which one, when, and how many sleeping bags will I need when it starts getting cold out. (I think the f4 purchase would still land me in the yard) :D

[DavidEB]

I think 85 is too short for hockey. to fill the frame with a short lens, the skaters will have to be close to you. that will increase their angular velocity as they go by (eg, it's easier to track a skater across the ice, 85 feet away, than at mid-ice, 40 feet away). Also, with faster aperatures you need a little distance to get adequate depth-of-field.

I use either the 135 f2 or the 70-200 f2.8. With the 70-200 I usually have the lens zoomed all the way out. I use the 135 in darker rinks -- I get good shots but often have to crop.

>>>results<<< (www.pbase.com/davideb/hockey)

good luck

[Hoonga]

I think 85 is too short for hockey. I use either the 135 f2 or the 70-200 f2.8. With the 70-200 I usually have the lens zoomed all the way out. I use the 135 in darker rinks -- I get good shots but often have to crop.


Thanks for the info. Once the season starts, I have a feeling I will be taking shots from behind the plexiglass and beyond depending where they'll allow parents to go. The rink can be dark depending on the outside weather (various sun roof bubbles on the ceiling and not that great at times).

[Alan Dye]

I tend to lean towards the 70-200f2.8. It's a very versitile lens and works well in most of the arena's I've shot in.

[superdiver]

I LOVE my 85 1.8, but I think it would be too short of Hockey...I would say the 70-200 2.8 L IS would be best...

[minimako]

Hoonga, I have both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 2.8IS my son has played travel hockey for 6 years. I am by no means anywhere as capable as most of the shooters who post pictures on this forum but from personal experiance I can tell you the following. 1st the f4 is a great lens but due to poor lighting in the hockey rinks if you use this lens you will get more keepers if you use a flash. The 2.8 IS without a flash will get you even more keepers than the f4 with the flash. By the way I shoot with eather a Canon 300-D or a Canon origional 1D. Hint, If your teams coach or the league will let you, ask to eather shoot from the bench or the penilty box. This does two things for you. It solves the problem of shooting threw the glass and gets you closer to the game. If you take the time to try to shoot the whole game instead of just the one player and allow the other parents to look at your pictures from a web site for free like smugbug etc. it will not only sharpen your skills you may find that you become the un-offical photographer for the team. Good luck.

[900spg]

I often use a 70-200 2.8 L non IS to shoot hockey. I pretty much leave it a 200mm for most of the time and in my rink it always stays at 2.8 for the poor light. I really like to shoot from behind the net through the glass so I would say that for my use the 85 would be way too short. A 70-200 is so nice to have for so many different types of shooting.

[mdm]

Sleeping in the back yard is not too bad. You'll eventually get use to it. I did.

[Amorous]

I would take Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over Canon f/4 any time.

[superdiver]

You ikow, these are NOT the best looking pictures of hockey, BUT, BUT, BUT

Have you seen the pictures your kids team mates parents have taken? I promise you the vast majority of them dont even try to take pictures anymore cuz their cameras CANT...

Always look to get better, but also be happy with what you have too...these are great shots. I LOVE the first one..so its not perfect and you are learning to get better, but this is a great shot IMHO cuz you captured the "moment"!...

[Hoonga]

114782

114783

Thanks to ALL of you for all your input. I did it. I got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It rained last night and the backyard was chilly :D

I'm looking forward to taking tons of pics of my son and my nephew who play on the same team.

I'm learning A LOT from everyone's posts on indoor ice hockey pics.

Thanks for that too!

[MDJAK]

I didn't see this thread until now, but as you already know, you made the right choice.

BTW, do you have a dog? They can help you stay warm while you're in the proverbial doghouse.:lol:

mark

[Hoonga]

I didn't see this thread until now, but as you already know, you made the right choice.
mark

Uhmmmm.........*gulp*..........the dog gets to sleep in the kitchen..............:D

[MDJAK]

Hah, too funny.

mark

[emurph2]

I use the 200 f/1.8 for hockey and feel like I'm still pushing it with that lens. I can't imagine an f/4 lens in a hockey rink. I also have used the 85 f/1.2 lens for hockey. I don't think it's a very good focal length for hockey. Not enough zoom and it doesn't go through the dirty glass as well as a longer lens.

[symes]

You're only viable option is 70-200mm 2.8 - and even it lacks reach at times. Rinks are horribly lit unless you are photographing a professional team...so the extra stops are crucial.

[BassBiggieD]

70-200 f2.8 canon or sigma wich ever one you can afford is your best choice

this is with the sigma

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/BigD6997/IMG_3672.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/BigD6997/IMG_3710.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/BigD6997/IMG_3642.jpg

EDIT* shoulda read the whole thread :( you already got the lens... lucky you could get the IS version to! great lens

[LBaldwin]

All ice venues suck lighting wise.

I think I can help. The 70-200 2.8 is the best answer. The 85 is way too short for most action images and really does focus fast enuf for sports, either version. For most venues you will be using at least ISO 640 if not more.

Trty this and see if it helps.

Les

Proper camera handeling, and exposure are critical to shooting sports indoors. make sure you do a white balance each time you begin a new shoot. The exposure should be metered off of your hand in the center and also at the ends in as close to the exact light as you can. DO NOT USE AUTO EXPOSURE!!! The black unis and white ice, backgrounds will fool your meter. Set your camera according to the meter readings you took earlier.

[Crush]

It may be too late, but the 70-200 non IS is a lens for the arena also. I recently sold mine and got the IS but it was for totally different reasons.( so I tell myself) I also have the 135 f2.0, and find the same as others it is too short at one end and too long on the other. With the 85mm, the game HAS to come to you to get the shots. Just my 2 cents. All the hockey pictures are taken with the non IS.
http://www.pbase.com/crush1287/sports

Crush

[Hockeyphoto]

Hoonga, You'll be glad you ended up with the IS version, it just makes things easier and you don't have to worry about a tripod. The lens and camera itself are big enough and draw enough attention, you can steady the lens with IS well enough free hand at full zoom and get some awesome pics. Also, with the 2.8 you will be taking pro looking pictures throughout your subjects career which will make the lens well worth it!! If you don't believe it, turn off the IS and shoot some shots free hand... you'll see!! :lol:

Plus I've taken some of the best portrait pics I've ever taken with ANY lens with this lens, which has justified the purchase to my wife!! No backyard sleeping for me!!

[Hoonga]

Hoonga, You'll be glad you ended up with the IS version, it just makes things easier and you don't have to worry about a tripod...........:lol:

I'm THRILLED I picked up the IS. It gives me a great excuse to take it with everywhere I go. My wife loves tennis. I went with her today to a tennis event in Mill Valley, CA and got shots of Chris Evert, Mary Jo Fernandez, etc... (those there) and it helped me back into the house (since my boss is such a tennis lover) AND I can get shots of my kid in goal. I'm sure the IS will come in handy when I start taking it to stage events for other family members.

I'm glad I went the extra mile for the lens :D
(pics = Yes, it was a save deflected to his left to the corner, & she wasn't called for a foot fault)
117372

117373

[patdrennan]

I just purchased a Rebel XTi along with 200mm f2.8 & 28-135mm f3.5-5.6. I found the 200mm to be a great lens from the penalty box and from the stands looking over the glass.

[Lacks_focus]

Nice pics! Thanks! Now I want a 70-200L too!!!

I use my 85 1.8 for hockey. I do find the focal length has limitations, but having a shooting strategy helps. I just get to the end of the ice I know there will be action I want to grab. For example, if my son is playing forward, I shoot in the opposing team’s defensive zone. If he winds up on defense, I'm on that end... The other good choice is the 50 1.8. It's nice for when you're right behind the net to grab that awesome save or goal. It depends on what I am after. Do I miss shots that way? Yes, but my kid has been playing hockey for 6 years. I have lots of pics that I may never look at again because they all start to look the same. I feel I have the luxury of being selective on what I want to shoot now. Different lenses for different "assignments". I do have an 80-200 2.8 Tokina that is wonderful optically, but it is a bit slow focusing to use for sports. A micro-motor moving a very large front element slows things a bit. I have had some nice shots from it, but that lens is best used when I’m center ice and back from the glass a ways, like in the stands. I also find f2.8 boarder-line fast enough, but I am a recent convert from film. I wound up using mainly ISO 400 in film (Fuji NPH). It had the best trade-off between speed and grain with the f1.8s. I am still amazed at the quality of the pics right out of the camera at the faster ISOs on my “old” (but new to me) 10D! Believe me, ISO 1600 in digital looks NOTHING like ISO 1600 in film!!! I am probably going to use my 2.8s more now because I can get away with the faster ISOs and not have to pretend the those baseball sized grains are OK...

Hmmm, so basically my reply contributed nothing to this thread... So I’ll just say, there is probably not ONE "best" lens for shooting hockey. Depends on what you want to capture, I guess.

[gstaylor]

I have been shooting high school hockey for 6 years and find the arena are usually dark. I started with what I had for a lens: 28-200 Sigma. Not very good, as the aperture was too small for fast shutter speeds using 800 ISO film. I worked with one processor, though and got him to adjust my prints the way I liked. I moved through various lenses, such as the Canon 70-200 f/4. This lens worked well, but f/4 is not good enough at 800 ISO. The best part was the lens focused very fast, which was light years ahead of previous lenses I had.

I started using the Canon 85 f/1.8 last year and found it works great for me. The focus is very fast and the lens is small, so hand holding is fine. I shoot from a ladder above the glass about 10 feet to the goal side of the blue line. This gives me perfect framing for action in and around the goal, using a D-Rebel. I can also get shots as the players a reheading toward the goal on my end. If I want to get shots at the far side of the rink (not the far end) I have to crop a lot, but it works for small sized photos. 4 by 6 is usually what the players get at the seasons end ( I shoot for the high school). The parents and players appreciate what ever they get, but I am always working to get better at what I do.

The 135 f/2 sounds like a great "next lens" for shooting towad the other end of the ice, but logistics of lens changing comes into play here (over having a fast zoom). This may work well from the penalty box though. I have a 70-210 f/4 also, but f/4 is too dark, as I stated earlier. It seems others agree on this.

[DavidEB]

GS -- the ladder thing intrigues me. I've thought about it but am scared a puck will come at me & I'll fall off trying to duck. what's your experience with puck-dodging on a ladder?

thanks,

[gstaylor]

The best advise I can give is do NOT hang onto the glass/plexi. When players hit the boards (and they will) you don't want to get set in motion. Make sure the ladder is spaced a few inches away from the board/ glass "wall" to prevent any motion being transferred.

Make sure you have a sturdy ladder as well and can move out of the way/ duck, if needed. My local rink is very accomodating and supplies the ladder and sets it where I want it. Their ladder is a very sturdy fiberglass commercial duty one, so I feel pretty secure. The small 85mm lens is not so large that I feel off balance either. You can shoot with free movement without the need for additional support (ie: monopod, etc.) which would be difficult/ impossible on a ladder.

I have shot with a flash on a bracket also, but once I had the 85mm lens, I did not feel I needed it. Flash photos work well, though and some hockey gear have reflective strips that shine with the flash. Good to be aware of - you may or may not want that effect.