GAHHHH i'm going nuts over this

[timmyquest]

I want to get into sports photography mainly football, because i know the coaches and it's just a highschool game i'll be on the field. I need a lens though, i have a 70-300mm sigma lens but it just doesnt give me pictures that i like.

I have been thinking of getting the (EX badged...which i figured should help with picture quality) 50-500mm lens.

50-500mm is an extreamly versitile lens, and the with my 18-55mm lens that i've got that gives me an effective 18-500mm range with just two lenses.

But then i go read reviews on the 70-200mm "L" canon and it just makes me wonder if i should go for that...but thats only 200mm...i'm just having a very hard time trying to figure out what i want.

Lets put it this way, i want to be able to see the quarterbacks eye color from 30 yards away, but it also needs to be a nice clean sharp image...perferably a zoom lens.

I'd prefer canon, but they are just alot more money.

Help...help help.

[CyberDyneSystems]

My advice would be to get either the 50-500mm or the Canon 100-400mm IS

In ether case, if you decide to get something else, the resale value is not bad. You may take a $200.00 loss max in either case,. at the most.

Personally,. I do not think 200mm is enough.

[DaveG]

I want to get into sports photography mainly football, because i know the coaches and it's just a highschool game i'll be on the field. I need a lens though, i have a 70-300mm sigma lens but it just doesnt give me pictures that i like.

I have been thinking of getting the (EX badged...which i figured should help with picture quality) 50-500mm lens.

50-500mm is an extreamly versitile lens, and the with my 18-55mm lens that i've got that gives me an effective 18-500mm range with just two lenses.

But then i go read reviews on the 70-200mm "L" canon and it just makes me wonder if i should go for that...but thats only 200mm...i'm just having a very hard time trying to figure out what i want.

Lets put it this way, i want to be able to see the quarterbacks eye color from 30 yards away, but it also needs to be a nice clean sharp image...perferably a zoom lens.

I'd prefer canon, but they are just alot more money.

Help...help help.

First, get over that quarterbacks eye stuff. Maybe the multi thousand dollar TV lenses will do that kind of thing but it's just not going to happen with still photographs.

The 70-200 f 2.8 is an great choice (IS or non IS) for the 10D. I have one (non IS) and it's an excellent lens. Combine that with a 1.4 teleconverter and you have a effectively a 450 mm f4 lens.

Now have a look in Sports Illustrated and those types of magazines and see what's possible. THEY don't have the quarterback's eye's and neither will you. What SI WILL have is the winning touchdown and that requires a half dozen photographers at the Superbowl and one whole bunch of luck. Daily newspapers will have something representative of each game ("Joe Smith, the game winning quarterback, completes a 14 yard pass in the first half.")

I start by focusing on the quarterback and then I follow the ball. The action is almost always around the ball so if you follow it you rarely get into trouble. After you get some safe shots you start to take some chances. Third and ten (US football once again) and you should assume that they'll throw. So follow a receiver and see what happens.

Remember if you are shooting action that you have to shoot the "equal and opposite" condition as well. That of course would be reaction. The coach screaming, a cheerleader praying, a player in tears after a close loss; all make powerful statements about the game that a simple "catching a ball" won't.

Your field (I assume you are American) is very narrow compared to ours (Canadian) but you will have to come to terms that you just won't be able to shoot stuff on the other side of the field. NO ONE CAN. So get over that too and wait for the action to come to you.

If you are shooting highschool football (next year I presume) you should be able to walk up and down the field following the ball, rather than being stuck in an endzone. So just get about five yards ahead of the line of scrimage, focus on the quaterback with a 300 mm (ish) lens and follow the ball. Football is SOOOO slow that you should easily capture great images.

[timmyquest]

First, get over that quarterbacks eye stuff. Maybe the multi thousand dollar TV lenses will do that kind of thing but it's just not going to happen with still photographs.

I was trying to exagerate a bit...just saying i want very good detail, i want to see who it is, not just what team they are on.

Remember if you are shooting action that you have to shoot the "equal and opposite" condition as well. That of course would be reaction. The coach screaming, a cheerleader praying, a player in tears after a close loss; all make powerful statements about the game that a simple "catching a ball" won't.

This however is a great peice of advice i think...

[Sonex305]

Have a look at this...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129723&highlight=#129723

Craig (new to the forum)

[timmyquest]

Have a look at this...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129723&highlight=#129723

Craig (new to the forum)

LOL, trust me i've read just about everything there is to read about this lens on the internet, i just...and maybe this is more of a "status" thing, but i just feel like a canon would give me better quality pictures.

And for the record i was not thinking of the 2.8 canon, just way outta my price range.

I think the 50-500 would be a good bet...i think.

[GenEOS]

This shot was with a 100-400 canon L glass.

http://www.tunstall.cc/galleries/082303-pearland_fb1/08-24-03%20hcn-pl-fb-07.htm

It was at 285mm for this shot, from the sideline 26 meters away.

I shoot most my night games with a 70-200 f2.8
It is good for most, but is a little short. But, I need the f2.8 and it was the most affordable and versatile for the bucks...

[timmyquest]

This shot was with a 100-400 canon L glass.

http://www.tunstall.cc/galleries/082303-pearland_fb1/08-24-03%20hcn-pl-fb-07.htm

It was at 285mm for this shot, from the sideline 26 meters away.

I shoot most my night games with a 70-200 f2.8
It is good for most, but is a little short. But, I need the f2.8 and it was the most affordable and versatile for the bucks...

That gives me a pretty good idea, with the access i have i dont ever intend on being much more then 30 yards away from the ball.

How important do you think it is to have a 2.8 lens for night shooting, with the lights and a 550EX?

I may spring for it, it's down the line and i'l lhave the cash, i'd just rather not spend the cash...and i really want at the veyr least 350mm

[MrKickalot]

If I may make a suggestion, try to find a place to rent lenses. I plan to rent a few before I make my next purchase. The camera shop here rents lenses, most for about 30-50 USD a day or discounted rates for multiple days.

Just a thought.......

Jason

[GenEOS]

I would say that the f2.8 is very important for night games in my situation. I am shooting the D60 and I don't have the ability to go past 1000 asa and it is not that great at 1000. I also can't use a flash in most cases. So in my particular case, it is important.

I have used a flash, and it works ok too. But again, the D60 is kinda finiky when it comes to flash exposures. I have used my older 540EZ with some good luck in manual mode, lowering the output a great deal.

If you are in Dallas or Houston, there is a place that rents a lot of Canon lenses and even a 10D should you need an extra.