What focal length best for soccer games?

[okiediver]

I have decided on the Sigma 17-70 for my walk around lens, but I need a good economical solution for shooting soccer. I cannot afford an L lens. I also have a 16 year old playing Basketball.

What should I be looking for?

Thanks so much, I greatly appreciate it.

[gjl711]

Depends on how close you can get. If your looking for a good economical tele-lens, either the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 USM-IS lens. Both are about $550 US. If you got a few more coins, the 100-400 will get you real close especially on a crop camera.

[LightRules]

You should consider the Sigma 100-300f4 for outdoor soccer. Maybe look used too.

[CountryBoy]

Really the best way to go might be one of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. They might be higher than you want to spend. But you would not have to buy 2 lens. One for soccer and one for basketball. Just add a 1.4 converter for soccer.

[crn3371]

Since the OP stated that an L was out of the budget, I'll suggest the Sigma 70-300. About $200. Will work just fine for outdoor sports, in decent light. Pretty much useless for the basketball, but so are most the other suggestions.

[slyone]

Really the best way to go might be one of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. They might be higher than you want to spend. But you would not have to buy 2 lens. One for soccer and one for basketball. Just add a 1.4 converter for soccer.
This is exactly my plan as well!:D

[SYS]

No L lens + limited budget + non-pro soccer + indoor basketball

= 85 f/1.8 @ $340

Throw in some portrats of the kids, too...

[bildeb0rg]

Depends where you live; uk you need something that says "f2.8" or faster on the barrel. usa you could probably gat away with f4. Both should be around the 200mm, or more, mark. For basketball you need just as fast, or faster, and less than 100mm. Assuming your on a crop body.

[SuzyView]

85 1.8, a great lens indoors, outdoors, portraits, etc. It's affordable and you will be amazed by it's sharpness. Just be careful of the shallow DoF.

[illy]

If we're going for the 85mm, how about the 100mm f/2?

Pratically the same aperture (which won't limit basketball) and long enough for football. It's only £50 more but the longer reach is worth it. The IQ is excellent so you could crop a bit too.

£317

[Dan-o]

I would say 400. I shot alot of soccer this year with my 70-200 +1.4 TC. That would give me about 1/3 to 1/2 field. Anything past half field had to be too heavily cropped and lost sharpness.

[bieber]

I had to shoot soccer for my school yearbook about a month back, and all I had on me was the school's nifty fifty and a Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6. I started out trying to shoot with the zoom and a monopod, but it was just too dark (our soccer games are at night), so I finally switched out for the fifty and just waited until the players were close enough to me to get decent shots with it. It worked alright for the yearbook, where we only needed a couple shots for the page, but if I'd been trying to adequately cover the entire game, I'd definitely have wanted an L telephoto prime.

[DavidEB]

300 f4 is a great daytime soccer lens, but it's over $1000. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - used ones go for 600-700. Anything slower than f4 is useless. Anything less than 200 mm is frustrating.

[DarrenL]

The 300 F4 is a great lens and is ideal for soccer.

Darren

[okiediver]

So if I chose a 70-300, is Canon or another brand the best? The thought if having one lens is appealing, but from what I have seen I must have the Sigma 17-70. So it seems line the the 70-300 would be a great choice....which one is the best side form the L?

[CountryBoy]

Well, Canon makes the 70-300 IS. The EX 100-300 f/4 would be the better of the 2, at least thats what I think. Like Lightrules said, maybe you could find it used.

[DC9]

I shoot our daughter’s soccer (indoor & outdoor) games, basketball games & softball games (day & night) so I know where you are coming from. No matter what prime lens you take to the game it will be the wrong lens for some shots. If you have a 300mm then it will be to long for the shots where they are right in front of you battling for the ball and if you have a 50mm then you will be to short for the goal shot.

So for less than a thousand I would be looking at these.

For the indoor basketball you will need speed so here is what I would suggest looking at:

85mm f1.8 - $340

100mm f2.0 - $390

135mm f2.0L - $900

For outdoor I would only look at:

70-200mm f4.0L - $580

You can cover just about half the field with this lens. Some shots you will miss but this is the lens I would get on a tight budget and never look back. Like I said you could cover an entire game with just one prime but a zoom will get you that many more shots. The only problem is you can leave this lens at home for an indoor basketball game in the typical high school gym.

The Cadillac is going to be 70-200mm f2.8L IS but that is going to be beyond your budget at $1700.

Prices came from http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[pcasciola]

I don't think you can do this effectively with one lens. A 70-200/2.8 probably comes closest, but 200mm is way too short for soccer unless you are running up and down the sidelines with the kids, and f/2.8 will be most likely be too slow of a lens for indoor basketball unless they are playing in a well lit arena or a gym with a lot of sunlight getting in. Bang for the buck, the 85/1.8 for indoor basketball and the 300/4L IS (or used non-IS) for soccer would be your best bet, but you're looking at about $1400-1500 for both.

[tsaraleksi]

A 70-200 2.8 is your best compromise, it's possible to shoot both basketball and soccer with one, though you'll possibly run into frustration either way-- for basketball, f/2.8 is a little slow, and 70-200 can be a little long depending on where you place yourself. For soccer 200 is pretty short, though if you put yourself in one place and sacrifice the action on the rest of the field, it's pretty good. (as in, put yourself right next to the goal) .

[kidpower]

As mentioned before - budget + action + indoors + outside = 85 1.8 or 100 F2.

I shoot all sports with one of the above. They are fantastic. Yes, I can't really capture some action that is far away, but I wait for action to come to me or I move around. I'm not much for tripods or extra equipment and these lenses are built well and light. Sort of made for an active person.

Of course there are other beautiful sports lenses, but budget was your keyword and at $350 + these lenses are budget. And the nice part is, despite the low price, they produce action shots on par with lens of any price.

Both are versatile and make great general purpose type lens. Just my opinion.

[WildWolf]

How come no one recommends the Canon 100-300 USM lens????? This lens is not the fastest around BUT it is SHARP! It will cost you about $270 and has much better IQ than the typical $200 7X-300 lenses. Good luck with your decision

[okiediver]

There is just too many choices.....yikes it is complicated!

[grego]

Sigma 100-300 f/4
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC(for anything longer)

Both are under $1k

[KevC]

300, 400, 500, 600..... look at all the great whites at World Cup.

Of course, that's probably out of reach for most people. Save up for a Bigma... awesome deal for the amount of focal length you get. If you poke around used you save even more money!