best sports lens

[akhoopes]

i am venturing into sports photography, and i am wondering what the crowd recomends, i have a 70-200 f4 is and i am strongly looking at the 100-400mm is, i only have 1600 dollars, so the primes ie 400-500-600mm L's are out of the question. so what does the crowd recommend am i on the right path with the 100-400 and how good is that with a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. Thanks in advance

[Cadwell]

Around your price range I'd say the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. Compatible with 1.4x and 2x TCs to give you up to 420mm or 600mm with autofocus.

Canon 100-400L IS USM is decent enough in good light but the f/5.6 max. aperture is a bit limiting - it restricts your available shutter speeds in low light and it makes using depth of field to isolate your subject from messy backgrouds difficult. Whilst you can fit teleconvertors, you lose autofocus unless you have a 1 Series body (1.4x).

[carpenter]

this would vastly depend on what sport you will be shooting. Or what the majority of sports you shoot are and what venues they are played in. Indoor? ourdoor?

[sirsloop]

before everyone jumps out of their seats and starts spewing out their favorite lens... what exactly are you going to be shooting? "Sports Photography" is a pretty broad term and can mean a wide variety of lenses. Example, surfing photography will almost require AT LEAST a 400mm lens, if not 500-600+. If you are shooting basketball a 500mm prime is worthless.

One comment I will make, is whatever lens you choose, ensure its fast enough for the light you will have available. A lens like the 100-400L is slow (f/4-5.6). When you are shooting (rather, attempting to shoot) at 1/250th at f/5.6, the guy next to you is still shooting at 1/1000th at f/2.8.

[Palladium]

you have short - now go long for outdoors


300mm F4 and Canon 1.4 II converter

and in the fall go indoors
85mm 1.8

[kidpower]

Your website seems to indicate you will covering all kinds if sports - indoors and out. If so, you are probably talking a few different lens.

The happy medium might be something like a 70-200 2.8. Lots of people use this indoors and out. The downfall is it's not long enough on the long end.

Personally, for me in my experiences, 2.8 usually will not cut it indoors. Or at best is marginal. I would opt for a faster prime such as a 85 1.8, 100 F2, or 135 F2. If you always have good lighting, well that changes things.

Outdoors you have lots of options until the sun starts to go down or you are shooting under lousy stadium lighting. When that happens you will wish you had a faster lens. You end up sacificing shutter speed.

It's tough. I'm sure lots of comments will come your way. Good luck.

[akhoopes]

ok sorry for not being more specific, i do plan on majority outside sports but you never know what parent will call for what, my focus is going to be football, basketball, most of the high school sports, i feel the 100-400 for outdoors will work, but now you got me wanting to trade to 70-200 f4 is for the 2.8 version. what about for indoor sports i have th 24-70 2.8 wouldnt that be just as good as the 85 prime i know thats 1.8 but should be good right, soory to be so broad, with portrait photography i havent run into this as much i have so many ways to control the light myslef where in sports i dont, thanks again for the help and the commments

[kidpower]

"I have th 24-70 2.8 wouldnt that be just as good as the 85 prime"

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, but if you are thinking indoor sports, in my opinion, you will be much happier with the 85 1.8. It focuses faster, has a little more reach, and is naturally faster (all things you want in a sports lens indoors). Plus its IQ is great. Yeah, maybe you have to foot zoom a little.

Sure you can use the 24-70 2.8, but its not what I think of when I think of a fast action low light indoor sports lens.

[Ultimate CC]

the 100-400 is great for outdoors but don't even try it if its not bright out and not a chance indoors...

[carpenter]

"I have th 24-70 2.8 wouldnt that be just as good as the 85 prime"

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, but if you are thinking indoor sports, in my opinion, you will be much happier with the 85 1.8. It focuses faster, has a little more reach, and is naturally faster (all things you want in a sports lens indoors). Plus its IQ is great. Yeah, maybe you have to foot zoom a little.




I will second this, especially for basketball. 85 1.8 is perfect.

[Maxed Out]

your best bet is the 70-200 f/2.8 or a prime

[Palladium]

ok sorry for not being more specific, i do plan on majority outside sports but you never know what parent will call for what, my focus is going to be football, basketball, most of the high school sports, i feel the 100-400 for outdoors will work, but now you got me wanting to trade to 70-200 f4 is for the 2.8 version. what about for indoor sports i have th 24-70 2.8 wouldnt that be just as good as the 85 prime i know thats 1.8 but should be good right, soory to be so broad, with portrait photography i havent run into this as much i have so many ways to control the light myslef where in sports i dont, thanks again for the help and the commments

I told you want to get for under $1600 anything else IMHO is a waste of money.

You can replace the 85mm 1.8 with the 135mm next but I would look into getting & keeping both.

[akhoopes]

so every one agrees the 100-400 is no good then, what about the primes you see on the football fields, they arent 2.8's and such, they seem to work fine why wouldnt the 100-400.

just trying to learn here

[kidpower]

I think everyone is saying that the 100-400 would not be satisfactory indoors.

Outside it should be fine as long as the light holds up. Outdoors in nice lighting opens up a whole new array of possible lens. The problems begin to surface when the sun starts to go down (or on real cloudy days) and one still has to maintain enough shutter speed to freeze/stop the action.

[kidpower]

And in some stadiums the lighting is so good it doesn't matter what lens you use. For someone to use a 100 -400 at a sporting event (indoors or out) means the lighting must be pretty good.

[ed rader]

so every one agrees the 100-400 is no good then, what about the primes you see on the football fields, they arent 2.8's and such, they seem to work fine why wouldnt the 100-400.

just trying to learn here

i use the 300L f4 IS and i also have the 100 f2 and 70-200L f4 IS.

ed rader

[JVolz]

You can get started for under $1600 with the 70-200 2.8 and the 85 1.8. This will help you cover both in and out. You can always add the 1.4x later for a little extra reach outdoors with only the one stop loss.

[twoshadows]

Daylight, all weather sports shooting requires an f/4 or faster lens, even with the high iso capability of the 30D. For a one lens, one camera solution I recommend the Sigma 100-300 f/4 with and without the Sigma 1.4x TC. That'll cost you around $1300 ($800 used). Then, in the winter you can get an 85mm f/1.8 for indoor (basketball) shooting and that'll cost you around $380 with the hood. I see you've already got the 100-400 IS on the way. Sorry, but I think you'll be disappointed with it for outdoor sports. It's just too slow for cloudy/rainy days and you'll be struggling for shutter speed. Plus, IS is not helpful for sports (except for panning mode and panning). Hope this helps.

Ian

[S.Horton]

Around your price range I'd say the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. Compatible with 1.4x and 2x TCs to give you up to 420mm or 600mm with autofocus.

Canon 100-400L IS USM is decent enough in good light but the f/5.6 max. aperture is a bit limiting - it restricts your available shutter speeds in low light and it makes using depth of field to isolate your subject from messy backgrouds difficult. Whilst you can fit teleconvertors, you lose autofocus unless you have a 1 Series body (1.4x).

+1 for this -- I should have looked more carefully at options; check that lens out for sure.

Don't get me wrong, I really like my 100-400, but in retrospect, here's the list I should have checked in the price range:
-Canon 300 f/4 L IS (most likely)
-Canon 400 f/5.6 L
-Sigma 100-300 f/4

The Sigma 120-300 mentioned above is bit more, but if the IQ is anywhere close to the Canon, that's a steal in the low 2K range!

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 vs. 100-400:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The BIG thing to keep in mind, the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is huge in sports.

[cwphoto]

so every one agrees the 100-400 is no good then, what about the primes you see on the football fields, they arent 2.8's and such, they seem to work fine why wouldnt the 100-400.

just trying to learn here

Most of them are f/2.8 for field sports, and even the ones that are f/4 are still twice as bright as the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and longer without TCs.

[akhoopes]

+1 for this -- I should have looked more carefully at options; check that lens out for sure.

Don't get me wrong, I really like my 100-400, but in retrospect, here's the list I should have checked in the price range:
-Canon 300 f/4 L IS (most likely)
-Canon 400 f/5.6 L
-Sigma 100-300 f/4

The Sigma 120-300 mentioned above is bit more, but if the IQ is anywhere close to the Canon, that's a steal in the low 2K range!

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 vs. 100-400:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The BIG thing to keep in mind, the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is huge in sports.


but all of these are f4 to f 5.6 so why are these ok these are the same apature range as the 1-400

[akhoopes]

by the way i do appreciate all this incite everyone it is very helpful.

[S.Horton]

^^ Good question.

1. Faster lenses; note all but the 400 L f/5.6 let in more light
1a. Each stop doubles the amount of light; that is huge, in practice
1b. All other things equal, more light = better image quality (lower ISO) and the ability to shoot at dusk
1c. f/2.8 is a must for night shots; f/4 I might barely slide by at ISO 1600/3200

2. Constant apertures
2a. Took some time, but I shoot [M]anual quite a bit now
2b. Exposure control in [M] and zooming is impossible if the aperture varies

Note the short list was in the same price range as the Canon 100-400. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is about $2,300, so it stands out of the list. But that aperture, f/2.8, would be worth the $ to shoot at night or in low light.

[EDIT] - Ah, I see in your signature you went 100-400, congrats, enjoy!

[akhoopes]

i did go that way 1-400, but i will definatly be adding more len's as time goes by. i will take these suggestions. on boad, but i think IS is a must for me. thanks every one.