Lens question - indoor sports WA

[mttmrphy]

This is my first lens question... I think I am allowed two?

I will be shooting indoor sports this winter. Mostly hockey. I think I am pretty good with long range but I am looking for a wide angle.

I have narrowed my choices down to

Canon 17-35 2.8
Canon 17-40 4

I know Sigma makes a few lenses in this range but I don't think the quality compares to Canon.

I am concerned that 17 may not be wide enough on my 10D/300D. My biggest concern is that the 17-40 will not be fast enough but I am afraid the 17-35 may be too soft wide open.

Can anyone help me?

[GenEOS]

Indoor Sports = f2.8
Even a Sigma f2.8 is better than an f4.
You will need the speed.

[DaveG]

This is my first lens question... I think I am allowed two?

I will be shooting indoor sports this winter. Mostly hockey. I think I am pretty good with long range but I am looking for a wide angle.

I have narrowed my choices down to

Canon 17-35 2.8
Canon 17-40 4

I know Sigma makes a few lenses in this range but I don't think the quality compares to Canon.

I am concerned that 17 may not be wide enough on my 10D/300D. My biggest concern is that the 17-40 will not be fast enough but I am afraid the 17-35 may be too soft wide open.

Can anyone help me?

I've shot over 500 hockey games and I've rarely used a wide angle for action. About the only shot that you could expect to get would be a player being checked up against the glass. That shot requires a next to the glass position, lots of patience, and is kind of a one trick pony.

The exposure is tricky too since the player will be in the shadow of the light that's lighting the ice surface. The good thing is that the player isn't moving very fast after he's smashed into the boards and a slow lens won't hurt much. I used my Nikkor 20mm f4 for this shot a few times, so you also might want to think about the 14mm f2.8.

In any case if you are using the rink's available light then speed is extremely important. From the ice level to one side of the net I used to use a Nikkor 180 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 on a F3 film camera. From the penalty box or the stands I'd use a 300 f2.8. Of course if you can light the ice surface with catwalk mounted strobes then the lens speed isn't important.

[scott stokes]

? where did you see canon 17-35 2.8. i have not seen one. thanks for any info.

[dn7elson]

? where did you see canon 17-35 2.8. i have not seen one. thanks for any info.

Probably means the 16-35 f2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=239648&is=USA

[Tom W]

There are some used 17-35 f/2.8 lenses floating around occasionally. From what I have heard, its not as good as the 16-35 though.

[mttmrphy]

The 17-35 2.8 was replaced by the 16-35 2.8

the 16-35 is a better lens but pretty expensive.

Thanks for your replies.

[Danny Boy]

mttmurphy...

You indicated you were covered w/ your long range lens when shooting indoor sports like hockey. Just wondering what lens you are using for that. I'm in the same boat there and am looking for an indoor lens zoom lens. Looking at the 70-200 but the f/2.8 is soooooo much more expensive than the f/4 but if the f/4 doesn't work, then my decision is easy. Let me know.

Thanks.

[DaveG]

mttmurphy...

You indicated you were covered w/ your long range lens when shooting indoor sports like hockey. Just wondering what lens you are using for that. I'm in the same boat there and am looking for an indoor lens zoom lens. Looking at the 70-200 but the f/2.8 is soooooo much more expensive than the f/4 but if the f/4 doesn't work, then my decision is easy. Let me know.

Thanks. The f4 will be too slow in all but the brightest rinks. Hockey is the fastest inside sport (not involving motorcyscles) that you'll ever shoot, so you'll need all the shutterspeed you can grasp. 1/1000 @ f2.8 is going to be a lot better than 1/500 @ f4.

I love to point out to football players that football is so easy to shoot because it's so slow. When they start to grumble I point out that a hockey referee skating backwards is faster them them running full out. That's probably an exageration but not by much!

[Danny Boy]

Dave,

Thanks for that info. That is exactly what I needed to know.

[mttmrphy]

I went to the venue last night to familiarize myself with the different areas to shoot from. Now I'm not so sure a wide angle will suit my purposes here.

Actually I am afraid my 120-300 2.8 may be too long for certain situations.

I am now in the market for the 70-200 2.8 :lol: