First Sports Lens?

[SurplusCorn]

Hi All,

I know this has probably been done to death, but I'm having a terrible time choosing.

I'd like to have a go at sports photography, nothing serious, but something that I can build on.

I've been thinking about 2 lens's, but I'm having a hard time deciding..

Option 1:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC


Option 2:

Canon 300mm f/4 IS

I know that the 70-200 with the TC will give me f/4 anyway, so is it worth it to go with the 300mm and get the IS?

Thanks for the help!

[freeflydrew]

I went with the sigma 70-200 with the 2x converter for the past 2 years. I just picked up the 300 f/4L IS for this spring season and am really glad that for the past 2 years I had the flexibility of 70-200 f/2.8 and 140-400 f/5.6. I feel very comfortable with shooting a prime for sports. IMO, starting to shoot sports with a prime carries additional challenges and limitations that you won't experience with the zoom plus converter. I'm not that sure how important having the IS is over the the range and aperture of the 70-200 f/2.8. Shooting with a zoom offers flexibility that you don't get with a prime.

It would also be important to describe what sports you plan on photographing as certain sports require certain types of lenses (ie, football/lacrosse/soccer - zoom, Squash - wide, ice hockey - fast, etc.)

[xarqi]

I can see why you're asking - it looks like a tough call, and it may depend on the type of sport, in particular, whether you'll be reasonably static or racing around.

If you are pretty much static, I'd say the 70-200 +TC and a monopod.
If you're going to be doing a lot of hand-held, quick-reaction shots, the 300 IS.
Also into the mix, add that the 70-200 gives you the versatility of zoom, and in conjunction with the TC covers you from 70 - 280mm, and makes a super lens for other purposes, unlike the 300 which is less versatile.

On balance, I'd say the 70-200 +TC, unless there's a good reason why not.

Just some thoughts.

[SurplusCorn]

It would also be important to describe what sports you plan on photographing as certain sports require certain types of lenses (ie, football/lacrosse/soccer - zoom, Squash - wide, ice hockey - fast, etc.


Well, living in Ireland, it would be Irish sports (hurling, Irish football) and rugby... hockey as well (field hockey, not your crazy Ice Hockey)...

[freeflydrew]

Hey Field Hockey is crazy too, yet nothing is quite like rugby!

I suggest the 70-200 with the 1.4. and/or 2x converter
:-)

[Gatorboy]

With shooting sports, the IS is not needed. You will be shooting at fast enough shutter speeds to negate any help the IS will give you.

Go with the 70-200 f/2.8L -- It's the most versatile lens in a sports shooters arsenal. The 300 is usually a lens you buy later.

You may even want to consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8.

[fotodan]

Hi All,

I know this has probably been done to death, but I'm having a terrible time choosing.

I'd like to have a go at sports photography, nothing serious, but something that I can build on.

I've been thinking about 2 lens's, but I'm having a hard time deciding..

Option 1:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC


Option 2:

Canon 300mm f/4 IS

I know that the 70-200 with the TC will give me f/4 anyway, so is it worth it to go with the 300mm and get the IS?

Thanks for the help!


I have both. Either lens you decide on, you are going to love. Both are excellent lens. The 300 f4 will give you macro capabilities also.

[Tapeman]

The 70-200 is a lens that you will use a lot. You can add longer glass as your desire/budget allows.

[Cadwell]

A good general purpose sports lens is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM. One of the sharpest 300mm zooms money can buy, a nice constant f/4 aperture and a quick Sigma HSM AF mechanism that will give Canon USM a run for its money. Hard to beat really, particularly at its price point.

[r1ch]

It depends on what type of sports, if you are shooting outdoors then it really doesn't matter. If you shoot indoors and you don't want to bump your ISO into higher noise levels then get a 2.8

IMHO the best choice is option 1.

You have f2.8 (and it is sharp at 2.8) for low light and subject isolations against a busy background, then you add the converter when you need more reach. On a crop body, this combinations works very well.

I can't speak to some of the other lenses mentioned here but it has been my experience 70-300s are not very sharp wide open and you need to stop them down. That is fine outdoors but indoors not such a good deal. If you look at what a lot of pros do (at least in the types of sports photography I have done) the hot ticket is a 70-200 2.8 on one body and on the second body a 300 or 400 2.8. Depends on the reach you need. What I would like is a 100-400 2.8 IS that is sharp across the board, but it would probably be too expensive and too heavy to haul around. With lenses it is always a compromise.

[Roy Webber]

Try the 100-400, you wont be disappointed.

[denno75uk]

If you're going to want to freeze action (and for sport you will) then you'll need fast shutter speeds. If the light's good enough then you may not need f2.8 but conversely IS won't help as all it does is allow slower shutter speeds. From what I've read you should be looking at shutter speeds of 1/500 and faster. Even with a 2.8 you may often need to use a high ISO. f2.8 can be advantageous to AF systems too. Somehing else to consider.
I'd go 2.8. Personally I chose the Sigma (cheaper than the Canon and easily comparable for IQ. Not weather sealed though). I was using it to shoot some rugby a few months ago on a very grey day at about 4 in the afternoon and I needed the 2.8.

[rddelliott]

If you are shooting in good light, you cannot beat the Sigma 100-400 f/4 for Sports. I have the Canon 70-200 IS and the 1.4x Extender and find the Sigma much more versatile.

[Eaton Photos]

Go for the Canon 70-200 2.8, and add a 1.4 TC if needed. Over the past 4.5 years, the 2.8 has been my money lens. It allows me to shoot a very wide range of photo from sports to portraits to parties. I just purchased a 300/4 IS to supplement my 70-200. I have rented and used the 300 several times over the years, and found it useful for various situations where I needed more reach or IS, as my 2.8 is the older non-IS.

[xchupacabrax]

The Canon 70-200 2.8 FTW!

[AdamLewis]

Between those two, Id get the 70-200 and the TC.

IS is totally un-needed in sports. Sure you can use it for panning, but you can also use a monopod and it does the exact same thing (without ever wearing out!). Other than that, you should almost always be at a shutter speed fast enough to stop action and that will also almost always be faster than something you need IS for.

FWIW though, I (and other people I know) have always had poor results with the 70-200 and TC's. From my experiences, Id try to get you to buy the 70-200 first and then just keep saving and get the 300 f/4

[freeflydrew]

So last week I picked up the 300 f/4L IS and returned it this weekend and instead got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I didn't think the 300 was "dynamic" enough for all the different sports I have to photo this spring!

[Rubberhead]

I think you'd be much happier with a zoom.

[namasste]

If I could only own one lens for the rest of my life, it would be the 70-200. I'd venture that almost every sports photographer has this lens as part of their gear and for good reason.

[Familiaphoto]

Look at the zoom for sports, the flexibility is always welcome. Unless you are in a larger stadium where you know you need 300+ then get the zoom. By the by, I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and while I don't have the TC yet, I borrow a friends TC and love the combo. Once I am done with construction of our new bedroom I will have to spend the money on one of those.

[CountryBoy]

A good general purpose sports lens is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM. One of the sharpest 300mm zooms money can buy, a nice constant f/4 aperture and a quick Sigma HSM AF mechanism that will give Canon USM a run for its money. Hard to beat really, particularly at its price point.

I have to agree, a very fine lens !