Lens for soccer pics

[koigirl]

I'm a dSLR newbie. I recently bought a 40D with the primary motivator being that I want to learn to take good pic's of my daughter playing Classic Elite soccer. I'm tired of having to depend upon other parents to get the shots. However, I didn't realize upfront how expensive a good telezoom lens was going to be! My current setup is the 40D, a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 50mm f/1.4, both bought used off this forum, and the kit lens, a 28-135 IS. I tried the 28-135mm at a recent game and let's just say there were no keepers . . . Felt like I couldn't zoom in enough to get good shots. Also, it was a cloudy, late-afternoon game and the lighting wasn't good.

I am saving right now for future purchase of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS as it seems this is the best alternative but I've spent a fortune recently on camera equipment and need to lay low for awhile. However, I really do need a more affordable, used lens that will do a decent job in the interim. I've considered a 70-200 f/4, 50-250 IS kit lens, or 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 (all used). Also the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 models but it seems it's iffy to find a sharp copy with those two. Anyway, my daughter is twelve now; she probably only has 6-7 good years of soccer left (she plays year-round) and I don't want to miss getting those pic's of her we will treasure.

As a side note, I am signed up for a Basic SLR Photography class starting in mid-March which should help me know better how to compose my shots. I'm a former point-and-shooter (G5) and am starting pretty much from scratch. I've bought several books on the 40D but I think I need some hands-on instruction.

Please offer any advice on a suitable, affordable, used zoom. I know I can buy a used 55-250 or 70-210 for under $250 but will it suffice? No point spending money, even if it's not alot, on something that's not up to the task . . .

[Palladium]

Walk don't run and buy the Canon

70-200mm F4 About $600

It's the best compromise between cost and lens performance for outside daytime stuff.

Later you can add the Canon 1.4 extender to you kit for another $300.

[koigirl]

Should I buy the IS version of the f/4? Also, they play a lot of games in the turf stadium at night under lights. Will it work at all in those lighting conditions? I'd heard from some friends that f/4 would be too slow focusing . . .

Also, I just realized I may have posted in the wrong forum. Please accept my apologies. I just thought the sports-shooters would have the best advice.:)

[Huskers69]

I like my 70-200 2.8L for night or low-light games, and my 100-400L for day games.

[Big Hands]

I bought my DSLR mostly so I could take good quality shots of my kids as they went through their high school soccer careers. I started off with the 70-200 f/4L and sold it within six months. I took that money and sold my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and added another $200 to get the 70-200 f/2.8L and do not regret it for a second.

The f/4L was a good lens, but what I didn't care for were the less than OOF backgrounds compared to the f/2.8L version. It was just enough to make or break the shots for my taste.

Also, Canon DSLR's will take advantage of a high precision center AF sensor on lenses that have a max aperture of f/2.8 or larger.

Personally, I think the xxD series DSLR bodies with the 70-200 f/2.8L is the best bang for the buck combo for shooting youth soccer up through the HS level (where I have shot the majority of the 150,000 pics with my 20D). JMHO.

And, if you can't quite stretch for a 70-200 f/2.8L (used the go for around $900+/- and around $1,100 new), then I would recommend going with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 before I'd settle for the Canon f/4L. It's only a little more for a used copy and it comes with a tripod/monopod ring which will cost you $120 for a new one from Canon or a little under $100 for a used one.

You don't need the IS version for shooting sports where your shutter speeds are high. I think it would be better to spend the money for f/2.8 than IS if your main purpose id to shoot sports. I've honestly never regretted not having IS. Not everyone can say that (depends on what all they shoot), but in my case it's true.

Also, there is no perfect one lens solution for shooting soccer. All lenses have limitations and it takes at least two to cover a field perfectly from end to end, so I would advise using the 70-200 with your 1.6x crop body and take what comes to you.

Night games with the f/2.8L will be challenging enough depending on the quality of lighting. If all or most of the matches are at night, I might even consider a 135 f/2L just for the extra light gathering capability. It can be that critical. 70-200 f/4 at night? Not me.

Regards,
Jeff

[SuzyView]

I have had the 70-200 2.8 IS for 2 years now and last year got the 100-400 as the fields got bigger since my son is now in U14. The 100-400 is the right lens if you shoot in the day. It's fast and so wonderful. If you are saving up, though, the 70-200 2.8 IS is about as good as it gets. I have the f4 version (got that one before the 2.8 IS) and that works great for outdoor bright light work. If you need the larger aperture, though the f4 will not be good enough.

[koigirl]

Does anyone know why my thread was moved? Where would it have been moved?

[Huskers69]

Does anyone know why my thread was moved? Where would it have been moved?

well, if it was in the lens section, it probably got moved to this sports talk section.

[Huskers69]

I have had the 70-200 2.8 IS for 2 years now and last year got the 100-400 as the fields got bigger since my son is now in U14. The 100-400 is the right lens if you shoot in the day. It's fast and so wonderful. If you are saving up, though, the 70-200 2.8 IS is about as good as it gets. I have the f4 version (got that one before the 2.8 IS) and that works great for outdoor bright light work. If you need the larger aperture, though the f4 will not be good enough.

+1 on all this, suzy.

[Fedxpress]

I started off with the 70-200 f4.0IS it is a Great lens. As my son moved up to 8V8, the larger fields and with some airshows I moved up to the 100-400. That being said, If you find that the 4.0 is too slow for low light the 2.8 isn't going to help that much, or for long with the son setting. I have both the 2.8 IS and 4.0 IS. Yes the 2.8 is twice as fast and if you can get 250 with the 4.0 you can get 500 with the 2.8 and both will work, More keepers with the 2.8. But as the light start to dim and it does quick you go from 125 with the 4.0 to 250 with the 2.8, more keepers with the 2.8 but not as many. You can always bump ISO on both. Then 10 min. later you go from 60 with the 4.0 and 125 with the 2.8 so neither is going to cut it. And this happens pretty quick. By the time you swap out a 4.0 to the 2.8 you missed it. This is from what I have seen. I hear everybody talk about how much faster the 2.8 is and I don't see it like you would from a 4.0 to a 1.8 or the likes.
I will catch some heat from this but this is what I have seen with having both.
Go with the 70-200 f4.0 IS.
Fedxpress

[slyone]

I agree with all too! Strive for 70x200 f/2.8 for any HS field sports at dusk. I remember getting my advice from SuzyView when I first arrived here, bought my 70-200 and never looked back:). I soon started having all the good pics of all the kids at all the events for all the parents! LOL
p.s. :( I'm sad....my last only has another year to go.........

[Sibil]

All;
I am in the same boat as the OP.
If shooting soccer only in bright day light, wouldn't the Sigma 50-500mm be another choice to cover the entire field? Of course it wouldn't produce the blurry backgrounds, but would the auto-focus be fast enough?

Just a thought

[dmwierz]

All;
I am in the same boat as the OP.
If shooting soccer only in bright day light, wouldn't the Sigma 50-500mm be another choice to cover the entire field? Of course it wouldn't produce the blurry backgrounds, but would the auto-focus be fast enough?

Just a thought

As one who had a Bigma (50-500) way back when I started in this business, I can state its AF isn't near fast enough for sports. I sold mine and bought a Sigma 120-300 and this made all the difference (not to mention making me a lot of money).

The 70-200 is gonna be a bit short for most soccer pitches. The Sigma 100-300 is a good choice as the Canon 100-400 for day time shooting.

[TheSportsGuy]

I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 last year and I do not regret one penny that I spent on it. It is my favorite lens, and the sharpest lens I own. Even wide open at f/2.8 it is as sharp as a tack.

(also, woot woot for the great state of North Carolina :D.)

[Big Hands]

I will let my camera do some talking here. This gallery is from a recent high school match that I shot with a 20D and a 70-200 f/2.8L. I sat in one spot on the touchline for the entire match and did not move. I have shots of action at both goals from the same spot. It's not ideal for covering every inch of the pitch, but no lens is.

At any rate, here it is:

http://imageevent.com/johansen01/westranchsoccer0809/wrhs021209

Here are some more threads of mine of soccer pics from the 70-200 f/2.8L:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=635200

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=615310

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=612957

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=609568

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=445262

You can be the judge as to whether the lens is capable as a soccer lens.
================================================== ============
I would not spend the money on anything cheaper like some of those mentioned in your original post. I started out many years ago with a Canon Elan 7e (film) and Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6. to shoot my daughter's soccer matches and it worked, but the results were nowhere near what I can get now with the 70-200 f/2.8L Night and day. My 75-300 is now a relatively expensive paper weight. It has not been mounted on a camera of mine since making the move to the 70-200L.

If you have the money to get the f/2.8 IS version, it won't harm you to have IS, but if choosing between f/2.8 and IS for budgetary reasons, go for the f/2.8. It will be more valuable for sports shooting.
==============================================
I stand by my earlier statement that your 40D and a 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) is the best bang for the buck for what you're wanting to do.

If someone has some galleries or links to posts with soccer shot with the 100-400L, please post them.

[Sibil]

Big Hands
I am impressed. You have so many incredible shots. Thanks for sharing.

[eigga]

The white 70-200 2.8 is the best choice....save for that. If you need somwthing sooner get the sigma version. Then save for the 300 2.8

I typically cover soccer with the 300 2.8 as main and 70-200 on the hip. Like mentioned its a difficult sport to cover with one lens.

[Big Hands]

Big Hands
I am impressed. You have so many incredible shots. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you for the kind words!

[kb9tdj]

I was able to get by on a 55-250mm (& Rebel XSi) last fall for my son's high school JV soccer team. Most of his games were still played in good light, but there were a couple that started around sunset and the 55-250 was useless. I also pretty much had to concentrate my pictures on the near end of the field (I sat behind the endline midway between the goal and the corner). I've since bought a 70-200 2.8 IS and 50D and am really looking forward to trying this setup out this fall during since he most likely will be on the varsity team this fall which plays mostly in late evening/night. I also grabbed a 1.4 teleconverter for use during any day games they may have. Koigirl, let me know if you do decide to grab a 55-250 since I am now willing to sell it since I have the 70-200. But I really really really really really want the 300 2.8!

[Big Hands]

I was able to get by on a 55-250mm (& Rebel XSi) last fall for my son's high school JV soccer team. Most of his games were still played in good light, but there were a couple that started around sunset and the 55-250 was useless. I also pretty much had to concentrate my pictures on the near end of the field (I sat behind the endline midway between the goal and the corner). I've since bought a 70-200 2.8 IS and 50D and am really looking forward to trying this setup out this fall during since he most likely will be on the varsity team this fall which plays mostly in late evening/night. I also grabbed a 1.4 teleconverter for use during any day games they may have. Koigirl, let me know if you do decide to grab a 55-250 since I am now willing to sell it since I have the 70-200. But I really really really really really want the 300 2.8!

I'd save your money on the TC. My keeper ratio suffered significantly using one with my 20D and 70-200 f/2.8L due to decreased AF accuracy. I'd rather have the better keeper ratio than a little more reach. JMHO.

[slyone]

I stand by my earlier statement that your 40D and a 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) is the best bang for the buck for what you're wanting to do.
:D exactly my setup.....

[skintero]

I shoot my daughter's high school soccer at night as well. I've been using my 40D and 70-200 f/2.8L lens with great satisfaction. There was only one high school field where the lighting was so bad that I had problems, but it was hard to see the field from the stands because their lights were so bad. I usually plant myself on the ends of the field so I can get the action as it comes toward me. It really all depends on what you're looking for. I like to capture not only the ball as part of the action, but the facial expressions. It can be hard to get both when you're shooting from the side of the field.

[Spacemunkie]

Sigma 150-500 OS covers almost the entire pitch:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3318532916_bba0e4ffeb_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3317704279_538bda9b4f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3318528516_9a1d1482d5_o.jpg

All shot handheld at 250ISO.
Had very few problems using AI Servo and centre focus point. The Siggy keeps up with cars and superbikes so footballers were a piece of cake! :lol:

The mrs used her 55-250 at the same game from a good 20m back from me on the touchline, and she got some pretty decent shots....

[TheSportsGuy]

:D exactly my setup.....

Me three.

[SuzyView]

Me three.

Me, four, but I add the 100-400 sometimes.

[TheSportsGuy]

Me, four, but I add the 100-400 sometimes.

Me again..lol

[SuzyView]

Why you all follow these long threads is a mystery to me. :) I have to be here. I moderate. :)

[bobbyz]

If money is tight, used 200mm f2.8 in case you need to shoot later in the evening, otherwise, canon 300mm f4 non IS (used one) for $600. Better option than 70-200mm f2.8 non IS IMHO. I use 70-200mm f2.8 non IS and 500mm f4 IS.

[TheSportsGuy]

Why you all follow these long threads is a mystery to me. :) I have to be here. I moderate. :)

Because we have nothing else to do and we are also obsessed..

:D

[skintero]

I've primarily used my 70-200mm f/2.8 Non IS because most of my kids games, including baseball, were at night. I'm in the process of moving to a new duty station in the UK where the games there are played during the day. I may just have to pick up an 300mm f/4.

[Sibil]

OK, I see that the 70-200 f2.8 is the favorite here. But let's say that you don't want to carry a large/heavy white lens and all the games you shoot are in bright daylight. What non-white lens would you all recommend then? It seems that there isn't any lens (of any brand), in the 70-200 range, that gets nearly the praise that the white ones do.

[L.Morey]

For all daylight games the 100-400 is hard to beat ( maybe soggy 150-500 they look pretty good) .

[bobbyz]

OK, I see that the 70-200 f2.8 is the favorite here. But let's say that you don't want to carry a large/heavy white lens and all the games you shoot are in bright daylight. What non-white lens would you all recommend then? It seems that there isn't any lens (of any brand), in the 70-200 range, that gets nearly the praise that the white ones do.

You didn't see my post, 200mm f2.8 and it is black. But I would take 300mm and monopod if I was serious in shooting soccer.

[koigirl]

Just found the thread again! Thanks for all the comments. Hello, fellow Tarheel!:D I think I'm going to start prowling for a minty used 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My baby's growing up fast. She's U12 so I only have 6 1/2 years left to shoot her (unless she ends up playing at UNC, which I'm seriously doubting ;)) I've decided I just need to bite the bullet and do it now, not later. I may try a 1.4 TC with it to get more length. Then I'll start saving for the 100-400 when she's older (and a Tokina 11-16, 30 1.4, external flash,tripod, monopod, etc.). This is getting 'spensive!!!

[koigirl]

Also wanted to add: she plays a lot of night games on a stadium-lighted turf field so night shots are a consideration. Thanks again for your insights!

[TheSportsGuy]

Just found the thread again! Thanks for all the comments. Hello, fellow Tarheel!:D I think I'm going to start prowling for a minty used 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My baby's growing up fast. She's U12 so I only have 6 1/2 years left to shoot her (unless she ends up playing at UNC, which I'm seriously doubting ;)) I've decided I just need to bite the bullet and do it now, not later. I may try a 1.4 TC with it to get more length. Then I'll start saving for the 100-400 when she's older (and a Tokina 11-16, 30 1.4, external flash,tripod, monopod, etc.). This is getting 'spensive!!!

phew.......... That's a relief.
If she turns out to be great send her over to NCSU, we need help with our soccer program.

:D

[koigirl]

We sent our son's long-time school teammate and chum, Farouk Bseiso, over there this fall to play for State on scholarship. He's a great player (and a great kid as well); I never did get to a game this fall so I don't know if he's getting any field time yet but I root for State when they're not playing UNC any day!:lol: You know, Gracie may want something different for college than her sibs anyway so State may be added to the family tree one of these days . . .

[koigirl]

Awesome pic's, Spacemunkie and Big Hands! Anyone with any night shots they can share or shots with the 300mm?

[eigga]

Sure...
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/StarsGame-257.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/U8BRangersvsMavericks-154.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/DragonsSept11-106.jpg



http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/U8BRangersvsMavericks-244.jpg

[koigirl]

I thought of something this morning that clinched spending the extra $$ for IS for me. I'm thinking if I have to use it at an indoor school event for any of my children (awards ceremonies, graduation, band concerts, etc.), I'll be needing the IS in low light.

I'm going to start shooting and keep reading and I'll know which other lens will complement the 70-200 2.8IS when she moves up to 11-man (bigger field) next year.

Thanks again for all the advice and wonderful pic's. As soon as I get the lens, I'll be asking for tips on settings/technique for the first try at shooting a game.