NHL from Club Level: 24-70 too short?

[MatthewK]

Need a quick response, since I am going to the Verizon Center tonight for Game 7 between the Capitals and the Penguins :) My gf won 2 box seats for the game, and I want to take my 50D and 24-70L. Will the 24-70 give me decent shots (read: is it long enough?), or would I be better off leaving the camera at home and enjoying the game?

[dmwierz]

Wow, that's tough. It depends what you're hoping to get. If you're looking for action shots, this lens is WAY too short. When I shoot from the 200 level at the United Center, I shoot a 400mm and even then it can be a bit short.

Even with a 1.6X camera like the 50D, and even at 70mm you're only at 112mm effective. Here's an example of a shot with a MkIIn at 70mm (91mm effective):

[MatthewK]

Wow, thanks for the example! I really want to take my camera, but if I can't reach, it'll be pointless, except for rabid fan shots :) In response, I think I am going to move up my schedule and buy a 70-200mm... F/4 or F/2.8??? most of what I have read says the F/4 would be a bit slow for hockey, so I am leaning towards the F/2.8 IS. Problem is, the thing is HUGE on my 50D, and I will be hand holding. Also, I like the newest version of IS that the F/4 has to offer.

If I get the F/4, and the lighting is the same as your shot above, would I be able to get some good shots? Is one event worth it enough to spend an extra ~$500 and add more weight?

[polarbare]

If you're buying the IS version mainly for sports, don't bother with the IS. The non-IS version is faster and cheaper since the IS really isn't going to be of any use to you.

Also, very few rinks will be bright enough to shoot @ F4 and freeze the action. Maybe at ISO3200 but not below that generally speaking.

[MatthewK]

Since I was going to buy one of the "4 sisters" anyway, I went with the well to do and portly of them all: the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS. :o Even though we lost BIG TIME, it was fun to put the lens through it's paces. We had great seats for watching the game, but not so much for shooting, as the safety net obscured most of my view of the ice.

What a tough pill to swallow in terms of price! Even w/ rebate it was over $1500, YIKES! Oh well, it's an investment, along with knowing I will never have to wonder if I should have gone with the 2.8 IS :D

The 70-200 gave me decent reach from where I was sitting, it tracked action well while on AI Servo/ spot mode, and the shots turned out pretty good. I got home so late last night that I couldn't spend a lot of time editing and uploading, so I concentrated on just 2 photos. Here is 1:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/3530372060_20aa2a01ab_b.jpg

And a little off topic, my gf's EF-S 10-22:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/3530358172_940a78f630_b.jpg

[polarbare]

Sorry the Caps didn't pull that one out, I was hoping for an all Southeast ECF. Congrats on the purchase.

[clarence]

Congrats on the 70-200/2.8L IS. Too bad about the Caps.

Next time you're in a rush for a special event lens, check out the rentals at Penn Camera in Tysons. They have the 70-200/2.8L IS for $35/day.

[MatthewK]

Thanks for the condolences, gentlemen. To be honest, with the way they played (or DIDN'T play), the Caps didn't deserve the win.

clarence: thanks for the tip about Penn, I definitely will check into it next time if I need a specialized piece of glass. I just figured that since I was going to buy the 70-200 eventually, why starve myself when I can get it now? :)

[MrBattle]

gratz on the 70-200, but being from pittsburgh, im not that sorry about the outcome :P

[MatthewK]

gratz on the 70-200, but being from pittsburgh, im not that sorry about the outcome :P

It's cool, I am a sportsman :) Pittsburgh looked great out there: here's to a successful run to the Stanley Cup finals!