Yet another question about a lens for soccer

[JPRinMH]

Here’s my thinking. I’m a hobbyist. My kids are 12 and playing comp soccer. I have access to the sidelines. I anticipate being able to get access up through high school. Currently I have:
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

What I’m thinking is:
Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens

Yes I know I can’t get the whole field. But I can a good chunk of it. I don’t feel the need to cover every square inch.
I can move up and down one side of the field.
I like the speed of the lens and I can use it indoors. I shoot a fair amount of church/school activities, all of which is under poor lighting and flash is not encouraged.
I believe that even though the 70-200 is limited in reach, it’s probably a lens I should have in the bag for a variety of uses.
What else should I consider?
Given my situation is this the right decision?

[Paul Li]

If you feel limited with 200mm, you could use a 1.4X extender.

[DC Fan]

Not from soccer, but from US football (on a field whose dimensions are close to a soccer field's) using a 70-300mm IS lens:

http://www.fansview.com/racing/11082008a0173.jpg

Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Focal Length: 300.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix


Lens at full extension. Camera position on the sideline. Plenty of reach for a decently framed image.

From the list of lenses in your first message, you already have the equipment you need. Use the extra money for something else.

[canonnoob]

Not from soccer, but from US football (on a field whose dimensions are close to a soccer field's) using a 70-300mm IS lens:



Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Focal Length: 300.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix


Lens at full extension. Camera position on the sideline. Plenty of reach for a decently framed image.

From the list of lenses in your first message, you already have the equipment you need. Use the extra money for something else.

Id like to see some of your shots from night games... It wont do the job... So what I suggest is either A) 70-200 2.8 IS with extender or B) 300 2.8

[MT Stringer]

IMHO, I think you are going to want 300mm at least so the 1.4x is a good suggestion. I shot soccer and lacrosse with a 120-300 f/2.8 and 1.4x at times to give the extra reach. It seems to me that the action always goes the other way when I'm on the sideline. :-(

Mike
Here's an example (high school level) at 420mm (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Soccer/BSoccer3-650.jpg)

Lacrosse (high school level) at 300mm (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Lacrosse/Running02.jpg)

[DC Fan]

Id like to see some of your shots from night games... It wont do the job.

7:06 p.m. in October. Sunset was at 7:10 p.m.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/10112008a0746.jpg

Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Image Date: 2008:10:11 19:06:31
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 300.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.0025 s (1/400)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv: 1600
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)


Same camera, same lens, different venue, around an hour and a half later on the same night.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/10112008b0336.jpg

Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Image Date: 2008:10:11 20:35:07
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 165.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/5.0
ISO equiv: 1600
White Balance: Manual
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

[Palladium]

Here’s my thinking. I’m a hobbyist. My kids are 12 and playing comp soccer. I have access to the sidelines. I anticipate being able to get access up through high school. Currently I have:
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

What I’m thinking is:
Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens
Yes I know I can’t get the whole field. But I can a good chunk of it. I don’t feel the need to cover every square inch.
I can move up and down one side of the field.
I like the speed of the lens and I can use it indoors. I shoot a fair amount of church/school activities, all of which is under poor lighting and flash is not encouraged.
I believe that even though the 70-200 is limited in reach, it’s probably a lens I should have in the bag for a variety of uses. What else should I consider?
Given my situation is this the right decision?

If most of your games are daytime you may want to think about this setup..

400mm f5.6 & 70-200 f4

You can get both for about the price of the 70-200 2.8 IS. Shoot half the game with the 400 and the other with the 70-200. You'll get a nice mix and both lens hold their resale value well should you decide to upgrade in the future.

You didn't say what body your using but if you only have a few night games IMHO it better leave the gear at home and enjoy just watching those night games.

[DDCSD]

200mm (even with an extender) is incredibly short for soccer.

I like Palladium's suggestion. That or a 100-400L, and forget about night games. I use my 150-500 for soccer, and still find myself wanting more reach.

[insomniac]

100-400L or the 70-200 2.8L. just remember, you can always crop.

[svarley]

I use a 70-200 and a 300 f4 IS for soccer on a 40D, so I'm benefiting from the crop factor. I like to sit in the "endzone" if the refs let me, and I'll switch back and forth as the action gets closer.

The 100-400L is probably the best overall lens for daylight soccer unless you can afford the f2.8 big white primes.

[Sibil]

I like the speed of the lens and I can use it indoors. I shoot a fair amount of church/school activities, all of which is under poor lighting and flash is not encouraged.
............
Given my situation is this the right decision?

All the responses so far had to do with shooting soccer. However, for your reason stated above, you may consider renting that lens for the school/church activities, and see if 2.8 lens can cut it for the lighting. From my experience, indoor school activities with ambient light sometime require a faster than 2.8 lens, unless your 85/1.8 lens has the right reach for you.

My 2

[bigjon0107]

200mm will be shot for soccer, but you will be able to get some action around the goal and sidelines where you are standing. In the daylight, add the 1.4 and you get that much more reach. With that said, i would get the 70-200 just because not only will it help you with the soccer, it is a great lens that has many many uses beyond sports.

[Zivnuska]

200mm (even with an extender) is incredibly short for soccer.

I like Palladium's suggestion. That or a 100-400L, and forget about night games. I use my 150-500 for soccer, and still find myself wanting more reach.

I agree.

[bigjon0107]

I agree.

Would you rather have a big blur or something you may actually be able to use?

(granted, this is for just night games; if the OP shoots mostly during the day, then for for the slower glass)

[DDCSD]

Would you rather have a big blur or something you may actually be able to use?

(granted, this is for just night games; if the OP shoots mostly during the day, then for for the slower glass)

f/2.8 isn't fast enough for most night games anyways. Soccer fields aren't exactly lit up like NFL or MLB stadiums, especially at a high school and lower level. Yes, you may be able to get some usable shots at f/2.8, but I'd rather get some great daytime shots and skip taking a few hundred shots at night games to only get a few usable shots. Especially when you'll have to crop massively to make up for the lack of reach. The cropping will bring out the motion blur and noise like crazy.

[The Moose]

f/2.8 isn't fast enough for most night games anyways. Soccer fields aren't exactly lit up like NFL or MLB stadiums, especially at a high school and lower level. Yes, you may be able to get some usable shots at f/2.8, but I'd rather get some great daytime shots and skip taking a few hundred shots at night games to only get a few usable shots. Especially when you'll have to crop massively to make up for the lack of reach. The cropping will bring out the motion blur and noise like crazy.

I've shot local field hockey which has similar sized lights to local football, shooting at ISO 3200 f/2.8 was getting me around 1/250". It was terrible!

[bigjon0107]

I've shot local field hockey which has similar sized lights to local football, shooting at ISO 3200 f/2.8 was getting me around 1/250". It was terrible!

Wow, did not realize the lighting for that bad...it has been a long while since i have shot any HS stuff, and even then, i think i was getting lucky with the lights. You're right though, at that point you might as wel hang it up and just enjoy watching your kid play.

[Sundowner]

Here’s my thinking. I’m a hobbyist. My kids are 12 and playing comp soccer. I have access to the sidelines. I anticipate being able to get access up through high school. Currently I have:
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

What I’m thinking is:
Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens

Yes I know I can’t get the whole field. But I can a good chunk of it. I don’t feel the need to cover every square inch.
I can move up and down one side of the field.
I like the speed of the lens and I can use it indoors. I shoot a fair amount of church/school activities, all of which is under poor lighting and flash is not encouraged.
I believe that even though the 70-200 is limited in reach, it’s probably a lens I should have in the bag for a variety of uses.What else should I consider?
Given my situation is this the right decision?

I use my 70-300 f4-5.6 for all my sports photography, admitedly I have to forget about it once the light closes in but I get good results under normal daylight conditions. I tend to stand at one end of the pitch and still get good results if the action is at the other end of the field.

I guess it depends how much further you wish to take this as like me, you are a hobbyist. After speaking to profession toggers at games they do use a 200mm or 300mm prime lens and hope they are set where the action is. I researched this and at the moment even a 200mm f2.8 is well out of my reach :(

[patwill]

No two fields have the same lighting. It's almost impossible to find out what is the right lens for your field by listening to what others post on the internet. I've seen plenty of posters say you can use a f2.8 zoom only to find out that they have never shot after the sun has gone to bed and you are entirely dependent on their stadium's lighting, or that their images were not all that great. In my area, f2.8 isn't fast enough at most of the fields. I use a 200f1.8 on my main body and either a 135f2 or a 85f1.8 on my second.

I really hate to see a poster tell someone to buy a 70-200 for nighttime sports action shooting when they have no idea about the lighting conditions where it will be used.

[patwill]

Here’s my thinking. I’m a hobbyist. My kids are 12 and playing comp soccer. I have access to the sidelines. I anticipate being able to get access up through high school. Currently I have:
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

What I’m thinking is:
Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens
Yes I know I can’t get the whole field. But I can a good chunk of it. I don’t feel the need to cover every square inch.
I can move up and down one side of the field.
I like the speed of the lens and I can use it indoors. I shoot a fair amount of church/school activities, all of which is under poor lighting and flash is not encouraged.
I believe that even though the 70-200 is limited in reach, it’s probably a lens I should have in the bag for a variety of uses. What else should I consider?
Given my situation is this the right decision?

The 70-200 is a versatile, high quality piece of glass. It probably is, as you say, a piece of glass you will want to have in your bag. But it is not the most appropriate lens available for your indoor church/school shooting. Nor will it be of much use for nighttime sports unless your venue has exceptionally good lighting, most high schools don't. Use you 85 and supplement it with some other fast primes such as the 50 f1.4, or the 100 f2, or the 135 f2L (works well with 1.4 extender). If you can afford it get a 200 f1.8 or the 200 f2. If you want good images from low light situations, use glass that was designed for that purpose, the 70-200 was not.