Team sports second lens. thinking 85mm L ?

[KIPAX]

I have two 1dmkIII and a canon 300 f2.8L on one camera almost all the time. I also have a 70-200 non IS canon f2.8l on the other but become increasingly frustrated wiht the quality v the 300 which is amazing.

I am thinking prime and the canon 85 1.8l as the short lens for football/soccer rugby etc short lens.

Has anyone any experience with this and other than losing the zoom versatility is the 85mm any good (for this use). quality af speed ect

[silvrr]

Are you thinking of the Canon 85 1.8 or the Canon 85 1.2L? Canon does not make a 1.8L.

[KIPAX]

I got well mixed up but have now changed my mind... yeagh I know :)
Canon 135mm f2L looks like the bees knees for me..

[snyderman]

KIPAX:

I'm totally for the 85mm for basketball. From just behind the baseline's it's super for close to the basket action. Sometimes, it's actually a bit long from there. But for football/soccer/rugby? Not sure it would be of much value. Field is too big.

On the upside, even the lesser priced 85mm f/1.8 produces fabulous results in terms of color saturation and BG smoothness. Best $330 I've spent on lenses!

dave

[KIPAX]

KIPAX:

I'm totally for the 85mm for basketball. From just behind the baseline's it's super for close to the basket action. Sometimes, it's actually a bit long from there. But for football/soccer/rugby? Not sure it would be of much value. Field is too big.

On the upside, even the lesser priced 85mm f/1.8 produces fabulous results in terms of color saturation and BG smoothness. Best $330 I've spent on lenses!

dave


cheers.. now seriously thinking the 135 f2 .. should be good from behind goalines.. good for ice hockey and a few other bits I do.. BTW its to be used alongside a 300mm so field being big isnt the problem.. its for the closer work the 300 too long for.. usually from behind goals to goal area..

[MT Stringer]

KIPAX, I shoot the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and it works well for all of the outdoor sports except when the play is at the base close to me or the football action comes to the sideline. Most of the time I have a 28-75 on the 40D hanging off my shoulder.

I've been thinking about selling the Siggy and getting a 300 f/2.8 but the lens is so versatile, I just haven't been able to convince myself to switch. I should, but just haven't.

For volleyball, I have used a 100 f/2, both on the 40D and the MK III. I couldn't afford the 135 at the time, so I opted for the 100. It worked out well for me. I didn't get to shoot basketball or football this past year due to Hurricane Ike and the subsequent repair of damage to our home.

Here are a few examples.

Example - 1D MK III w/100 f/2 at f/2.2, ISO 3200 (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/VB1.jpg)

Example - 40D w/70-200 f/2.8 @ 95mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600 (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/04GVVB.jpg)

Example - 20D w/ Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Basketball/BB1-650.jpg), 97mm @f/3.5, ISO 400 (Dual strobes fired from balcony). Note. I was standing at the baseline.

Hope this info helps.
Mike

[KIPAX]

Mike I had the sigma 120-300 for a long time and for versatility it was great and I stayed away from the canon 300 for a long time.. I loved the 120-300 for field sports.. football rugby etc

then i dropped the 120-300 and got hold of a prime 300 f4 while the siggy was being fixed.. wow that opened my eyes.. as soon as the 120-300 came back I sold it and went for the 300 f2.8.. I ahve never looked back,, the difference is amazing.

I have been using a canon 70-200 in conjunction wiht the 300 but in very poor lighting it doesnt stand up very well high iso and 2.8

anyway since posting I ahve bought a 135mm f2L and it arrives tuesday.. I have sold the 70-200 all paid for and posting on saturday :)

So we will see.. I am convinced the 135mm will be a winner and a good combo with the 300 on two mark3s :)

[jamesb84]

anyway since posting I ahve bought a 135mm f2L and it arrives tuesday.. I have sold the 70-200 all paid for and posting on saturday :)

So we will see.. I am convinced the 135mm will be a winner and a good combo with the 300 on two mark3s :)

KIPAX,

I know a couple of Getty Images guys prefer the 135L especially if they're on the touchline rather than goal-line! Plus, you'll appreciate that extra bit of low-light capability, if the Conference/League 2 grounds are anything like championship level, then you'll need it!

James.

[Big K]

You will love the 135 f/2. The 85 f/1.8 is also a nice lens but no comparison to the 135. The only lenses I think rival or exceed its performance in regards to sharpness and image quality are the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8.

I think you will also miss your 70-200 but do realize sometimes you have to make choices.

One suggestion since you are using the Mk III's is to calibrate the lens to the camera when you get it. The DOF is so thin you need everything really fine tuned to get the most out of it.

Have fun.

[Saxi]

The 135mm f/2 looks great for my wish list, I could have used it the other day when I was shooting my neice in a play, but then again my 85mm f/1.8 that is on my doorstep would have been perfect since I was in third row seating.

I want to start doing some sports shooting to get some practice for when my son starts playing and the 135mm f/2 would probably blow away my 70-200 f/4 IS & my fathers 100-400 L.

I never really got it through my thick head the long prime lenses like the 300mm, 600, 800, and so on. I can see with a 50/85 prime being able to zoom with your feet but at longer focal lengths zooming with your feet is less possible. I can only assume you have to do a lot of cropping for some of the photos (like in basketball where the subjects are on the opposite side of the field).

[Big K]

The 135mm f/2 looks great for my wish list, I could have used it the other day when I was shooting my neice in a play, but then again my 85mm f/1.8 that is on my doorstep would have been perfect since I was in third row seating.

I want to start doing some sports shooting to get some practice for when my son starts playing and the 135mm f/2 would probably blow away my 70-200 f/4 IS & my fathers 100-400 L.

I never really got it through my thick head the long prime lenses like the 300mm, 600, 800, and so on. I can see with a 50/85 prime being able to zoom with your feet but at longer focal lengths zooming with your feet is less possible. I can only assume you have to do a lot of cropping for some of the photos (like in basketball where the subjects are on the opposite side of the field).

The primes really make you think about your composition and position much more than a zoom and sometimes you do have to crop but the image quality is typically so much higher that you can crop significantly and still have a very high quality image.

For reference, the first image is full image from Mark IIN with 400 f/2.8 shot at f/4. The second is a 100% crop from the same image. I think the 300 is even sharper than the 400.

[KIPAX]

Well it arrives tommorow morning.. Got one from KERSO a well know ebay dealer of camera equipment.. Paid the same for brand new as uk stores where selling as used.. 750 UKP

Sold the 70-200 same day for same price I bought it (used)

Have a league two football match to cover tommorow night.. give it a try,, Along with my trusty 300 2.8L I am convinced I will be on a winner

Big K .. yes thats my plan as soon as it goes on the body is to get calibrating before the nights match.. I cant get over how good my 300 is after calibrating for my needs.. its simply fantastic.. if the 135 comes close i will probably drop dead from happiness :)