135mm for H.S. football from sidelines?

[10megapixel]

I am looking for another sports lens as the 70-200 f/4 just wont cut it at night for H.S football, my first obvious choice that is in my price range is the 70-200 2.8. Another member here recommended that I might look at the 135mm 2.0 since I will have sideline access throughout the year and be struggling with low light, and I was wanting some input from you guys and gals. I have to make a decision by Friday, so any input would be GREATLY appreciated. Do you think I will be happy with this lens? or just go for the 70-200 2.8?

[Sledhed]

To me it's way to short but then again I think the 70-200 is too short. Have you thought about using your 70-200 f4 and a flash?

[Croasdail]

It depends on your shooting location and what your shooting. No, your not going to be able to camp out in the end zone and shoot. But if you can walk the sidelines, that extra lens speed will be welcome. Not the dream setup, but if you challenge yourself, you surely should be able to come up with some very nice shots.

Now from the stands, thats a bigger problem.

[10megapixel]

To me it's way to short but then again I think the 70-200 is too short. Have you thought about using your 70-200 f4 and a flash?

Can't use a flash:rolleyes:

[vetkrazy]

I have used my 135 for college soccer because of poor lighting. I agree it is not the ideal solution, way to much cropping unless the action is right in front of you. And then there is the noise issue, you did not say which body you are using. I think using flash may be a viable option.

[10megapixel]

I have used my 135 for college soccer because of poor lighting. I agree it is not the ideal solution, way to much cropping unless the action is right in front of you. And then there is the noise issue, you did not say which body you are using. I think using flash may be a viable option.

I'm using a 30D. Since I am going to be on the sidelines this year I was thinking that I could get the plays that come my way. There will be a second shooter with a 70-200 2.8 with me. The flash has already been ruled out by the coach:rolleyes:

[cntry]

Take a friend to the field, set your 70-200 on 135 and shoot, if you feel the range will work then go for it, it is a Great lens. One concern would be will the 30D focus in the dark setting? Just my 2 cents.......


I am looking for another sports lens as the 70-200 f/4 just wont cut it at night for H.S football, my first obvious choice that is in my price range is the 70-200 2.8. Another member here recommended that I might look at the 135mm 2.0 since I will have sideline access throughout the year and be struggling with low light, and I was wanting some input from you guys and gals. I have to make a decision by Friday, so any input would be GREATLY appreciated. Do you think I will be happy with this lens? or just go for the 70-200 2.8?

[10megapixel]

I had a 40D, and to be honest I can't tell any difference in AF performance in low light between it and the 30D.

[ChunkyDA]

I don't think you'll get much with a 135, even from the sideline. My 70-200 is too short most of the time. There's a big area near midfield where the team mulls around, curses and spits. most of the time you're not allowed in there so you're left with shooting near the sidelines from about the 30yd line to the endzone. If the field is a poorly lit as they are around here, there is almost no light in the endzone and none entering from the ends so to get light to fall on the players you're on the sides.

[ronmayhew]

Go for the 70-200 2.8

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/485517705_c963f400bb.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/485517705_c334ee8be7_o.jpg)

[namasste]

Since I made the suggestion, I'll add one more thought (or two, or...) The 70-200 is too short for goodt coverage but there's a decent difference between f2 and f2.8 if you can't use flash. Its all about being able to get shots that work. Personally, I'd rather shoot 25-35 well exposed keepers that I had to be patient to get than to fire out 100+ underexposed noisy shots no matter how good the the action might be in them.

[MT Stringer]

Here's a couple of examples of what you can expect.
Hope this helps.

1) 300mm taken from the sideline with a 40D and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/PPG1.jpg

2) 117mm taken with a 20D and 70-200 f/2.8 with flash
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Band2-480.jpg

[charlesu]

I would go for the zoom. 2.8 is reasonable if there is ANY kind of light. If not, 2.0 probably won't get it either. The 70-200 not only has more reach, it also has the added feature of zoom. If the action gets close (really close) you might wish you had some flexibility.

[MT Stringer]

If the action gets close (really close) you might wish you had some flexibility.

Yeah, like better knees than I have and the ability to run fast to allude the linebackers! :-)

[canonnoob]

Can't use a flash:rolleyes:

why cant you use a flash?

[Dan-o]

Good luck with out flash. Most of the fields I shoot are 3200 iso 320 shutter without flash. One is even worst.

[canonnoob]

I am looking for another sports lens as the 70-200 f/4 just wont cut it at night for H.S football, my first obvious choice that is in my price range is the 70-200 2.8. Another member here recommended that I might look at the 135mm 2.0 since I will have sideline access throughout the year and be struggling with low light, and I was wanting some input from you guys and gals. I have to make a decision by Friday, so any input would be GREATLY appreciated. Do you think I will be happy with this lens? or just go for the 70-200 2.8?

honestly 70-200 is going to be a little short... it is possible though. honestly if you are looking at a 2.8 yet need the reach, why not go for a sigma 70-200 2.8? it worked well for me for a while it was just a tad short.

[jacuff]

Can't use a flash:rolleyes:

Really... for high school football?

You can't use a flash in Pro and NCAA level and sometimes it is prohibited at the state tournament level, but most local high schools don't have rules about using flash.

My standard is a 300mm f/2.8 on the 1DIII (sometimes I'll use a 1.4x or 2x if I really need the reach and can afford the IQ and Light loss). Then on the 1DII, I'll swap out between a 70-200mm f/2.8 and 16-35mm f/2.8. The 135mm would be a good substitute for when action is close but not too close. Still, as a main lens, it's too short for most uses.

[cstewart]

^^^^^^
Gear Envy!!

[MT Stringer]

why cant you use a flash?
My thoughts also.
If the rain stops, I'll be flashing away tonight. Hope to get a few good shots. I've asked the players and coaches before (football and basketball) and they all say they didn't even notice the flash.