Outdor Sports Lens..LiL help please

[hotled]

I need a lens that can shoot outdoor soccer events and baseball events for kids sports...but Im on a tight budget..I am not a pro and really never intend on being one lol but I want good shots. My Sigma 55-200 seems way soft on max zoom.
What are your recommendations...my components are in my sig.

Remember BUDGET is a keyword:P

[Dante King]

what is your budget?

[hotled]

what is your budget?

The cheaper the better lol father of 2 and doing sports for them almost everyday, wearing my wallet out.

[Dante King]

Well, that is not very specific, anyway. I would say one of canon's consumer 70/75-300 range zooms. IS if you can afford it, USM is a plus. for comarisons: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=canon+75-300

or

here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=0&a=700_6184&Submit.x=7&Submit.y=5&shs=&ci=8454&ac=

hope that helps a little.

[CyberDyneSystems]

70-200mm f/4L

[C.S.I.]

Sigma 70-200 EX is an excellent lens for the price, around $700 USD. Its an AWESOME sports lens.

[Dante King]

CDS, thought of that, but that extra 100mm reach is pretty nice. You see how much the DO's have dropped in price! OUCH.

[Andy_T]

I sometimes see a Sigma 300/4.0 (HSM) lens offered on eBay ... normally going for 150~300$.

The newer HSM version doesn't need re-chipping to work with digital Canon slr's, so it's normally on the upper end of this scale.

Best regards,
Andy

[hotled]

Ok lets say 700.00 and under hope that helps... probably something a bit quicker 2.8? to freeze those nice action shots?

[Andy_T]

Hotled ... there's a great Canon 200/2.8 L prime lens, and there's the Sigma 100-300/4.0 lens that should be a bit over 700$.

Other than that, the 70-200/4.0 L or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 should fill the ticket.

Best regards,
Andy

[hotled]

Thanks all, just wondering what advantages the 70-200 has over the 55-200 I have now, is there really that much difference?

[Andy_T]

Not much, if you get sharp images with your 55-200 @ 200 mm at f/5.6?

With the 70-200/4.0, your images will be tack sharp (even at 100% crop) at 200 mm at f/4.0. Quite a difference to f/8.0, if you want to freeze action.

Also, because of the constant f/4.0 aperture, you can use the 1.4 converter (another $250) to convert it to an f/5.6 / 280 mm lens.
The converter will not work (or at least not AF) with your 55-200.

Best regards,
Andy

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

There's a major difference between the two lenses! First difference being that the 70-200 is an L lens. L = SHARP. I have this lens and use it for sports and darn is it sharp! That and it has a fixed f/4 apeture meaning that it will stay at the apeture you set it at no matter what focal length you have it zoomed out too. Most of the time I shoot at full 200mm with my lens to get full framed shots of the players. On your sigma that'd be f/5.6 at best, on the 70-200 it'd be f/4 at max. Therefore, the max f/4 apeture on the 70-200 would allow more light into the lens at 200mm than the sigma at 200mm f/5.6 allowing the 70-200 to AF faster than the sigma. Fast AF is very important. Fantastic lens for sports. You'll love it!

For slightly more cash there's also the 200mm f/2.8L prime lens, but that's a prime..... personally I couldn't see myself using a prime for shots of a sports event. It'd be too much of a pain. I like being able to quickly frame my subject and take the shot. Makes things a lot easier, and image quality isn't THAT much better with a prime.... especially not after cropping it in PS! Which'll probably need to be done fairly often until or unless you get really good with the lens.

I'd recommend going with nothing lower than the 70-200 f/4L. I don't think anything out there for a cheaper price could own up to it's abilities, and I'm sure you don't want to drop a couple hundered bucks on something that doesn't do what you need it to do.

[hotled]

Ok , thanks for all the help! Looks like the 70-200/4.0 L will be the choice,there are a few on e-bay for 5-700.00, a 1.4x will probably be mandatory since Im usually not very close to the action etc..

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks all, just wondering what advantages the 70-200 has over the 55-200 I have now, is there really that much difference?

With both the f/4 Canon and the f/2.8 Sigma 70-200mm you will get much sharper images.. also you will be able to use a 1.4X T-con for nealry 300mm and still top quality image quality.

And it's not just about Image quality, it is also about focus speed and aperture.. and thus shutter speeds. Trust us,. we talking about a quantum leap in lens quality and functionality here.

If 200mm is not long enough.. then think seriously about that Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX that Andy recomended,.. (which will also work VERY well with a 1.4C T-con for a possible 420mm @ f/5.6)

This lens continues to be just about the most underrated lens in existance.. those who use it love it.. but not enough seem to take the chance.

[Cadwell]

If 200mm is not long enough.. then think seriously about that Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX that Andy recomended,.. (which will also work VERY well with a 1.4C T-con for a possible 420mm @ f/5.6)

This lens continues to be just about the most underrated lens in existance.. those who use it love it.. but not enough seem to take the chance.

I'd second that. The Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4.0 EX is an absolute cracker. It's quality is such that it would still be a bargain were it sold for twice the current street price. Two of my friends have one and I've tested it.

[hotled]

Hmmm well 539.00 for the Canon L and 800.00 for the Sigma. Just don't think the extra reach is worth 275.00 at this point.
Hope I make the right choice.

[blinking8s]

you wont regret the 70-200 f/4 although to date i wish i would have bit the bullet and got the 2.8 : model now, just has more use for me. But i get to mooch the 2.8 when working, so its all good...lol

I still use the 70-200 f4 all the time, its a good lens

[condyk]

I'd second that. The Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4.0 EX is an absolute cracker. It's quality is such that it would still be a bargain were it sold for twice the current street price. Two of my friends have one and I've tested it.

I'll third that ... had the 70-200 f4 and the Sigma is certainly superior. The AF on this thing is so fast I can't hardly notice it work. Blinding lens. Also works superbly with the Sigma 1.4x if you want to 'upgrade' down the line. You may find one SH if you're VERY lucky! Second choice for me is the SIgma f2.8.

Other than that, I think Andy has ID'd the best options.

[hotled]

Well pooh, guess I will wait and hope to find a Sigma 100-300/4.0 on a bigtime sale or used. No sense in wasting money on the 200L if it wont be as good, not to mention the pod mount is expensive I hear and the tele converter is also allot more expensive.

I will just go test my present lens and see how far of a reach I really do need, sometimes it's quite far across a soccer field or more.

[ttmatsu]

A lot of people get the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC for the Canon 70-200 for $189 or ebay from HK for $130.

[Croasdail]

It really depends on the size of the field you are shooting. If the kids are little, and playing on small kid sized fields - you are gold with the canon 70-200 f4. If they are older like middle school or higher - not to rain on your parade here - but 200mm will not cut it. You will be forever cropping the heck out of your images to fill the screen with the action unless you are a real dedicated chap and chase the ball up and down the field. A 50% crop will not look all that much better then a reasonably performant 300 mm lens used full - you will be throwing half of you pixels away. Just to give you an idea - for soccer I use a 300 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC. You may also look for a used Canon 300 f4 - it is a fast focuser and really sharp... and you get an L with it too. The Sigma 100-300 f4 is a really good lens too.

[hotled]

Ya, it's all middle school which play on the larger fields and my son running Jr. High track and soccer as well.

I will hold out for a good 300 and a 1.4 because I don't think a 200+1.4 would get what I need. I am also planning on doing some shots of my friends at Texas Motorsports Ranch running the Ford vs. Chevy road races.

[condyk]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78890

Could be your lucky day ... check out some of the sellers shots. Very nice colour/contrast and sharp as a tack. Maybe you don't need the filter and you can always go the TCon route down the line. Would then be in budget. Haggle a little even and you could be lucky, lucky ... as rare as hens teeth SH!

[hotled]

Thx for the link...topic says sold though... I have found the Lens new for 759.00 so I will keep looking:rolleyes:

[ttmatsu]

In youth soccer, you are right on the sideline. Having a fixed focal length lens is too confining for me. With a 8MP sensor, you can crop more than half the picture away and still print high quality letter size photos (I do that with my 100-300 lens results). Part of the picture has to be the surrounding action, you can't just take isolated shots of 1 or two players - OK, if that's what you want, then of course you can. When your player is making a 50 yard run with the ball and he's coming right at you, good luck getting the shots as he gets closer (especially if you stuck that TC on). With a 70-200, you can only shoot half the field. With a 100-300, you can shoot 2/3 of the field (and still get letter size prints). So a 70-200 with a 1.4X TC will allow you to shoot close to 2/3 of the field. Let's face it, depending on the position your child plays, you know where to position yourself. It's not like you have to cover the entire field from end line to end line and sideline to sideline.

If your player is on the left side and the parents are on the right, just move to the other team's sideline. As long as you concentrate on taking pictures and not irritating the other team's parents, no one will care you are over there.

If you only intend to print 4X6, you only need 2 MP so you can crop 3/4 of the picture with no problem. A 70-200 + 1.4X TC should be adequate for your needs - yes, you will need to move around a little depending on where your child plays but you will also get shots you will miss if you are standing there with a 300 + TC (420mm X 1.6 FOV = 672mm). How many yards away does the player have to be and still get their entire body plus some perspective with that setup?

[hotled]

ttmatsu,
Very well explained and thank you. I have been discussing this with other people as well as my wife on expense etc..
I know my kids positions and we play on regulation- full size fields and I am free to roam wherever I want.
I'm thinking on my budget the 200 F4/L may be the best choice for money reasons and it's a bit lighter allowing some freehand.
So anyone else have any input on this?

[grego]

ttmatsu,
Very well explained and thank you. I have been discussing this with other people as well as my wife on expense etc..
I know my kids positions and we play on regulation- full size fields and I am free to roam wherever I want.
I'm thinking on my budget the 200 F4/L may be the best choice for money reasons and it's a bit lighter allowing some freehand.
So anyone else have any input on this?

I'd still suggest a monopod regardless. It really helps keep your photos in a better frame than hand holding.

And the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is probably a better choice for the similar price. And then if you add a tele-extender you don't lose much of a stop(if you want extra distance). It's a lighter lens than Canon's 70-200. And it gives results. I've used it to cover sports and it's done the job. It's always nicer to have the ability or option to have f/2.8.

[ttmatsu]

Yeah, it would be nice if we didn't have to consider the financial end of things. Grego is right that a f2.8 is good to have - I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 in my bag. I don't like Sigma because of their chip compatibility issues - I had one of their lenses become a paperweight when I changed camera bodies after my old one died because it wasn't the current model lens anymore and they wouldn't rechip it. That's why I spend extra on the Canon versus the Sigma 70-200. All Canon has to do is change something in a future body and your lens may not work anymore. The 20d has caused Sigma all kinds of problems. Their new 24-70 EX DG and 18-50 both had to be rechipped and there are still issues.

There will be times when there is heavy overcast or it's early morning or really late afternoon when the f4 will force you to go to 800 or 1600 ISO to keep the shutter speed up (use Neat Image or another noise reduction product - neat image has a free version that has features crippled but it still does a good job). You are making the right choice in moving up to a quality lens. I moved from the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 that I basically had to shoot at f8 all the time to the 70-200 f2.8 and I added a Kenko Pro 1.4X DG TC later. There is a world of difference between the two.

I have the bogen 680B monopod for when my kids are in tournaments. You really don't need a monopod for just 1 game. The 70-200 f4 doesn't come with a tripod ring but like I said, you shouldn't need it. If you decide to get one later, the black tripod ring for the 300mm also fits the 70-200 f4 and is cheaper then the white model for the f4.

[hotled]

yes 2.8 would be nice but it's well over a 200.00 difference between that and the 200f4/L.

[grego]

yes 2.8 would be nice but it's well over a 200.00 difference between that and the 200f4/L.

Well, you have to pay for the quality of lens. That's the harsh part. I mentioned the Sigma so you can get a 70-200 f/2.8. I've used it for like half a year and had no problems with it. Of course afterwards, I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but I knew that was the most vital lens in my set, so I chose to put my money into the lens i'd use most.

See the 2.8 comes especially in handy when you add a tele-extender to it. It's a price to pay, but if this lens is your primary lens, its worth putting money into it.

The 70-200 is one of the most versatile lens out there. You can use it for sports, portraits, and practically any other situation.