Football Lens?

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

Ok, I've looked through many threads and have not found a good answer to my question. I also named this thread exactly what I was putting into the search box in hopes that if someone else has the same question they will find the answer here.

I'm currently shooting with a 50D and my longest lense is the 28-135mm kit lens. I want to save up for the 70-200 2.8 L IS but I'm not sure it's long enough for night high school football.

What do you use to shoot "American" football? Is 200mm long enough from the sidelines? If I do shoot at 200, is there a lot of running back and forth to get the players in the frame compared to a larger zoom?

Is there a lens that is equally as fast as the 70-200mm 2.8 IS but with a longer focal length?

Thanks for the help. I couldn't seem to get an answer out of the many threads I've looked through.

[canonnoob]

70-200 2.8 IS, and the 300 2.8 IS are the main lenses, then you go up to the 400 2.8 IS.

Go through these threads:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=15200643

What I have told you is pretty much the consensus around here.

[bjoynes]

As Dave said, the 70-200 2.8. I don't use the IS, the action is moving too fast and the IS seems to make the pics soft. The 70-200 should get you out to past the middle of the field, anything happening on the opposite side line will need some crop. I have not shot with the 300 or 400 2.8, but I can see where they would be great for that extra reach, but you might find yourself backing up a lot to keep everything in frame, the 70-200 can be used with players running towards you on a side line. Shooting Friday Night lights, the 2.8 is a must. The 50D does help on cropping so would work nicely with the 70-200.

Bryn

[asysin2leads]

70-200 2.8 IS, and the 300 2.8 IS are the main lenses, then you go up to the 400 2.8 IS.

Go through these threads:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=15200643

What I have told you is pretty much the consensus around here.

Agree with Dave. A lens w/ f/4 most likely won't be fast enough for low light at night. Just an FYI.

[Scott V]

70-200 2.8 IS, and the 300 2.8 IS are the main lenses, then you go up to the 400 2.8 IS.

Go through these threads:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=15200643

What I have told you is pretty much the consensus around here.
+1... I use a 70-200 2.8L on the sidelines and close action, and then switch to my 400 2.8 and head for the corner of the endzone and shoot upfield from 40yds in. If you can't afford the lenses, rent them.

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

+1... I use a 70-200 2.8L on the sidelines and close action, and then switch to my 400 2.8 and head for the corner of the endzone and shoot upfield from 40yds in. If you can't afford the lenses, rent them.

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've never rented because I don't like the concept of putting $ towards something I'll most likely use a lot, and I use my gear a lot. I may rent the 400 if need be. I'm really not certain where my location will be so the 70-200 may very well be too short but I don't know for sure until I get out there.

I have wanted the 70-200 2.8 IS for quite a long time though. This is just another reason for me to get it :)

[Scott V]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've never rented because I don't like the concept of putting $ towards something I'll most likely use a lot, and I use my gear a lot. I may rent the 400 if need be. I'm really not certain where my location will be so the 70-200 may very well be too short but I don't know for sure until I get out there.

I have wanted the 70-200 2.8 IS for quite a long time though. This is just another reason for me to get it :)
understand where you are coming from..just suggested renting because that's what I did until the profits paid for my new 70-200 2.8L IS USM, which I suggest buying from B&H Photo online...Pricing is good, GREAT customer service, and very TRUSTWORTHY! or you can look for a used lens on e-bay or amazon and take your chances.

[BigStig]

Has anybody used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ?? For some one who is nervous about getting a fixed focal length would this be a good choice?? Is Image IQ OK on this lens??

[Butch Cassidy]

I shot about 5000 pics of HS FB playoffs this past season, 50D with 70/200 2.8 L IS USM , It is a great lens and you will need the speed, F4 will not do the job, unless it is in a good college lit stadiumand then you will still have some probs. I will be buying the 300 2.8L before next season and a second body. All mine were shot from sideline. Could not be happier with the 70/200 ,

[snyderman]

70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great lens for HS football. Here's an example shot on a 50D at night, in the dark, near the end-zone with poor lighting using the 70-200 2.8L IS:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/dsnyder160/DPP_14154.jpg

dave

[Scott V]

70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great lens for HS football. Here's an example shot on a 50D at night, in the dark, near the end-zone with poor lighting using the 70-200 2.8L IS:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/dsnyder160/DPP_14154.jpg

dave Nice shot snyderman.... Wow! mud and pigskin...now THATS football!!!:D

[10megapixel]

70-200 2.8 is a great lens from the sidelines ;)

http://photosnap.smugmug.com/Sports/Greensburg-Pirates-jv/Greensburg-VS-Rushville/IMG0450/643559186_KAFzd-XL-1.jpg

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

Wow, these are some really nice shots. Do any of you have experience with the 1.4x extender? I think if I get the 70-200 2.8 I'll pick up the 1.4x extender too just in case I get moved down field where I can't get the most desired shots. I've heard the 2x extender drops IQ significantly.

[bjoynes]

You won't want to use the 1.4x at night, too slow on the aperture.

Bryn

[AdamLewis]

It completely depends on where you want to shoot from.

Ideal football lens for me? Id have to use two. 600/4 and a 24-70.

The point here is that you can use any lens for football but you must understand that each lens will limit you in what you can shoot and how you can shoot it. The 70-200 isnt bad but it has you running up and down the sidelines too much IMO. I always opt for at least a 300 when I shoot football so that I can be a little bit farther away, get better isolation, and get cleaner backgrounds.

[neil_r]

70-200 2.8 IS, and the 300 2.8 IS are the main lenses, then you go up to the 400 2.8 IS.

Go through these threads:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=15200643

What I have told you is pretty much the consensus around here.


LOL When is there ever a consensus around here? ;-)

I shoot Rugby in the UK and the pitch is roughly the same size as yours.

I have 2 cameras one with a 70-200 and the other with a 500 f4 that about covers all the action, I will stick on a 17-40 or 24-70 for after the game.

[snyderman]

Wow, these are some really nice shots. Do any of you have experience with the 1.4x extender? I think if I get the 70-200 2.8 I'll pick up the 1.4x extender too just in case I get moved down field where I can't get the most desired shots. I've heard the 2x extender drops IQ significantly.

I got by with only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Not sure how much ELSE I could have captured with an extender, than I didn't get without one.

You might be putting too much emphasis on length and reach. If you setup shop at a good spot on the field, the action will come close enough to get all the good shots you need. Sometimes, the action gets TOO close even for the 70-200 all by itself.

IMO, the 70-200 is probably the best bet to get you going. You just don't shoot the other side of the field! Honestly, you don't shoot the other side of the field unless you have a 400mm!

dave

[snyderman]

Nice shot snyderman.... Wow! mud and pigskin...now THATS football!!!:D

Thanks Scott! This season was like clockwork. Started raining Friday afternoon which turned the field into a complete MESS by gametime. Funny though, it didn't rain once when we visited a school with turf...just at home on the grass field!

Here's another shot from the same game during the 4th quarter. Coach was just trying to run out the clock but stopping anything on defense was an adventure:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/dsnyder160/DPP_14204.jpg

[dmwierz]

Has anybody used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ?? For some one who is nervous about getting a fixed focal length would this be a good choice?? Is Image IQ OK on this lens??

Yes, this was my first "long pro glass" - used it for almost 2 years, made a bunch of money with it (football, soccer, baseball etc), and sold it when I bought my 400 f/2.8L IS. The Siggy used to be a REAL bargain, and it's gone up in price a lot over the past couple years, but it's still an excellent buy and a solid lens. Not quite up to "L" level, but also nowhere near as expensive.

[BigStig]

Thanks Dennis.
Is there a big diff between the DG and none DG ??

[dmwierz]

Thanks Dennis.
Is there a big diff between the DG and none DG ??

I'm not sure, but I think the difference was an anti-glare coating on the rear element to minimize some issues with digital sensors. Never heard of many folks being able to tell the difference. My copy was a non-DG version FWIW.

[Scott V]

Thanks Scott! This season was like clockwork. Started raining Friday afternoon which turned the field into a complete MESS by gametime. Funny though, it didn't rain once when we visited a school with turf...just at home on the grass field!

Here's another shot from the same game during the 4th quarter. Coach was just trying to run out the clock but stopping anything on defense was an adventure:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/dsnyder160/DPP_14204.jpg Another quality shot snyderman! We have to create rain here in Arizona...Lol!! Hope to be on par with that quality soon:D

[vreeke]

definetly 400mm 2,8 so prepare for a bankrubberry

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

I'm leaning toward the 70-200mm 2.8 IS quite a lot. I'm getting back my tax return, which would cover most of the cost, so that helps a lot. Plus, right now my longest lens is the 28-135 kit lens with the 50D, which isn't the fastest or sharpest lens out there for sure. I want to shoot night football, but I also want a better walk around lens for things other than large landscapes (which 28mm is pretty nice for).

Thanks for the comments everyone. After seeing some of the pictures on here and the bokeh from the 70-200 thread, I'm convinced this is a lens that is very versitile and needs to be added to my bag. I also read it's a nice lens for weddings because it handles well in the low light. That's another big perk for me too. Thanks again for the help!

[MT Stringer]

Has anybody used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ??
Well, yeah I have used it a few thousand times covering football, softball, baseball, soccer, field hockey...should I keep going?

The down side is it weighs 6 pounds and most likely will require a monopod to support it. I shot a few frames at a basketball game and was surprised that I could hold it with a 40D without the monopod. I guess I have built up my muscles toting the 70-200 all the time.

Examples:
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/BB02-1.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Runningtofirst.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/PPG1.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Baseball/LongFlyBall-600.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Baseball/BB-2-650.jpg

[patwill]

I'm leaning toward the 70-200mm 2.8 IS quite a lot. I'm getting back my tax return, which would cover most of the cost, so that helps a lot. Plus, right now my longest lens is the 28-135 kit lens with the 50D, which isn't the fastest or sharpest lens out there for sure. I want to shoot night football, but I also want a better walk around lens for things other than large landscapes (which 28mm is pretty nice for).

Thanks for the comments everyone. After seeing some of the pictures on here and the bokeh from the 70-200 thread, I'm convinced this is a lens that is very versitile and needs to be added to my bag. I also read it's a nice lens for weddings because it handles well in the low light. That's another big perk for me too. Thanks again for the help!

Sounds like you have your heart set on that 70-200 2.8 IS but if you're buying a lens for night time sports shooting you can save yourself some money by getting the non-IS version. 200mm is long enough for football, especially on a 1.6 crop body like your 50D, but f2.8 might not be fast enough on most HS fields. Most photogs, including pros, move up and down the sidelines a lot, and around behind the endzone when the action moves to the red zone.

My favorite glass for night HS football, or soccer, lax, etc., is the 200 f1.8. It sells for less than the 300 f2.8. And it works great with a 1.4x tc, becoming 280mm f2.5. Other lenses I have used are the 200 f2.8, the 135 f2, and the 85 f1.8. Even a 50 f1.8 for some sideline and jube shots. When the light is dim you are better off with fast primes mounted to two bodies rather than a zoom on a single body.

I am a firm believer in having equipment that will get a good shot when the action comes your way as opposed to trying to reach all over the field but not having the wide aperture needed to freeze motion in low light. IS can't help you in these conditions, but a monopod can.

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

Sounds like you have your heart set on that 70-200 2.8 IS but if you're buying a lens for night time sports shooting you can save yourself some money by getting the non-IS version. 200mm is long enough for football, especially on a 1.6 crop body like your 50D, but f2.8 might not be fast enough on most HS fields. Most photogs, including pros, move up and down the sidelines a lot, and around behind the endzone when the action moves to the red zone.

My favorite glass for night HS football, or soccer, lax, etc., is the 200 f1.8. It sells for less than the 300 f2.8. And it works great with a 1.4x tc, becoming 280mm f2.5. Other lenses I have used are the 200 f2.8, the 135 f2, and the 85 f1.8. Even a 50 f1.8 for some sideline and jube shots. When the light is dim you are better off with fast primes mounted to two bodies rather than a zoom on a single body.

I am a firm believer in having equipment that will get a good shot when the action comes your way as opposed to trying to reach all over the field but not having the wide aperture needed to freeze motion in low light. IS can't help you in these conditions, but a monopod can.


I know the IS can't help when the action is fast, but I think the IS will help in other situations outside of the night football realm. The lens purchase was inspired by the night football opportunity, but I would like to take the lens into other situations, where the IS will likely be of some help. I do agree with your theory on multiple bodies...but even a really good lens mounted to my XT really can't compare to a decent lens on my 50D.

[bjoynes]

If weather sealing is important, then I believe the IS is weather sealed, and the Non IS is not.

Bryn

[JustinL]

Has anybody used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ?? For some one who is nervous about getting a fixed focal length would this be a good choice?? Is Image IQ OK on this lens??

Stig... I went through the same agonizing decision between the 120-300 and the Canon 300 f2.8 - I ended up with the Canon 300 and let me tell you there's nothing faster in focusing/tracking than a Canon telephoto. You'll get used to the fixed zoom very quickly.

(I can't believe I replied to Stig!) Some say that Chuck Norris is secretly afraid of him....

[Rocketdun]

If you take a look at most of the pro photographers along the sidelines of most NFL games you will find that they have a camera with the 70-200 2.8 lens either on their neck, and the longer lenses on mono pods. The majority of them will use a 300 or 400 lens for the longer shots the backgrounds are cleaner and players more in focus than the backgrounds. A great many prefer the 1.4 tele convertor vs the 2x tele convertor because of the loss of the f stops. The 70-200 lens is fast to auto focus and sharp as a has sharp as a tack focus.

[canonnoob]

Stig... I went through the same agonizing decision between the 120-300 and the Canon 300 f2.8 - I ended up with the Canon 300 and let me tell you there's nothing faster in focusing/tracking than a Canon telephoto. You'll get used to the fixed zoom very quickly.

(I can't believe I replied to Stig!) Some say that Chuck Norris is secretly afraid of him....

too bad there is no such thing as a fixed zoom :p

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

Looking at the price of the 70-200, that's about the extent of my budget plus a tripod collar and hood. Are there any other lenses that compare to this focal length, speed, and quality for this price?

[snyderman]

Looking at the price of the 70-200, that's about the extent of my budget plus a tripod collar and hood. Are there any other lenses that compare to this focal length, speed, and quality for this price?

I can say from experience, don't let price steer you away from the 70-200 and to a non-Canon branded lens. Many use them successfully, but you'll eventually end up with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS anyway, so you might as well bite the bullet and pay (and cry) once.

Trust me, it's enough reach and plenty fast enough to shoot HS football at night, on a 50D and get good shots.

Next step up is the 300 f/2.8L IS ... for more than DOUBLE the cost of the 70-200.

dave

[canonnoob]

Looking at the price of the 70-200, that's about the extent of my budget plus a tripod collar and hood. Are there any other lenses that compare to this focal length, speed, and quality for this price?

I take it you are looking at a 2.8 version? if so it comes with the tripod collar and hood...

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

I take it you are looking at a 2.8 version? if so it comes with the tripod collar and hood...

THANK YOU!!! I definitely just added those items to my cart on B&H. Off to remove those two items.

[canonnoob]

THANK YOU!!! I definitely just added those items to my cart on B&H. Off to remove those two items.

next time.. just look at the "Whats in the Box?" in the lower right hand corner of the page..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

[eigga]

Looking at the price of the 70-200, that's about the extent of my budget plus a tripod collar and hood. Are there any other lenses that compare to this focal length, speed, and quality for this price?

The sigma 70-200 2.8 is a decent option.

I wouldn't buy the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS new right now... with the 2nd version coming out I think the used prices will drop a lot on this lens. Not sure how it will change the non IS version prices

[JustinL]

too bad there is no such thing as a fixed zoom :p

I posted that at 1am! LOL

Dont be stickin your tongue out at me! hahaha

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

The sigma 70-200 2.8 is a decent option.

I wouldn't buy the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS new right now... with the 2nd version coming out I think the used prices will drop a lot on this lens. Not sure how it will change the non IS version prices

how soon do you think it will be coming out?

[eigga]

Last I saw was April estimated release

[KayakPhotos]

To be honest, I would go ahead and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS if that is what you are looking into. I bet the price won't go down much, if at all, for the older version. The price of the new one will be high enough that there will still be demand for the original. That's just my theory though, so I could be wrong.