Advice for ice hockey lens(es)

[JRSand]

My pre-teen kids have become pretty heavily involved in youth ice hockey and it is time to upgrade to a faster lens or two. I had been using the 55-250 on my 40d and had gotten acceptable results outdoors but I know that this just won't cut it at any indoor rinks. The good news is that I will have the ability to get fairly close to the action (though may still have to shoot through the plexiglass) and perhaps have bench/penalty box access. This is a strictly a hobby to me and I do not plan on selling any pictures to other parents, etc. unless they specifically approach me. The lenses I am considering thus far are as follows:

1. Sigma 70-200 2.8: Have seen favorable reviews and the price is very attractive. Weighs a bit less than the Canon 70-200 too. Will likely see other uses outside of hockey given the range.

2. Canon 70-200 2.8 (IS/non-IS): the big question here would be whether it is worth it to get the IS version for other uses as I realize the IS will not help with hockey at the shutter speeds needed to freeze action. My concern(s) here are three-fold vs. the Sigma 70-200, the price, the weight and the white color. Quite simply, is the price difference (and ability to get IS) worth it over the Sigma.

3. Canon 200 2.8 prime: Sharper than the zooms at 200mm but will this actually be too long/limiting given my ability to get pretty close to the action().

4. Canon 135 2.0 prime: Like the extra speed but wonder if 135mm will be too short (). I realize that I could crop to fill the frame better, if necessary, but then I wonder just how much image quality will drop off.

5. Canon 85 1.8 prime: Again, like the speed but wonder if 85mm will be too short. Obviously if 135 is too short than 85 is as well. Again, I realize that I could crop to fill the frame better, if necessary, but wonder just how much image quality will drop off.

All of the above lenses seem to be of high quality and I don't think I could go wrong with any given the circumstances but would appreciate the thoughts of others who have more experience using these lenses for indoor sports and, in particular, ice hockey.

Thanks much.

Jeff

[Brikwall]

Either 70-200/2.8 option is good. I have the Canon (non-IS) and it is my general purpose lens. Only you can determine whether or not IS would be beneficial to you for other purposes but my thought is that if you can afford it, get it.

Of the primes, I think you'll find that either the 135 or the 85 are the better options because of the wider aperture. That would be helpful in darker venues. However, they will limit your shots. For instance, I find that even 70mm is a little too long on my 40D when shooting from the corners, but 200mm is sometimes too short when shooting cross-ice or even when shooting from the middle (say the bench or penalty box) and trying to capture action at either end.

If you were to buy just one lens at the moment, I'd go for the 70-200. The 85/1.8 is cheap enough that it can be added down the road without taking a huge financial hit.

[EmmaRose]

Get the 70-200 2.8, if your budget allows you to get IS then get it but without it you should be fine too.

[racing-guy]

I have the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and I use it for hockey as well as motorsports. I'm quite happy with it.

[JRSand]

Originally Posted by racing-guy

I have the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and I use it for hockey as well as motorsports. I'm quite happy with it.

Racing-guy:

Would you have any ice hockey samples with it that you would be willing to share? Thanks

[racing-guy]

Originally Posted by JRSand

Racing-guy:

Would you have any ice hockey samples with it that you would be willing to share? Thanks

Here's some. I believe any deficiencies in the photos are attributable to the shooter (especially my poor PP skills) rather than the lens. Someone posted some sample shots in the photo sharing board from an NHL game using the Sigma and the images were outstanding.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

[jonas-photography]

I use a 1000D with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for rec hockey and the results are excellent... here's a few examples.









apologies for the quality the lighting at the away teams arena was not the best

[JRSand]

Originally Posted by racing-guy

Here's some. I believe any deficiencies in the photos are attributable to the shooter (especially my poor PP skills) rather than the lens. Someone posted some sample shots in the photo sharing board from an NHL game using the Sigma and the images were outstanding.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

Thanks! These are great shots and your PP skills look good to me.

Jeff

[Alan Dye]

You can look at my webite. All the hockey shots were taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8

www.adyephoto.smugmug.com

[JRSand]

Originally Posted by Alan Dye

You can look at my webite. All the hockey shots were taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8

www.adyephoto.smugmug.com

Thanks Alan...will do.