Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk
Thread started 30 Apr 2017 (Sunday) 00:13
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Best short sports lens?

 
MacGrad
Member
83 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Hamilton, ON
Apr 30, 2017 00:13 |  #1

I see a lot of posts talking about the longer lenses, but what do people use as a short sports lens?

Context: I'm the team (parent) photographer for my daughter's volleyball team, and usually have the freedom to walk the perimeter of the court during games. For the net play, I've had success using my 100mm f/2 but, for back row play, my kit struggles.

I'm currently using a 50mm f1.8 and, as everyone can assume, AF speed is lacking. Is there a short lens that is popular with the sports shooters?


7D... Tamron 17-50mm... Canon 50mm f1.8... Canon 100mm f2.0... Canon 18-55mm IS... Canon 70-300mm IS... Yongnuo YN-560 III... Metz 58 AF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Patrick_E
Member
Joined May 2013
Illinois
Post has been edited 6 months ago by Patrick_E.
Apr 30, 2017 00:16 |  #2

85, 1.8 - If on FF




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed.
Apr 30, 2017 05:50 |  #3

I use the 70-200 2.8 II for courtside shooting.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,186 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Apr 30, 2017 13:52 |  #4

I use the 70-200/2.8 IS II for indoor sport, but I use a 5D3 and so I can understand that 70mm may be too narrow for many applications.

My best bet suggestion would be a 24-70/2.8 II. Versatile, fast, accurate. Also expensive though.

One challenge is that there are pretty much zero 50mm lenses for Canon that are known for AF performance. I have the 50L, which is pretty good, but then it is quite expensive and at that point I'd just stretch to the 24-70.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited 6 months ago by MalVeauX.
Apr 30, 2017 14:23 |  #5

MacGrad wrote in post #18342318 (external link)
I see a lot of posts talking about the longer lenses, but what do people use as a short sports lens?

Context: I'm the team (parent) photographer for my daughter's volleyball team, and usually have the freedom to walk the perimeter of the court during games. For the net play, I've had success using my 100mm f/2 but, for back row play, my kit struggles.

I'm currently using a 50mm f1.8 and, as everyone can assume, AF speed is lacking. Is there a short lens that is popular with the sports shooters?

Heya,

Replace that 50mm with something with USM or Sigma/Tamron equivalent fast autofocus, it makes a difference. 50mm on APS-C is great for court-side shooting (similar FOV to 85mm on a full frame which is what I'd do). A 2nd camera with a zoom for back-court or other side line would work out too. A 70-200 makes a lot of sense on full frame, but its really long on APS-C indoor.

Sigma makes an awesome crop lens, the 50-150 F2.8 OS ART would be an awesome solution to handle close and far subject shooting on APS-C.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MacGrad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
83 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Hamilton, ON
Post has been edited 6 months ago by MacGrad.
Apr 30, 2017 19:35 |  #6

Patrick_E wrote in post #18342320 (external link)
85, 1.8 - If on FF

Don't you think this is a duplication of lenses since I'm already using the 100 2.0? I didn't think there was that much of a reach difference between the two.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18342450 (external link)
I use the 70-200 2.8 II for courtship shooting.

I think the 70-200 is still a bit long for some of the spots I'm shooting from...

Here's an example... shot @ 70mm, and got a little lucky with the framing and the focus. However, I know the 70-200mm is definitely not meant for this type of shooting -- anything a little wider and faster AF would be better.

(Edited to reflect metadata -- on my computer, it said I used the 50mm lens, not the 70-300.)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

7D... Tamron 17-50mm... Canon 50mm f1.8... Canon 100mm f2.0... Canon 18-55mm IS... Canon 70-300mm IS... Yongnuo YN-560 III... Metz 58 AF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Apr 30, 2017 19:40 |  #7

Heya,

To go wider than the 50mm and have any meaningful AF speed increase, it would be the 35 F2 IS for cost. Or, if you need wider, the EF 28mm F1.8.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Apr 30, 2017 21:13 |  #8

I shoot basketball, and have used the 70-200 on both FF and APS-C. Yes 70mm on APS C courtside can be tough, but the 24-70 can then be used in those situations. AF is very critical and I haven't found a 3rd party lens that can AF fast enough for immediate action as of this time.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Micro5797
Senior Member
Micro5797's Avatar
Joined Dec 2013
Montana
May 02, 2017 10:38 |  #9

Seeing that you are on a cropped camera and need wider.

I would simply go for the Sigma/Canon 17-50 F/2.8 (aps-c lens). It has plenty fast AF. You can hold it at 50mm or even just 35 if need be.
I use the Tamron non VC version as it is sharper then the Tamron VC version. I think both the Sigma and Canon are IS. Sure you don't always need it on a short lens, but why not get it if it is available.

Most of the above mentioned lenses are all for FF so they are longer on your 7D.

I have the Tamron 24-70 as well and it is a lot longer lens then i assumed it would be. There is also a lot more distortion around 24mm then i expected (with my 70D).
There is a lot less distortion on the 17-50 at wider focal lengths in comparison.


_______________
Canon 70D | 70-200mm f2.8 MK1 | 85mm f1.8 | 50mm f1.8 | Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc| Nissin Di866 II

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
May 02, 2017 10:41 |  #10

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18342450 (external link)
I use the 70-200 2.8 II for courtship shooting.

Well, courtship could be considered a short range sport! ;)


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
MacGrad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
83 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Hamilton, ON
May 02, 2017 18:32 |  #11

Micro5797 wrote in post #18344351 (external link)
Seeing that you are on a cropped camera and need wider.

I would simply go for the Sigma/Canon 17-50 F/2.8 (aps-c lens). It has plenty fast AF. You can hold it at 50mm or even just 35 if need be.
I use the Tamron non VC version as it is sharper then the Tamron VC version. I think both the Sigma and Canon are IS. Sure you don't always need it on a short lens, but why not get it if it is available.

Most of the above mentioned lenses are all for FF so they are longer on your 7D.

I have the Tamron 24-70 as well and it is a lot longer lens then i assumed it would be. There is also a lot more distortion around 24mm then i expected (with my 70D).
There is a lot less distortion on the 17-50 at wider focal lengths in comparison.

I actually have the same Tamron as you do, but I find (in most of the gyms I'm shooting in) that I need to open up to f2.2 to get enough light to shoot at 1/400.

(The picture I posted was an anomaly, only because we were playing at a large facility with plenty of light AND an open doorway nearby that let in a good deal of sun.)

The 35mm f2 looks interesting; besides IS (which isn't useful in my application), is there any significant improvement in the newer version over the older?


7D... Tamron 17-50mm... Canon 50mm f1.8... Canon 100mm f2.0... Canon 18-55mm IS... Canon 70-300mm IS... Yongnuo YN-560 III... Metz 58 AF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,026 posts
Joined Jan 2008
NYC
May 09, 2017 10:07 |  #12

Here is my take. You either go long and longer. Or wide or wider. I personally find the middle range focal length, like 50mm to 100mm on a crop body not "dramatic" enough to create good shots. If the focal length is not long enough, you don't get the necessary background isolation. When you need to show more of the background, the ambient and the crowd, the middle focal length does not have the necessary DOF.

I generally carry my Sigma 17-50 and Nikon AF D 80-200 when I shoot cycling races.


One Imaging Photographyexternal link and my Flickrexternal link
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
5,153 posts
Joined Jan 2009
SoCal
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Sibil.
May 09, 2017 10:11 |  #13

MacGrad wrote in post #18343095 (external link)
Here's an example... shot @ 70mm, and got a little lucky with the framing and the focus. However, I know the 70-200mm is definitely not meant for this type of shooting -- anything a little wider and faster AF would be better.
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by MacGrad in
./showthread.php?p=183​43095&i=i107271192
forum: Sports Talk

For a shot this close, I would use Canon 28/1.8




LOG IN TO REPLY
heat00
Member
199 posts
Joined Jan 2016
May 28, 2017 16:25 |  #14

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18343146 (external link)
I shoot basketball, and have used the 70-200 on both FF and APS-C. Yes 70mm on APS C courtside can be tough, but the 24-70 can then be used in those situations. AF is very critical and I haven't found a 3rd party lens that can AF fast enough for immediate action as of this time.


does 70-200 on a FF make a lot of difference? It's hard for me without trying it , to quantify.... if I buy a new body, just dont' want to make a mistake if FF would eliminate the need to keep having the problem of switching from my 24-70 to the 70-200... its like I need something in the middle LOL.... 50-150 would be ideal? 24-100 might even be better.. don't really need the 200 on the court in basketball so does the Ff with 70-200 help enough on the low end??




LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,186 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
May 28, 2017 18:19 as a reply to heat00's post |  #15

On a FF body, a 70-200 will give you the same range that a hypothetical 44-125 zoom would give on your 1.6X body. You can probably see why a FF body and a 70-200 is so popular for sports from that.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

6,268 views & 2 likes for this thread
Best short sports lens?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00082 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is BradMD96
836 guests, 370 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016