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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 23 Sep 2017 (Saturday) 18:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Need help confirming lens for son’s hockey games.

 
Rodzp
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined May 2017
     
Sep 23, 2017 18:12 |  #1

I think I know my answer just looking for confirmation from someone with experience with these lens. I will be using it on a 7d. My son is starting to play at the mites level and will be at this level for 2 years. I am looking at the 70-200 f4 is lens and the 70-200 f2.8 non is lens. The lens will mainly be used for this and his soccer games. I also plan on using it for portraits. I think I need to go with the 2.8, but I really like the size of the f4. Can someone confirm if the f4 would be capable or better than the 2.8?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rdalrt
Goldmember
Avatar
1,625 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 348
Joined Aug 2008
Location: The Great White North
     
Sep 23, 2017 18:28 |  #2

If he is playing in the typical minor hockey rinks with the lousy lighting, I strongly suggest the 2.8.


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,582 posts
Gallery: 1048 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7691
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Sep 23, 2017 19:10 |  #3

Rodzp wrote in post #18458908 (external link)
I think I know my answer just looking for confirmation from someone with experience with these lens. I will be using it on a 7d. My son is starting to play at the mites level and will be at this level for 2 years. I am looking at the 70-200 f4 is lens and the 70-200 f2.8 non is lens. The lens will mainly be used for this and his soccer games. I also plan on using it for portraits. I think I need to go with the 2.8, but I really like the size of the f4. Can someone confirm if the f4 would be capable or better than the 2.8?

You will need all the light you can get. Image stabilization will not do much here, as you will be shooting a faster shutter speed to freeze motion (1/500s, 1/640s, 1/800s, etc, as minimums!), and you will top out your ISO (6400 & 12800) on that body. The F2.8 model is basically a no brainer for that extra stop that you will need.

Or just get an 85mm F1.8.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdalrt
Goldmember
Avatar
1,625 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 348
Joined Aug 2008
Location: The Great White North
     
Sep 23, 2017 19:58 |  #4

MalVeauX wrote in post #18458936 (external link)
Or just get an 85mm F1.8.

Or a 135 f/2.


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodzp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined May 2017
     
Sep 24, 2017 05:52 |  #5

Thanks for confirming. I went to power my camera up last night and it isn’t working. I posted in the eos board about the issue.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
Avatar
1,190 posts
Likes: 461
Joined Mar 2012
Location: By The Lake in Big D
     
Sep 24, 2017 06:32 |  #6

I have the f4, but it's on a 5D3, which has significantly better iso performance than the 7D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JHutter
Member
81 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Ontario
     
Sep 24, 2017 10:59 |  #7

With high ISO performance getting better and better, I'm seeing more people shoot at f4. Plus the players don't move as fast at the mite level, so you may be able get away with 1/400 s exposure for a year or two. The 70-200 2.8 will certainly serve you for a longer time, though ... you'll need it eventually.

I shoot hockey with a 100mm f/2, which is very helpful in arenas with poor lighting. Sometimes it is a bit long since I use a 70D (crop camera). A 70-200 2.8 on a full-frame body will be more versatile.


70D | 15-85 IS | 28/1.8 | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 | 60/2.8 | 100/2 | 70-200/4 IS | 200/2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hybrid ­ AWD
Member
161 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2012
     
Oct 03, 2017 22:21 |  #8

So I shoot a lot of figure skating each year so Ill give me two cents worth of advice.

When I shoot with my 1DX and 70-200 F/2.8 I feel like it's just a bit too short with the reach. To resolve that issue I purchased the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 Sport. I typically shoot around ISO 4000 to keep the shutter speed at a reasonable speed and I'm normally always wide open.

I have however shot with the 7D MKII at an event just for the pure sake of being able to compare the 1Dx and 7d MKII. The extra reach with a 70-200 F/2.8 being on a crop sensor was much better being that the focal length at 300mm was more like 480mm.

If I were to do it all over again, I'd still go with the Sigma 120-30mm F/2.8 whether I was on a FF or Crop sensor camera. The extra reach is well worth it and the lens is amazing. Sure it's a bit more pricey than the 70-200 but in the end, you'll be able to use it for soccer, football, hockey, etc. without much concern.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pigpile34
Member
Avatar
151 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 47
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited 6 months ago by pigpile34. (2 edits in all)
     
Oct 03, 2017 23:32 |  #9

Don't bother with the f4. Once you start youth hockey you'll become an obsessed parent and this will generally involve into an unhealthy level, will last many years and basically you will be broke, lol. I kid, but not really. I've been shooting hockey games since my son started at mites in 2012. I use the 70-200 II paired with the 5D III exclusively with what I consider to be fantastic results. The last few years I contemplated getting the Sigma 120-300 2.8 but opted to instead get the 7D2 for more reach (with a secondary mission of moon shots). So, for 2K less I solved the issue. If 120-300 would have been in my arsenal already I probably would not have bothered with the 7D2 purchase. You already have the 7D2 so perhaps the Sigma is a good first and last purchase to get what you want. I can tell you I'm perfectly happy going with 7D2 paired with the 70-200 for reach. Yeh, can't reach the other end of the ice. But you got to take a break at some point. At least that is what I tell myself. You'll easily get 250+ shots a game just sitting in one spot with the 70-200. Especially mites as they only play half ice.

Someone mentioned the 135/f2. I bring 2 lenses to the rink. 135/f2 and the 70-200. I use the 135 for goalie shots from close to where the corners of the rink are (closest to goalie). Seems to be a perfect distance. You get a stop better and you can often lower speed to achieve even better results than normal run of play with the 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peeaanuut
Goldmember
Avatar
3,513 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 563
Joined Feb 2011
     
Oct 03, 2017 23:41 |  #10

I shoot 70-200/2.8 IS II on a 7D2 and a 24-70/2.8 on a 5D4 when I do hockey. This is at a local rink with inconsistant lighting. I did get to finally shoot at the Staples Center last weekend and ill tell ya, the lighting there is soooooo much better, I might have been able to get away with the f4 there. I also take a 300/4 IS with me and that does decently when working on goalie shots. Not so much from shooting from the corners. And Even with the f2.8 stuff I am high ISO.


Stuff
http://joetakesphotos.​com/ (external link) : | : https://www.facebook.c​om/JKlingPhotos (external link) : | : https://twitter.com/jk​lingphotos (external link)
airbutchie - Joe was definitely right about adding contrast...
:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,848 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Nov 01, 2017 09:26 |  #11

rdalrt wrote in post #18458963 (external link)
Or a 135 f/2.

This is a solid suggestion and with a tc you can get close to 20 and still be f2.8. Not sure what kind of portraiture you do but if its head and shoulders stuff especially, the 135 is pure magic!


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
barrie380gt
Junior Member
21 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 16
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada
     
Nov 01, 2017 09:47 |  #12

Just bought a tamron 70-200 g2 and loving it on my 80D. Aden camera in Canada had them for $1399 cdn, maxx auction had them for $1199 cdn.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JHutter
Member
81 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Ontario
     
Nov 09, 2017 07:54 |  #13

Not to get into an argument, but for a crop camera, I would find a 135/2 to be uncomfortably long if it were the only focal length I had available. Shooting through the glass from the corner (which for most community rinks around here is the only viable option) with my 100/2 on a 70D, I can take a picture of a bit of net, the goalie in the crease, and just a bit of ice outside the crease. Too often, what should have been an exciting picture of a goal or save has just the tip of the shooter's stick coming into the frame, with only the goalie in shot. If I try to get the shooter, there is no net for reference. 135mm would help for mid-ice shots, but nothing close in.

If this is really to be the OP's go-to lens for all of hockey, soccer, and portraits with a crop camera, a 70-200/2.8 is really the only choice.

Or one could go with my solution of a 100/2 for hockey and a 200/2.8 for field sports (and the odd rink with tiered seating and no netting). I don't regret this since they are great lenses and have a combined cost lower than a 70-200/2.8 IS ii, but I often finding myself wishing I could zoom both ways in hockey, and zoom to a shorter length in baseball.


70D | 15-85 IS | 28/1.8 | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 | 60/2.8 | 100/2 | 70-200/4 IS | 200/2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Noitca
Senior Member
481 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 180
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Acworth, GA
     
Dec 05, 2017 08:16 |  #14

Curious how this is going. I don't do Hockey, but my son's basketball league plays in elementary and middle school gyms. From what I understand, comparable lighting. With a T1i, f4 is an absolute no go. f2.8 is nearly a no go with the expectation of any appreciable shutter speed. I pretty much have my 85 f1.8 on the camera at all times at f1.8 or maybe f2 and somewhere around 1/500 shutter speed and iso6400 (which is in the expanded options for the T1i)... some gyms this is OK, others even that is underexposed.

Of the two listed, get the 2.8. That will give you the best possibility. Outside of that, a body that handles iso better is a must for crappy gym/arena lighting.


T1i with 18-55, 55-250, 50 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
conraderb
Member
44 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Apr 2007
     
Dec 06, 2017 10:35 |  #15

Is the F4 better than the 2.8? No.

If you can afford the 2.8 and deal with the size, there's no compelling reason to get an F4, IS or otherwise.

Many people do fine with the F4. But given the choice, no reason to pick the F4 if the 2.8 is financially an option for you.

Big apertures are like seatbelts in a car. You might not NEED to use it, but if you do, you are sure glad you have it.




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

7,952 views & 8 likes for this thread
Need help confirming lens for son’s hockey games.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is nick66
765 guests, 407 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.