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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 18 Oct 2006 (Wednesday) 09:13
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Best Lens for High School Football

 
bigjon0107
Senior Member
896 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Texas
Oct 18, 2006 09:13 |  #1

I am going to be shooting a lot of football for one of the local high schools. What lens would be the best one for me to invest in beacouse of all the lighting issues that the staidums have? I would like to keep it fairly inexpencive, but please post your opinion on what you think the best lens is, and then the best ecnomical choice would be.

Thanks,
Jon


Jon Eilts
Gear List
SportsShooterexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
KENB
Member
KENB's Avatar
121 posts
Joined Jun 2005
Ojai, Calif.
Oct 18, 2006 09:32 |  #2

Hi Jon

I have been shooting local highschool football games for the last 2 years. Most fields are not well lit, and a fast lens is a must. I would suggest a 70-200 2.8, or the sigma 120-300 2.8. Both work well. I shoot raw, in manual mode at 2.8 and 1/800-1/1000. PP takes care of underexposure. Good luck with the season.

Ken


Canon Mk3,30D,Canon 10D(IR),Canon 70-200 2.8L,Canon 24-105 4.0L,Sigma 120-300 2.8,Sigma 18-50 2.8EX,Canon 50 1.8,Canon 580EX,Tamron 1.4X,Epson p-2000

kenbrown.smugmug.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pete-eos
Goldmember
Pete-eos's Avatar
1,994 posts
Joined Jul 2006
SW London UK
Oct 18, 2006 09:35 |  #3

If you want cheap and can shoot in low light, i'd suggest maybe shooting with a prime.

85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8

Apart from that I'd say the 70-200 f4L or 70-300 IS but they may struggle if your shooting in poor light...of course if your budget can stretch go for the 70-200 2.8 Canon or Sigma...


Canon 40D[FS]|EF-S 10-22[Sold]|17-55 f/2.8 IS[Sold]|70-200 f/4L[Sold]|Kenko 1.4xTC[Sold]|430EX[Sold]
Panasonic GF3|20mm f1/.7
:twisted:

LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,128 posts
Joined Jun 2005
san jose
Oct 18, 2006 09:43 |  #4

Most highschool games are played in the late afternoon/night under pretty bad lights. The ideal lens is probably the 300/2.8 but that cost more than most people's car :D.

If you want something inexpensive, the 200/2.8 would be a good choice. Pair this lens with a 1.4x and you'll have a f4 lens for when the light is still good and when it's getting dark, remove the 1.4x and bump the ISO up or use flash.

Another one is the Sigma 70-200. The zoom is nice when the action is close to you.


Sonny
websiteexternal link|Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
bigjon0107
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
896 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Texas
Oct 18, 2006 13:24 as a reply to sonnyc's post |  #5

Thanks for all the help guys! This weekend i am renting the Cannon 70-200 f2.8L US to see how it all works out. Thanks again. And if any of yall have any more suggestions i am completly open to them.

-Jon


Jon Eilts
Gear List
SportsShooterexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Billginthekeys
Billy the kid
Billginthekeys's Avatar
7,358 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Islamorada, FL
Oct 18, 2006 14:09 |  #6

my opinon in order:
400 2.8
300 2.8
120-300 2.8 sigma
70-200 2.8

i love the 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 combo for football


Mr. the Kid.
Go Canes!
My Galleryexternal linkMy Gear
what the L. just go for it.

LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
Cream of the Crop
calicokat's Avatar
14,720 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Southern California
Oct 18, 2006 14:23 |  #7

I shoot High School games for the local paper. I use a 300 F/2.8L IS and a 70-200 F/2.8L IS. 2.8 is a must for night games, High School stadium lighting can be awful at times. You need the longer lenses for the reach, 135mm is too short most of the time.


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
bigjon0107
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
896 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Texas
Oct 19, 2006 00:37 |  #8

alright, i feel realy stupid asking this question but i am really new to this whole photography thing, when you use a say 300 f/2.8, your lins is at a fixed 300 mm right?


Jon Eilts
Gear List
SportsShooterexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
22,288 posts
Joined May 2005
silicon valley
Oct 19, 2006 00:40 |  #9

bigjon0107 wrote in post #2139799external link
alright, i feel realy stupid asking this question but i am really new to this whole photography thing, when you use a say 300 f/2.8, your lins is at a fixed 300 mm right?

right.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D3, 7d, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L II, 14L II, 15mm FE (sigma), gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
liza
Cream of the Crop
11,386 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Mayberry
Oct 19, 2006 00:46 |  #10
banned

There is no economical choice for sports lenses. Trust me.
Probably the most versatile lens for night football with excellent image quality is the Sigma 120-300. The 300mm f/2.8 is sweet, too. At present, I'm using a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and a Canon 200L, but neither is really long enough to get facial expressions on a consistent basis.



Elizabeth
Blog
http://www.emc2foto.bl​ogspot.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
bigjon0107
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
896 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Texas
Oct 19, 2006 00:46 |  #11

thanks, so if i were to only buy one lens would you you suggest one of those or should i go with a zoom telephoto and possibly put a 1.4 or 2x extender it for those longer shots? Or just get the lens beacouse i would need all the speed i can get?


Jon Eilts
Gear List
SportsShooterexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
samsen's Avatar
7,397 posts
Joined Apr 2006
LA
Oct 19, 2006 00:50 |  #12

Save yourself both the money in long run and headache.
Buy L 70-200 IS 2.8, 2xTC. Use a monopod.
Buying anything cheaper or longer, you'll be paying more...Geting less...


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
cwphoto
Go ahead, make my day
cwphoto's Avatar
2,067 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
Oct 19, 2006 01:27 |  #13

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2137374external link
my opinon in order:
400 2.8
300 2.8
120-300 2.8 sigma
70-200 2.8

i love the 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 combo for football

Ditto that.


EOS-1D X Mark II| EOS 5D Mark III | EOS 600D | EOS-1V HS
L: 14/2.8 II | 17/4 | 24/1.4 II | 24/3.5 II | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 100/2.8 Macro IS | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 300/2.8 IS II | 8-15/4 Fisheye | 11-24/4 | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-70/2.8 II | 24-105/4 IS | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II
Sundry: 600EX-RT | 1.4x III | 12 II | 25 II | OC-E4

LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Mr. PMS Himself
Woolburr's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
Oct 19, 2006 04:02 |  #14

The 300 f/2.8L IS is probably the first choice for most people, but it is a bank buster. The 300 f/4L IS is workable...but you will be at ISO 3200 in order to get ample shutter speed....the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a super lens on a 1.6 crop body....you can get decent shots of action within 10-20 yards of you. Occasionally you will see someone mention a Sigma or Tamron...but they are just too slow focusing for my tastes. The bottom line is that it is not going to be cheap to get a reliable sports lens.


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book,external link Refrigerator Artexternal link and What I Really Think Aboutexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
BryanP
Senior Member
BryanP's Avatar
679 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Northern California
Oct 19, 2006 04:48 |  #15

Eh, really hard to go budget savvy here.

The ideal situation would be a 300/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 when you're near the endzone

either way, you will NEED the reach for sure, and you will need 2.8 if you're going to be shooting night games


Canon 1D | Canon 10D | Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 | Tamron 28-75/2.8 | Canon 50/1.8 | Canon 70-200/2.8L
The Daily Californianexternal link Photographer

Equipment- My Complete Gear List
Portfolio - Take a look at my portfolio in SmugMugexternal link

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

6,760 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best Lens for High School Football
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


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 0.00101 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is David05633
995 guests, 719 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016