Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Jul 2011 (Wednesday) 21:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens for kids sports

 
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 28, 2011 01:28 |  #16

rnsmomma wrote in post #12835866 (external link)
Actually I had a 70-200 (non IS)... hindsight..l maybe should have kept it... :(

Folks: the U8 field is relatively small... It's not football field size.. Most of the games are in the day (morning time till about noon) with practices held at sunset...

Thank you for all of the suggestions... Hmm. Now I may need to get a monopod...

i'm not sure i've seen anything mentioned here that needs a monopod
honestly they just get in the way so unless you want to save arms holding a super-tele they tend to not be used. You will see a monopod paired with even a 70-200 2.8 or 300 f/4 only very, very rarely indeed, almost nobody does that, nevermind with 70-200 f4/tamron 70-300 vc, etc.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
maryhee
Senior Member
Avatar
439 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jul 28, 2011 01:39 |  #17

I shot my 7 year old son's games with 85mm, 70-300do and 70-200f4 ism. I think the best pictures came from the 70-200f4 (borrowed) but the best combo in terms of size, weight, quality was probably the DO lens. That is why even though I recently acquired a 70-200 f2.8, I decided to keep the DO.


mary
7D flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SunTsu
Goldmember
Avatar
1,591 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Westcoast, Canada
     
Jul 29, 2011 01:28 |  #18

amfoto1 wrote in post #12835438 (external link)
But, personally my second most used sports lens is a 300mm, instead of adding a 1.4X. I use the Canon 300/4 IS for handheld shooting and the 300/2.8 IS when I can use a tripod with a gimbal mount. Image quality is a little better than a 70-200mm with a 1.4X. Besides I usually have the 70-200mm on another camera so I can switch back and forth between them quickly. And, the 300/4 IS can be used with 1.4X with relatively little loss of IQ, if needed.

Some will tell you that you don't need I.S. to shoot sports... I beg to differ. But - hey - I only shoot around 50,000 sports shots a year, so what do I know. Yes, we managed to get sports shots before lenses had I.S. And, yes, some percentage of the time with sports you are using a higher shutter speed to stop the action anyway, and I.S. is less critical when shooting higher shutter speeds. But it opens up a lot of additional possibilities, works even at moderate to higher shutter speeds and is just "the icing on the cake" for sports shooting. Of course, it does add cost... So you have to balance off against that.
Also the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sigma 120-400 OS and 150-500 OS can be used for sports when lighting is reasonably good. A soccer field is pretty long... if you are at one end, with 400mm you could get a reasonably tight shot of the action at the other end of the field. .

Fantastic post, IMO. I'm likely to get either the 400mm f/2.8 or the 200-400mm to shoot my kids as they get old enough to play field sports. I noticed you mentioned the 300mm f/2.8, however, so I'm wondering if you feel 400mm is too long for kids sports (where you are allowed on the sidelines).
Also, given the choice, would the flexibility of the 200-400 be more useful than what's offered by the 300mm f/2.8 or the 400mm f/2.8?

MT Stringer wrote in post #12835479 (external link)
You can never have enough zoom! Most likely you will be happy with the 55-250 for team shots and close ups on the sideline and for when action comes to your side of the field. I shoot with a 300mm, sometimes with a 1.4x on it so I can get in the huddle. :-)

Another option is the Canon 100-400 zoom. It is a little heavy and bulky when zoomed out to 400mm, but it will allow you to get some good candids. You will probably need a monopod to help support it. No tripods on the sideline, please! :-)

Here is a game (external link) I shot with the 100-400. Kids are probably about the same size, just a different style of football! :-)

How do you feel about the 400mm f/2.8 and the upcoming 200-400mm f/2.8? Would you give up either your 300 or your 100-400 if you had either of the lenses I listed?


Canon 5D Mark II+BG-E6, Canon 5D+BG-E4 | 200-400mmL IS, 85mm F1.2L II, TS-E 17mm F4.0L , 16-35mm F2.8L II, 24-105mmL IS, 70-200mm [COLOR=#000000]F2.8L II IS, 100mm F2.8L Macro IS, 100mm F2.8 Macro, 40mm F2.8, 1.4x II, 2.0x III | EF12+25 II | Canon 600EX-RT (x5) | Gitzo support
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Jul 29, 2011 01:44 |  #19

Try to pick up a used Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lens . You may or may not need a monopod , that depends on you .


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gnhntn
Senior Member
502 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
     
Jul 29, 2011 02:59 |  #20

Take a look at the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. It is capable of producing some quality potos, and comes in under your $1000. Draw back would be it is slower then some of the other suggested lenses, and may not work as well if it overcast, or low light, but the IS can help some with this.


"Why is it that children know how to forgive and forget...But adults forget how to forgive?"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Jul 29, 2011 06:51 |  #21

Gnhntn wrote in post #12841732 (external link)
Take a look at the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. It is capable of producing some quality potos, and comes in under your $1000. Draw back would be it is slower then some of the other suggested lenses, and may not work as well if it overcast, or low light, but the IS can help some with this.

+1. The 70-300 is an underappreciated gem on crop cameras. Next would be the Canon 100-400. This is assuming you can live with f/5.6.

If you need/want more light, then the 70-200 f/4 becomes an option, or even the budget-busting 70-200 f/2.8.

For nighttime shots, you may have to throw all of these out and look at a fast prime like the 135 f/2.0.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tempest68
Senior Member
Avatar
980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Manchester, PA
     
Jul 29, 2011 08:11 |  #22

For under $1000, I'd get the non-OS version of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Then if you have poor light you still have a chance of getting some shots.


Jim
Canon: EOS 3, 40mm f2.8 STM, 85mm f1.8 USM. Voigtlander: R3A, 28mm F2.8 SL II, Nokton 40mm f1.4, 50mm f2 Heliar.
Nikon: SB-25. Yongnuo: YN565EX, YN-622C transceiver (x2)
Sony: A7S, a6000, 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 G, Nissin i40.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eastcoastshredd
Member
44 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jul 29, 2011 09:12 |  #23

another vote for a 70-200 2.8, w/ teleconverter if needed...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: Channelview, Tx
     
Jul 29, 2011 11:46 |  #24

How do you feel about the 400mm f/2.8 and the upcoming 200-400mm f/2.8? Would you give up either your 300 or your 100-400 if you had either of the lenses I listed?

They are both out of my price range. The 200-400 would be great for field sports during daytime hours. I have talked to several Noink shooters that have the 200-400 and they love it.

Sometimes I use the 1D MK3 and sometimes the 7D. The 7D/300 helps with the reach for mid field players.


MaxPreps Profile (external link)

My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mark2009
Goldmember
Avatar
1,997 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Northeast , USA
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:12 as a reply to  @ MT Stringer's post |  #25

A U8 soccer field is only 25-30yrs long and 20-25yrs wide. You don't need a $1000 lens for U8 Soccer. The 18-135 will be fine. A 70-200 will actually be to long at the short end, parents sit/stand on the side lines, little Johnny running 6 feet away, I guess you could take a picture to see if his ears are clean:rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AzzKicker
Goldmember
Avatar
1,105 posts
Likes: 69
Joined Jul 2003
Location: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:17 |  #26

mark2009 wrote in post #12843913 (external link)
A U8 soccer field is only 25-30yrs long and 20-25yrs wide. You don't need a $1000 lens for U8 Soccer. The 18-135 will be fine. A 70-200 will actually be to long at the short end, parents sit/stand on the side lines, little Johnny running 6 feet away, I guess you could take a picture to see if his ears are clean:rolleyes:


VERY TRUE WORDS.

I shot a U8 Tournament with a 70-200 f2.8. Big Mistake. I would have been better off with a 24-70 F2.8 The 70-200 was way too long. Especially since your pretty much there on sidelines.


Ruben D. Zamora
Canon 6D Mark II, Canon 20-35L,Genesis 200 Strobe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:18 |  #27

rnsmomma wrote in post #12835204 (external link)
Sorry for the lack of info...

Body: 40d. I do not want to spend more than $1000... If i can spend less than$1K, I'll be good...

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.amazon.com …007Y794O?tag=ef​lenscom-20 (external link)

I owned it, and for what you are doing in daylight at that age, you'll be fine.

When you move to indoor sports this winter, you will spend more than $1K if you really want to shoot it well.

When you get to U13 or so, you may prefer to have 400MM outdoors.

Have a great time!


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rnsmomma
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:25 |  #28

mark2009 wrote in post #12843913 (external link)
A U8 soccer field is only 25-30yrs long and 20-25yrs wide. You don't need a $1000 lens for U8 Soccer. The 18-135 will be fine. A 70-200 will actually be to long at the short end, parents sit/stand on the side lines, little Johnny running 6 feet away, I guess you could take a picture to see if his ears are clean:rolleyes:

So, would a 55-250 be too long?

I have no clue about photography and I'm just trying to make the most of my camera since I'm a team parent.. i'd like to have different shots of the kids throughout the season.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yourdoinitwrong
Goldmember
Avatar
2,394 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:41 |  #29

rnsmomma wrote in post #12843991 (external link)
So, would a 55-250 be too long?

I have no clue about photography and I'm just trying to make the most of my camera since I'm a team parent.. i'd like to have different shots of the kids throughout the season.

What you might want to do is shoot a couple of games with the 18-135 since you already own it and see what focal lengths you use the most. If you have a lot of shots under 55mm or are left wanting more than 135mm then you will know what type of lens you need to look at. A lot of the suggestions (including mine) were directed at not only now but the future as your child gets older but some of those lenses may in fact be too long for right now and the smaller field being used. From experience I can tell you it's better to try shooting with what you have and see exactly what you are lacking than make a purchase without knowing 100% what you need.


5D4 w/BG-E20, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, Sigma 50 f/1.4
Full List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rnsmomma
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jul 29, 2011 13:46 |  #30

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #12844085 (external link)
What you might want to do is shoot a couple of games with the 18-135 since you already own it and see what focal lengths you use the most. If you have a lot of shots under 55mm or are left wanting more than 135mm then you will know what type of lens you need to look at. A lot of the suggestions (including mine) were directed at not only now but the future as your child gets older but some of those lenses may in fact be too long for right now and the smaller field being used. From experience I can tell you it's better to try shooting with what you have and see exactly what you are lacking than make a purchase without knowing 100% what you need.

I'm probably gonna do that... Wait and see... I'd hate to buy something that i'll have to sell later.. Then, if anything, I can save up for longer glass... Thank you all for your helpful suggestions!!! :)




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

9,542 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens for kids sports
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoryM
846 guests, 278 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.