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 02 Apr 2014 (Wednesday) 15:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .

 
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 04, 2014 18:40 |  #61

Myboostedgst wrote in post #16810494 (external link)
No additional money for any camera equipment this year. :(

I resemble that comment. Can't be using the orange money for awesome camera gear this year.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
G7-EOS
And I thought I had it bad in Joliet.
Avatar
655 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Chicagoland
     
Apr 05, 2014 11:15 |  #62

sporadic wrote in post #16808131 (external link)
... I'd go fast as possible even if outdoors and shoot wide open. ... If its overcast and later in the day, I find myself pushing ISO800-1600 at times with this combo to keep shutter speeds up.

As sporadic said, later in the day or in overcast conditions, you will really appreciate a constant f2.8 lens in order to keep shutter speeds fast enough to stop action. If any of the sports will be played under the lights, then 2.8 is even more critical. I always felt the 70-200 2.8 non-IS was the best all-around for the sports my son played (H.S. baseball and football). Could never have done without it for Friday night football or spring baseball when the afternoons could become short on light.


EOS 5D4
EF 35/2 IS · EF 16-35/4 L · EF 24-70/2.8 L II · EF 70-200 L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,349 posts
Gallery: 1718 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10819
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 05, 2014 11:19 |  #63

Heya,

With a $1k budget, you're just so so close to the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. That F2.8 aperture is serious. It's fast enough with focus, and as fast as it gets for a zoom with the aperture. This lets you get your shutter speed faster to freeze time, and allows for less ISO for the same exposure value, which in turn, just lets you crank up shutter speed even more while maintaining exposure. 1 or 2 stops of aperture makes a difference when you go from 1/200 to something closer to 1/640 (not 2 stops obviously) for shooting moving objects/people, just as an example of combining faster aperture and ISO values.

Otherwise, I'd go for the Canon EF 70-200 F4L IS used/refurb as it is very sharp at F4 and is only a single stop slower. But this way you're not using F5.6. That's just too slow for sports unless you have great lighting, at least, in my opinion. You can certain do good work in good light with F5.6. But I'm thinking more like low light situations where you really want that F2.8 and F4, as each stop really counts there. If you're always in bright light, then it's a non-issue though. But I'd plan around all situations rather than just one, with a buy in value this high.

The alternative, is to get an EF 200mm F2.8L II prime lens. You can get them used for $600ish. Very good lens. If you live at 200mm on your zoom most of the time anyways, this is a great way to do sports.

I actually use my 85mm F1.8 at F2 a lot for sports myself.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
9,413 posts
Likes: 43400
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Apr 06, 2014 11:23 |  #64

ddk2001 wrote in post #16809549 (external link)
Feels like I'm leaning more towards the 70-300. Anyone care to give me an idea of what would be a really good price on it used?

I used a 70-200/4 non-IS for youth soccer for many years. As kids grew and got faster, I needed more reach. I bought a 70-300L refurbished, and have been very very happy with it. I recently traded my 70-200 for a 100-400, but haven't used it much. I find it useful for cross-the field shots, near the goal, but the 70-300 does the job for 90% of the shots. The 70mm end is good to have when the action is very close to you. If you can afford just a bit more money, you won't be disappointed with the 70-300




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,840 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 1452
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
     
Apr 06, 2014 14:40 |  #65

ddk,

I'm one of those very content 70-300L owners. I love the color rendition of this lens as well as the sharpness.

That said, lots of people like their lenses in this range along with all the 200mm zooms.
Plus, the 100-400 users are often quite happy.

I shoot a lot of wading birds here in Florida and I need a longer lens so I'm saving up for a 400mm f/5.6 prime. These decisions are never easy. Lots of trade offs and compromises.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,537 posts
Gallery: 397 photos
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Apr 06, 2014 15:05 |  #66

[QUOTE=MalVeauX;168116​78]

The alternative, is to get an EF 200mm F2.8L II prime lens. You can get them used for $600ish. Very good lens. If you live at 200mm on your zoom most of the time anyways, this is a great way to do sports.
QUOTE]

This lens has served me real well for all kinds of sports. I grabbed mine like-new off eBay for $530 with a hood and caps, but no pouch or box.

There was a very clean copy of version 1 of the 200 2.8 selling here recently for $500, and that one is arguable more desirable because of the handy built-in hood. Not that I wouldn't pay $600 for the 200 2.8, but it is definitely worth it to look around for a deal.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f1.8 ZA, Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA, 24mm f/2 SSM Distagon T*, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 07, 2014 16:52 as a reply to  @ mickeyb105's post |  #67

Ugh - another follow up question if I may . . .

I've been thinking more about the f question - and been doing some research about what it might mean for me. I really do like the idea of a blurred background - given what's going on on the sidelines of kids games.

I remembered I took a throwaway picture last year that, besides the horrible IQ - had an distracting background. Here it is . . . . can you see it?

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7440/13702977533_44bf5cb88a_c.jpg

So - if I'm looking to blur backgrounds at all - I'm thinking the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 isn't going to do that for me. Is that correct?

If not - then I'm looking at the 70-200 f/4 or the f/2.8. Focal length won't be an issue - I think the only real issue for me (aside from price) will be depth. Will it be significantly different?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Apr 07, 2014 17:14 |  #68

ddk2001 wrote in post #16816800 (external link)
I remembered I took a throwaway picture last year that, besides the horrible IQ - had an distracting background. Here it is . . . . can you see it?

QUOTED IMAGE

So - if I'm looking to blur backgrounds at all - I'm thinking the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 isn't going to do that for me. Is that correct?

If not - then I'm looking at the 70-200 f/4 or the f/2.8. Focal length won't be an issue - I think the only real issue for me (aside from price) will be depth. Will it be significantly different?

In the sample photo, the background is actually where the plane of focus resides. The subjects are out of focus.

If they were in focus, the background would be a bit blurrier, but in this case I imagine the spectators back there would still be sharp enough so as to not be helping the image.

There are no affordable lens options that would take this shot and that would blur out the background. 'real' choices would be a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 to be honest.

The 70-200/4 is not really any better than the 70-300L for background blur. They are really not all that far apart at 200mm (f/4 vs. f/5) and if you have the space to use the longer lens at 300mm, you will find that 300/5.6 blurs a background a lot better than 200/4.

And in soccer, you usually have the space so you will be cropping the 70-200 images.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 07, 2014 17:19 |  #69

ddk2001 wrote in post #16816800 (external link)
Ugh - another follow up question if I may . . .

I've been thinking more about the f question - and been doing some research about what it might mean for me. I really do like the idea of a blurred background - given what's going on on the sidelines of kids games.

I remembered I took a throwaway picture last year that, besides the horrible IQ - had an distracting background. Here it is . . . . can you see it?


So - if I'm looking to blur backgrounds at all - I'm thinking the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 isn't going to do that for me. Is that correct?

If not - then I'm looking at the 70-200 f/4 or the f/2.8. Focal length won't be an issue - I think the only real issue for me (aside from price) will be depth. Will it be significantly different?

a blurred background depends on focal length and aperture but the reason for that "horrible IQ" pic is you were at shooting against the sun, you need to get the sun at your back!

A larger aperture is better for blurred backgrounds but the longer f2.8 lens telephoto lens cost more $$$. You can get blurred backgrounds with f5.6 but you need to zoom in at longer focal lengths and have the background further away

for example,

Canon 60D
100-400 @ 400mm
f5.6


IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2842/12934407355_9c41ba42d9_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 07, 2014 17:31 |  #70

JeffreyG wrote in post #16816862 (external link)
In the sample photo, the background is actually where the plane of focus resides. The subjects are out of focus.

Yes - I had a great deal going wrong in this picture. I do appreciate the information about the background similarities between the f/4 and f/5. That is quite helpful. I'm not ready to spend the $$ for a 300 2.8 though . . .

watt100 wrote in post #16816871 (external link)
a blurred background depends on focal length and aperture but the reason for that "horrible IQ" pic is you were at shooting against the sun, you need to get the sun at your back!

Yes - terrible location. Unfortunately - at some soccer tournaments - parents are corralled in designated locations and don't have a choice. I am learning - and occasionally try to look like a coach and roam at will . . .
Thank you for the tip on blurring backgrounds @ 5.6 - something for me to experiment with.

All very much appreciated.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 07, 2014 17:37 |  #71

ddk2001 wrote in post #16816894 (external link)
Yes - I had a great deal going wrong in this picture. I do appreciate the information about the background similarities between the f/4 and f/5. That is quite helpful. I'm not ready to spend the $$ for a 300 2.8 though . . .

Yes - terrible location. Unfortunately - at some soccer tournaments - parents are corralled in designated locations and don't have a choice. I am learning - and occasionally try to look like a coach and roam at will . . .
Thank you for the tip on blurring backgrounds @ 5.6 - something for me to experiment with.

All very much appreciated.

you may have more of a choice in the direction and location you shoot than you think.
yes, parents are on one side and players on the other but try shifting around for the best angle even though it's on the "wrong" side. You may find its OK because you are more of a 'photographer' than a parent. I've never had a problem shooting on any side of a lacrosse or soccer field




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 07, 2014 17:45 |  #72

watt100 wrote in post #16816908 (external link)
you may have more of a choice in the direction and location you shoot than you think.
yes, parents are on one side and players on the other but try shifting around for the best angle even though it's on the "wrong" side. You may find its OK because you are more of a 'photographer' than a parent. I've never had a problem shooting on any side of a lacrosse or soccer field

Yes - I hear you. At this particular tournament - the organizers allowed a "professional" crew full access to the fields and limited the parents ability to leave the sidelines (and it was enforced!). The "professional" crew took several pictures of each kid playing - and then sold pictures - offering discounts to teams that wanted to purchase the entire binder full of team pictures.

No kidding . . . .

And - at all of our youth soccer games - they no longer allow anyone (parents, photographers included) on the end lines - period. In lacrosse - I tend to avoid standing behind the goal myself - it's a basic survival instinct . . . :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
9,413 posts
Likes: 43400
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Apr 07, 2014 18:40 |  #73

ddk2001 wrote in post #16816800 (external link)
So - if I'm looking to blur backgrounds at all - I'm thinking the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 isn't going to do that for me. Is that correct?

Correct. Also, lens-to-subject and subject-to-background distances do play a role in the amount of "blurr" you see. The further the background is from the player, the less distracting the background will be (less-in-focus). An f/2.8 lens will help, but not an f/4. Generally, positioning yourself such that the background is the least busiest is the best option. However, it appears that the parents are very limited in where they can shoot from. If I were you, I'd get a 400mm lens (100-400, or 400mm/5.6) and shoot from a distance, outside the boundaries of the sideline patrol. Just an idea.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,087 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 07, 2014 19:06 |  #74

This is my 300 with a 1.4TC on it.

420mm and this is a 50% crop. At F4 there is plenty of blur even at this distance (about 45 yards)

IMAGE: http://nitrousdepot.net/POTN/cheer8.jpg

A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 11, 2014 13:12 as a reply to  @ Talley's post |  #75

So - I've been reading quite a bit - and experimenting with my existing lens shooting manual and Av. I'm was shooting at my son's lacrosse game later afternoon / early evening Wednesday - some light clouds and an eventual setting sun - and I think I'm noticing more the limitations of my lens (and I'm sure my skills - that's another story). Trying to stick with Av priority - the shutter speeds got sufficient low (1/250) that I got some blurry images.

I am now wondering - if I am going to take the leap - whether I should increase my budget - let's say up to $1800 or so.

Certainly - I can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that $$ - and have also come across a 28-300 F3.5-5.6 L IS in that price range (although there's not much out there that I could find on this lens). I might also have a lead on a local lens - a 70-200 f/2.8 II IS that I might be able to get in that price range.

So - query as to whether I'm better off with a 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 (MK I) with an extender - or going to the 28-300? If I try to pick up the 2.8 II - I'll be out of fun $$ and couldn't get an extender.

Any thoughts?




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

11,690 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help me pic a lens to shoot 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 amdcasin
675 guests, 348 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.