For occasional sports gigs, which lens the best choice?

As a little background, all my gear is listed in my sig. I shoot a 5D2 with a 24-105 and 50 1.4 currently. My main focus is automotive photography and what I have now works great for that.

However I have been in talks with my old high school to shoot some sport events during the year, TBD. I have nothing near long enough for sports. Main sports that I will be dealing with are: football, soccer, and hockey. Some indoor events such as basket ball but not 100% on that yet.

Take into account a FF body, I know not ideal for sports but I have shot a game last year with a 135L and liked the results, so did the school so I am rather happy with that now. I dont think I will be shooting enough sports to justify selling my 5D2 for a 7D or a 1D body now.

Out of these lenses:

Canon 70-200 f/4
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS
Canon 70-200 f/2.8
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L

Which makes the most sense to get with what I have now and what I want to shoot? In terms of lighting, besides hockey games, everything else will be outdoors during the day, not sure if any night or dark games at all. Those may come later on in the year, but will be few if any.

One idea I was thinking about was getting the 70-200 f/4 + 1D Mark II + 85 1.8. My budget would be less that $2000 for now.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to look.

Personally, I think f/2.8 is almost a must. Indoor basketball CAN be tough if poor gym lighting. You mention all other sports besides basketball and hockey are outside, but HS football is typically friday nights...HS fields aren't generally known for great lighting.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14923923
Personally, I think f/2.8 is almost a must. Indoor basketball CAN be tough if poor gym lighting. You mention all other sports besides basketball and hockey are outside, but HS football is typically friday nights...HS fields aren't generally known for great lighting.

I live in Canada, and football is not as huge here as in the US. Most of these games are played during broad day light, very few go to stadium lights.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14924036
Most of these games are played during broad day light, very few go to stadium lights.

BLASPHEMY....

In that case, I'd probably choose the 70-300. If it was a crop camera, I'd save myself the cash and go with the 70-200 non-IS.

Edit: Just re-read the OP. I thought this was for personal purposes and didn't realize you were going to have any obligation to the school. Kind of changing things a bit lol

70-200 f/2.8L (non IS) & 1D2. I've had great success with that combo shooting sports.

I would not agree to shooting for your old school. You do not have the equipment currently, and with what you listed as a potential purchase, none of those will be enough either.

Football: You need between a 300-400mm lens to be OK. f4 or faster to help isolate from the busy backgrounds.
Soccer: Same as football.
Hockey: (I've heard that's big in Canada) You need a 70-200 f2.8. Fast lens is a must for indoor sports.
Basketball: A wide angle 18mm to 35mm lens plus a 70-200 f2.8. You need to be prepared to shoot down the court and on your end of the court. f2.8 or faster is a must. 135mm f2 is great for basketball.

As I am sure you know, most non-photographers do not know that different genres of photography requires different lenses. A lot of non-photographers think that if they see a great landscape photo, that same photographer can take a great sports photo with the same equipment, etc... Essentially, what I am saying is that the odds are, your old high school probably doesn't know that all equipment does not translate to all photography jobs. Sports photography is definitely one genre of photography that it can be highly detrimental to the end results what your equipment is sub-par. A lot of non-photographers see sports images throughout their daily lives on billboards, on TV, in books, online, etc. and those amazing shots become their "baseline" of what their sports images should look like as well especially when hiring a professional photographer to take them for you! I just don't want your old high school to be disappointed, and I don't want YOU to become stressed when your equipment reaches its limits and does not produce what you or your client was hoping for.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14924116
I would not agree to shooting for your old school. You do not have the equipment currently, and with what you listed as a potential purchase, none of those will be enough either.

Football: You need between a 300-400mm lens to be OK. f4 or faster to help isolate from the busy backgrounds.
Soccer: Same as football.
Hockey: (I've heard that's big in Canada) You need a 70-200 f2.8. Fast lens is a must for indoor sports.
Basketball: A wide angle 18mm to 35mm lens plus a 70-200 f2.8. You need to be prepared to shoot down the court and on your end of the court. f2.8 or faster is a must. 135mm f2 is great for basketball.

As I am sure you know, most non-photographers do not know that different genres of photography requires different lenses. A lot of non-photographers think that if they see a great landscape photo, that same photographer can take a great sports photo with the same equipment, etc... Essentially, what I am saying is that the odds are, your old high school probably doesn't know that all equipment does not translate to all photography jobs. Sports photography is definitely one genre of photography that it can be highly detrimental to the end results what your equipment is sub-par. A lot of non-photographers see sports images throughout their daily lives on billboards, on TV, in books, online, etc. and those amazing shots become their "baseline" of what their sports images should look like as well especially when hiring a professional photographer to take them for you! I just don't want your old high school to be disappointed, and I don't want YOU to become stressed when your equipment reaches its limits and does not produce what you or your client was hoping for.

Before we even came to the conclusion that I would shoot some work-for-hire type deals, I submitted 2 large 16x24 prints of work that I did last year with my 5D2 and 135L and it blew them away. I thought they were very good shots for the equipment I had at the time. Renting is definitely an option and will actually look to supplement what I have now in that case. I appreciate the break down of the lenses for each scenario, confirms what I was looking for in each case. Im still on the fence on what to get here.

Here are the shots I printed for them:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/gbucur/62018158​55/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/gbucur/62023332​02/

Tapeman wrote in post #14924066
70-200 f/2.8L (non IS) & 1D2. I've had great success with that combo shooting sports.

This option could work.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14924231
Before we even came to the conclusion that I would shoot some work-for-hire type deals, I submitted 2 large 16x24 prints of work that I did last year with my 5D2 and 135L and it blew them away. I thought they were very good shots for the equipment I had at the time.

Which is totally fine, but you gave them what are probably your two best photos which means that your average photo will not be as nice (or you would have given them those other photos instead). I am just always worried when somebody submits 1 or 2 photos to a potential client in hopes of showing them how good of a photographer they are. A client should see many many of your photos to get a sense of what the AVERAGE photo will look like, not just the GREAT ones. It's almost false advertising. Have you ever seen a movie trailer? They show some of their best and most outrageous scenes in hopes of enticing an audience. Then, when you see the movie all the other 500 scenes don't live up the hype!

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14924231
I am lucky to have very close field access so having super long lenses is not always a must have, for me in this case.

When I said a 300-400mm what the minimum that you should shoot with for football/soccer, I was referring to shooting right from the sideline. Take a look at professional football photographers; most using 400mm or 500mm lenses. The fields are HUGE and it would be a shame to limit yourself to only the action that happens within 30 feet of you from the sideline.

You can buy a used 7D and a used 70-200 non-is for $2000. I see this combo often on the sidelines of high school games. It will also work for basketball along with your 50mm 1.4.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14924271
Which is totally fine, but you gave them what are probably your two best photos which means that your average photo will not be as nice (or you would have given them those other photos instead). I am just always worried when somebody submits 1 or 2 photos to a potential client in hopes of showing them how good of a photographer they are. A client should see many many of your photos to get a sense of what the AVERAGE photo will look like, not just the GREAT ones. It's almost false advertising. Have you ever seen a movie trailer? They show some of their best and most outrageous scenes in hopes of enticing an audience. Then, when you see the movie all the other 500 scenes don't live up the hype!

You are right. I just did not have the money to print out a lot of photos to show them, I gave them on a USB all the shots that I took from the event, but printed out my best to showcase that more. Last year when I was at the event, I only shot for a short amount of time. Everything was for my personal use.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14924271
When I said a 300-400mm what the minimum that you should shoot with for football/soccer, I was referring to shooting right from the sideline. Take a look at professional football photographers; most using 400mm or 500mm lenses. The fields are HUGE and it would be a shame to limit yourself to only the action that happens within 30 feet of you from the sideline.

You do have a fair point. I do want to use long lenses, but I want to also get something that I will use a lot, not just every time I have to shoot a game, once or twice a month. I have thought about selling my 5D2, but don't want to jump to that since I don't know exactly how much I would be shooting this year in terms of sports.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14924346
I do want to use long lenses, but I want to also get something that I will use a lot, not just every time I have to shoot a game, once or twice a month. I have thought about selling my 5D2, but don't want to jump to that since I don't know exactly how much I would be shooting this year in terms of sports.

which is why I go back to my original point about not accepting the job. Unfortunately, sports photography often requires a total commitment in regards to equipment just to live up to a client's standards. Honestly I'm just trying to be frank with you so somebody gets 'hurt' down the line. I have good intentions to help, not just tear people down. I have no idea about your abilities. Most likely your abilities will end up being stunted by your gear when shooting sports.

Personally, I do not accept sports photography jobs concerning football or soccer because I do not have the proper gear in my eyes. I am waiting to purchase a 300mm f2.8is and use my 1.4x TC on occasion paired with it before I even attempt to pursue football/soccer.

I shoot a lot of school football.
200mm is too short IMO, on the 7D it does ok
I use 120-300 on 5D3, it allow for easy cropping if need be.
Be for getting the 5D3, the 120-300 was ideal length on the 7D.

IS is no real advantage, I aim for around (f/2.8-3.5) (1/1250 - 1/1600) which usually give me an ISO around 100 - 400 but I would always buy IS if I have the option, you never know when it will come in handy

Really appreciate the advice guys. My head is spinning with everything that I am thinking right now. I do want to stress this is a casual gig, money is involved, and I would not have asked for such an opportunity if I did not feel I could provide them usable shots for what they need. I think I would be shooting 2/3 games a month on the optimistic side. Not a full time gig. If I was doing this full time, I would be asking other questions, or rather I know what I would do. Selling my 5D2 is creeping up but I want to avoid that at all costs. I would love a 1D3 or 7D but those are not possible now without sacrificing glass.

Now, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a really good option for what it is, and most versatile. The f/2.8 would also be great for hockey, if I have to shoot that in the future. The 85 f/1.8 will also be a must for me for indoor events.

I think if it comes to it, I would sell my 5D2 and grab a 1D3. Just dont want to do that now.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14924231

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/gbucur/62023332​02/
IMG_3090.jpg by George.Bucur, on Flickr

Hopefully at 200/2.8, you'll see less of Loblaws in the background

I'd definitely go with the 70-200 f/2.8 if hockey is involved. Last tourney I shot I needed ISO 1600 @3.2 just to manage 1/320, so I don't think the f/4 options will be of great use, especially not the even slower 70-300. From memory the SMCS arena is a bit brighter than most thanks to its OHL heritage, but it's still better to have the 2.8 option.