lens recommendation?

I'm posting here as I've had no reply in the actual lens section...

What lens would people recommend for shooting sports videos? Rugby specifically.
I'll be pitch side and need a good zoom but also a wide angle too.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

could go with an older 35-350L you wont be able to do well when it is dark out since it will be 5.6 at 350. but could probably do a solid job on a monopod. or if you want to go new could do the 28-300 and get the IS, plus many possibilities with Sigma and Tamron

Buy a dedicated video camera. You'll get continuous auto-focus, too.

I'm not much of a video guy, but I find that I do much better with IS in video for sports.

I don't see what body you're using, which could affect the decision because of crop/reach. I'd recommend thinking about the 70-200 f/2.8l IS MkI, because of the IS. The image quality won't be quite as nice as the MkII, but with video's low resolution, you'll never notice the difference.

It would be good to hear from more experienced video folks though.

TSchrief wrote in post #15257455
Buy a dedicated video camera. You'll get continuous auto-focus, too.

I can't really afford to buy another camera to be honest!

waterrockets wrote in post #15257464
I'm not much of a video guy, but I find that I do much better with IS in video for sports.

I don't see what body you're using, which could affect the decision because of crop/reach. I'd recommend thinking about the 70-200 f/2.8l IS MkI, because of the IS. The image quality won't be quite as nice as the MkII, but with video's low resolution, you'll never notice the difference.

It would be good to hear from more experienced video folks though.

I'm using and EOS 650D. I have 250mm currently but that is struggling with reach so I think the 200mm would be too short, any ideas what 300mm has a wide angle?

Thanks for the input guys

I've heard good things about the 70-300L IS: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_70_300mm_f_4_5​_6l_is_usm

70mm has always been wide enough for me with soccer, so it might be wide enough for you with rugby. If not, then maybe you should grab a 100-400L for even more reach, and get another used body and a 24-70 or 17-55, and use those together.

Both the 70-300 and 100-400 have IS, which should help with video, especially when reaching far.

I would think if I was shooting video-- I'd have enough sense to use a tripod- which means IS/OS is moot..
If I wanted wider and longer than the 70-300 or 100-400 - I'd give the Sigma 50-500 OS a try... But I already have one- so I am a bit biased...

Yeah, I've never shot long video, but I know that even with a tripod, panning with my 200 is pretty jumpy, and I wish I had IS on it. With 500mm, I think the 2.5x jumpiness would warrant IS/OS as well.

I guess one of those $$$$ fluid heads would make IS moot though. Then again, look at pro/college football TV when it's windy, You often see tight zooms shaking all over the place, and they're surely on top-notch support rigs.

Thanks for all the help guys. How do Sigma lenses compare against Canon lenses? Especially the L Series, it's a hug price difference, but I'd rather pay for the higher quality all round to be honest!

Brelly wrote in post #15257571
I can't really afford to buy another camera to be honest!

Thanks for the input guys

You can get a really nice HD video recorder for less than $400. You'll never get a decent sports DSLR lens for twice that.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8: $1200
Canon 300 f/4: $1500
Canon 28-300: $2800

How is $400 too expensive when you are considering lenses like these?

TSchrief wrote in post #15264043
You can get a really nice HD video recorder for less than $400. You'll never get a decent sports DSLR lens for twice that.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8: $1200
Canon 300 f/4: $1500
Canon 28-300: $2800

How is $400 too expensive when you are considering lenses like these?

Well, not necessarily too expensive, what I mean is I can't really afford to have a video cam as well as a DSLR + lens, the video cam wouldn't see half as much use as the lens itself. And I don't want a video recorder specifically either. Worded badly on my behalf to begin with, apologies. The $400 (GBP to me!) would obviously be the cheaper option but wouldn't be worth while me getting as it'll only be used once a week at most, where as the lens, maybe three to four days use.

Does that make sense now?

EDIT: What I actually mean, (and this has only just come to me) is that I wouldn't be able to justify having a video cam as well as DSLR

Brelly wrote in post #15264333
Well, not necessarily too expensive, what I mean is I can't really afford to have a video cam as well as a DSLR + lens, the video cam wouldn't see half as much use as the lens itself. And I don't want a video recorder specifically either. Worded badly on my behalf to begin with, apologies. The $400 (GBP to me!) would obviously be the cheaper option but wouldn't be worth while me getting as it'll only be used once a week at most, where as the lens, maybe three to four days use.

Does that make more sense now?

Yes. That makes perfect sense to me. I didn't think of 'usefull-ness'. Perhaps you could consider the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS version). It is relatively inexpensive and gets you better optics (for cropping) and one extra stop of light (f/4 vs f/5.6) over the 55-250, which will help keep the shutter speed up. Both those features will help your IQ, and the difference between 200 and 250 is almost insignificant.

TSchrief wrote in post #15264436
Yes. That makes perfect sense to me. I didn't think of 'usefull-ness'. Perhaps you could consider the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS version). It is relatively inexpensive and gets you better optics (for cropping) and one extra stop of light (f/4 vs f/5.6) over the 55-250, which will help keep the shutter speed up. Both those features will help your IQ, and the difference between 200 and 250 is almost insignificant.

Yeah, well you wouldn't have from my first explanation! Ah okay, but regarding range, how is it gonna compare against a 250? Surely it'd be a lot shorter? Sorry, still a newbie! Is there a 300mm non IS version by any chance? Been looking at some of my snaps from the weekend, and really not overly happy with the quality of the 250mm at all

200 vs 250 won't be that big of a deal, but it is a 20% reduction in reach.

Canon used to make non-IS 300 f/2.8L, and they are out there on the used market. Might be my next lens... or an old used 400...

waterrockets wrote in post #15264875
200 vs 250 won't be that big of a deal, but it is a 20% reduction in reach.

Canon used to make non-IS 300 f/2.8L, and they are out there on the used market. Might be my next lens... or an old used 400...

Oh right okay, so what if I were to go for the 200 f4, and get an extender? Would that make a good difference to the range?

EDIT: And is that gonna make a difference to the IQ as well? Or any difference to anything minus the range?