Which long telephoto lens for young kids?

I got my 70-200 f/4 L for $430 locally. I don't think I'd have any problems until it gets considerably dark. I used it at the F1 Grand Prix here in Austin, and was shooting at f/8 and f/11 most of the time at shutter speeds fast enough to not need IS. A 1.4x teleconverter would get me out to 280mm for relatively marginal cost over a quality x-300mm lens, not to mention a 100-400 L.

I have a 100-400 and a 70-200/2.8 that I use inside and out for my kids from youth through highschool. They work fine IMO, and the slight improvement you will get from the supertelephoto lenses comes with three big negatives:

1. Cost, but if you can afford them then fine.
2. Size and weight. Up to the 300/2.8 might be manageable. The 400/2.8 is just a bear to carry and use for something like a 4 year olds soccer match.
3. The nut factor. I've known a lot of the parents and coaches in my kids leagues for years as friends or acquaintances. If you show up at a soccer game for 4 year olds with a 400/2.8 everyone will think you are crazy and they are going to talk about you behind your back for years.

You can get away with up to something about the size of a 70-200/2.8 if you can show them good results and just be labeled eccentric. But most laypeople won't see the difference from that to the 400/2.8 in photos, but they will see the size. Wait till they compare your stuff to results from a competent user who has a 70-300/5.6 which they will see as similar.

You can pretend you don't care what people think, but you will know you are lying to yourself the next time you comb your hair and wear appropriate clothing before leaving the house. You cannot live as if you don't care what anyone thinks.

I recommend the two lenses I first mentioned. If you can really stand being "weird" then get a 300/2.8. I can't suggest a 400/2.8 for anyone shooting something as mundane as a soccer game for small kids. Hell, your kid might quit before reaching 8 years of age. This is why folks will see a 12000 dollar lens as nutty for a four year old.

Jeff what happens when you show with your 1dmk4 or you bring your panasonic?

SunTsu wrote in post #15299309
I wouldn't say money is no object, but the "best lens(es) I can buy" logic is probably accurate. This might not be the right place for this discussion, but I just want to make sure I capture the best images and files (given the constraint on my talent) possible for my kids. I didn't grow up with a whole ton of photos so maybe it's more an issue for me than my kids. I know I'm lucky to have the opportunity to buy the gear, but it's more about making sure I don't leave anything on the table.

I suppose in a sense everyone buys the "best" they can afford or at least the best for their situation or budget - hats off to you for having such a large camera budget ! Be assured it is for you and not the three or four year old, they don't care about the pics and strangely enough they may not even care twenty or thirty years down the road. At least mine don't but maybe it's because back then I didn't have the fine sports shooting gear I now own (Rebel XSi)

Craign wrote in post #15299461
Arrive early: My best photos come during practice/training time before the game begins. That is when I can isolate the kids and get something that is better than the "mass confusion" shots during their games.

good advice, especially when shooting sports like soccer for 3 and 4 years old. They tend to bunch up real fast

JeffreyG wrote in post #15299563
3. The nut factor. I've known a lot of the parents and coaches in my kids leagues for years as friends or acquaintances. If you show up at a soccer game for 4 year olds with a 400/2.8 everyone will think you are crazy and they are going to talk about you behind your back for years.
I recommend the two lenses I first mentioned. If you can really stand being "weird" then get a 300/2.8. I can't suggest a 400/2.8 for anyone shooting something as mundane as a soccer game for small kids. Hell, your kid might quit before reaching 8 years of age. This is why folks will see a 12000 dollar lens as nutty for a four year old.

!!
if you can afford it and don't mind the other parents thinking you're crazy and it's not robbing the kid's education or your retirement funds then what the heck, 400mm 2.8 or the 200-400 is going to get the best bokeh on that soccer shot

bobbyz wrote in post #15299604
Jeff what happens when you show with your 1dmk4 or you bring your panasonic?

Nobody would look twice at the GF-1, which is part of the appeal of that camera. I love it with the 20mm prime for a lot of events with the kids.

I use the 5d for a lot of my own kids stuff because it is capable and when coupled with a 70-200 makes me merely "eccentric". Given that most of these parents know me by now, so they at least know what my work looks like.

I don't usually use my 1D4 at my 5 year old's rec soccer. If I did and if coupled with a 12 pound 400/2.8 I don't think "eccentric" would be the desciption.

It's a continuum, not a step change. The bigger and more expensive the camera vs. The smaller and more meaningless the event, the more you stand out.

SunTsu wrote in post #15299309
I definitely do not like the attention of pulling out a big lens at any young sporting event. I've previously posted asking how people manage the comments and stares and as much as I try to ignore it, it makes me very self conscious. It actually "embarrasses" my wife whenever I bring my gear out. My kids current soccer instructor suggested to me a few classes ago to leave my camera at home because he was afraid it made my son self conscious. I don't know for sure about cause-effect, but it seemed to help his attention to the game. Because of some political support I provided to the Parks Group, the instructor is on very good terms with me now so he's been very good to "encourage" the camera and to provide advice on how to be non-obtrusive. Needless to say, I am very self-conscious and aware of the potential obnoxiousness of a big lens but am trying to manage it.


LOL. I haven't been one to shy away from complaining about the AF on the 5D and 5D II. The only thing stopping me from getting the 5D III is the resolution and the hope for a pro-bodied high megapixel camera. If the 1Dx had a tiny bit more resolution, it would have been my next camera. This is probably not the right place to get into that, so I'll leave that as is. However, I'm fully in agreement that my body's AF is a bottleneck.

Others have provided good advice on the attention thing. It either bothers you or it doesn't. I had a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for a while, and that is definitely a little more "stealth" since its black. Its not a bad lens, but once I bought a Canon supertele, there was no going back to it. The AF on the Canon's is just so much better. If you think your 70-200 2.8 is fast, the supers are in a different league. Fast, sharp, and bright.

I don't mind the stares. I did this as a business for a while, and when we did tournaments, I wanted the attention so people would buy from us. The 400 2.8 was great for that because people noticed you, came to you, and wanted you to be shooting their kids. One thing I learned in transition back to more hobby than biz, was that my kids teams are not the place to try and sell. I kept putting images on my business site ( http://victoryphoto.co​m ) and everyone loved them, but I was constantly seeing ripped off copies with my logo on the kids Facebook feeds. I finally figured out it was much easier for me to just post them to Facebook in the first place and forget trying to sell anything. Now all my daughters' teammates love me coming to the games with my nerdy gear, because they get good profile pics. This of course is not an issue with the age of your kids, but maybe their parents would like them there. Just think about how the families of your children's teammates will want the images and that will go a long way to you being welcomed with the big lenses.

I only have the 200 1.8 now, because my youngest of four is only playing indoor sports, and the rest are older now. I still get a lot of stares and comments even with the 200. But I don't mind... as I said, I got used to it. I move around a lot while shooting, and I swap lenses a lot too. People get used to it and I think would expect something was wrong if I was sitting in the stands or on the sidelines. My daughter is playing on a U16 national level volleyball team, and we travel all over to big tournaments with thousands of girls and parents. I am still, even in that environment, usually the only one with the big glass! It is kind of embarrassing for the official tournament photographers to be shooting with much less capable gear. They usually get to our court and keep walking. If I see them there, I will encourage them to stay, and I encourage the parents to buy from them. At nationals last year, I actually went with a couple of parents from our team to look at what they captured and they did good work. I was able to let the parent know what I had in comparison so they bought shots that weren't similar to what I might have been giving them for free. Its all about parents and players getting memories that they will hopefully have for a lifetime. With my last kid only having a couple seasons left of youth sports, I realize my time is short so have similar feelings that you expressed about wanting to give them memories. If my daughter was still playing soccer, you can bet I'd still have a 400 2.8.

Regarding the bodies, I hear you on resolution, but there are pros and cons. With the lenses we are talking about, you can shoot pretty tight and not have to make too many compromises on resolution. With sports, even if you have 10 times the megapixels, you still aren't going to get the same quality image if you crop too much away, because the camera still has to have sharp focus on something that has become very small in the frame. The 5D3 has the best AF of any camera Canon or Nikon has ever made.... same as the 1DX. It is night and day different from your 5Dc and 5D2 bodies. I would keep an eye out for the 7D follow on though. If they take that more in the direction of the 5D3, then I will buy one as a second body to get more reach. For sports, particularly indoor sports, the high ISO abilities and robust/fast AF of the 5D3/1DX are worth the price of admission over what you have.

I am a bit jealous that of you too. I was no where near where you are when my kids were that young. I have tens of thousands of images of them, but mostly from their teen years. I'd love to be able to go back and have the tools that are available now. Of course, when my kids where that age, there were no DSLRs... and learning to do this level of capture with film was a lot different. I had a film SLR, but never got this far into it.

bobbyz wrote in post #15299399
I would say, min 300mmf 2.8. Not sure which fields most folks shoot but realize kids are small and 300mm on FF is not much.

you do realize his kids are 3.5, and 2, right?...my nephew didn't play on a field with real goals until he was 6...the rest of the time he was on tiny fields with two small half moon goals...

DreDaze wrote in post #15300277
you do realize his kids are 3.5, and 2, right?...my nephew didn't play on a field with real goals until he was 6...the rest of the time he was on tiny fields with two small half moon goals...

Same age as mine. When my 3 yr old started soccer last yr the field was open park so I can sit back where ever I wanted and shoot. Unless you shooting indoors, what is the issue here? And kids grow up fast. I am suggesting the best starting lens for outdoor sports.

bobbyz wrote in post #15300335
Same age as mine. When my 3 yr old started soccer last yr the field was open park so I can sit back where ever I wanted and shoot. Unless you shooting indoors, what is the issue here? OP is looking at 200-400L.

may be different than what i'm used to...my nephews play on a field where they cram i think 8 fields onto one and a half regular sized under 10 fields...so there's not much room for moving around...there's about 6 feet in between fields for parents to sit

definitely not that much room to move around...

i know he's looking at the 200-400mm...but he's also thinking he can't wait...i'm saying he's got plenty of time to still use a 70-200mm f2.8 for a while until that lens is available..

please tell me that shot above isn't of a 3year old...

That kid (not mine) was bigger and that shot with 500mm mind you. 300mm doesn't cover full field. But all I am saying is that 300mm f2.8 is nice start for soccer. You can use 70-200mm, or whatever lens you have.

The smallest pitches in our village are 1/4th of a full size pitch. That's a little bit more than the size of the penalty box. If the lens is too long, increase the distance. You don't have to sit near the goal- or touchlines.

SunTsu, let us know what you eventually decide to do. Good luck.

Phil

bobbyz wrote in post #15299399
I would say, min 300mmf 2.8. Not sure which fields most folks shoot but realize kids are small and 300mm on FF is not much. So for starters I will say 300mm f2.8 IS. And it is lot more easier to manage than 400mm f2.8 IS. The newer IS II versions of the 300/400mm f2.8 are lighter still but almost twice the money.

Also what is the problem with 22MP? How big you printing? Most sports guys print 16x20 with older 8MP bodies.

Regarding big lens/camera. Forget what other says. For kids soccer, I would take my 500mm f4 for day games and shoot from behind the goal lines. No players notice you. 400mm f2.8 would be my min for soccer on FF.

For now I would say 5dmk3 with 300mm f2.8 is best combo. If you need higher fps then 1dmk4 but you should be able to get quite nice shots with 6fps.

Zivnuska wrote in post #15299427
When I first started shooting sports, it was of my daughter's teams in 7th grade. I was very self-conscious about shooting with the "Huge" 70-200 lens. Now, 6 years later, if I don't have a 300 or 400 with me, people wonder why I didn't bring my camera. Get one tight shot of each kid on the team, give away a 4 x 6 print to each Mom and soon enough they will be asking you to shoot their kid and wondering how they can buy your pictures.

The opportunity to know the friends of your children and spend time with them through the years has been priceless to me. My daughter is now a senior in high school. It will be a very happy/sad day to see these young women graduate.

BTW, if anyone still asks about the lens, I just laugh and say the bigger the toy, the more the guy is compensating! I let them look through the viewfinder to see what that's like. It's all cool. No worries.

Phil

Zivnuska wrote in post #15300858
SunTsu, let us know what you eventually decide to do. Good luck.

Phil

Thanks to you two fellows, I ended up with a 200-400. The advice about focal length was perfect. I really think I would have been disappointed with 300mm. It's too bad the weather has been so crappy because the lens has been sitting in the suitcase for almost a month now except for a few test shots.

I came home early from work one nice day and did manage to get some shots of my kids in the back yard. The 400mm was very much appreciated.

It's amazing that I started this thread almost a year ago. The good news is I get to use the lens shooting eagles this year! I've almost forgotten where all the accessories are.

Again, I'm very happy you guys convinced me to go longer. I can see the length really helping with me being able to "hide". Now I just have to get over being self conscious with this thing although it's not as big as I had thought.