Suggestions for Kids Sports

This is from a post I started under the family thread and was suggested I move it here.

I am looking for suggestions on the best approach to shooting kids sports in terms of camera body and lens. I currently own a Canon 30D with a Sigma 17-70mm lens. Assuming a budget of 1k, what would be my best approach to obtaining the appropriate equipment, i.e. stay with the 30D with a better lens? The sports would mostly be outdoors, baseball, soccer, etc. but I will also need it for bleacher shots indoors for hockey and cheer leading. Any assistance is appreciated.

Thank you.

Tom

With a budget of $1000 you will have a tough time. Because you will be indoors and you are shooting a variety of sports I would use the 70-200 2.8 IS. Try to find one used and maybe you could keep it around $1000. I'm assuming you are just taking pics of your kids sports. Upgrade the camera later...you need a good fast lens and more length. Even the 70-200 is not quite enough reach for baseball and soccer but it is a great lens for nearly everything and will serve you well in almost any sport. The 30D is ok but not great at high ISO pics but will be fine outdoors. Practice your low light/high ISO PP to clean up the hockey and cheerleading pics.

Good luck

Thanks Mike. Yes, kids sports. What does the PP stand for?

Actually, I'd go with the non-IS version of the 70-200 2.8L

To freeze motion, you'll be using a high enough shutter speed to negate any (almost) any camera shake. The IS isn't needed, so save some cost and go with the non-IS

There's a 200 2.8L prime that's supposed to be nice as well. It's a fixed length, but I'd imagine for the distance you're shooting...you won't need anything shorter.

You could always look into the Sigma or Tamron variants as well.

PP= Post Production...photoshop​/lightroom, etc

I would suggest picking up a used 70-200 f2.8 NON IS (won't use during sports) and a 1.4x II teleconverter.

I wouldn't think that one lens work for all of those sports. Look used and look for the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 version one for outdoor. Indoor hockey would benefit from a faster lens (f2.8) so a 70-200 f2.8 version 1 or maybe even a 70-200 f4.

the non IS would save money but the IS would help with the limits of the camera ISO capabilities (30D). If you shoot indoors at a higher speed you will need to bump up the ISO to compensate for the higher speeds and the 30D would produce less than desirable results at 6400...which would be common for shooting cheer or hockey at high speeds. IS would let you lower the speed a little which might keep you at 3200 indoors. Shooting indoors is your only issue here...outdoors you will be fine.

just my.02

scsurfdad wrote in post #17627050
the non IS would save money but the IS would help with the limits of the camera ISO capabilities (30D). If you shoot indoors at a higher speed you will need to bump up the ISO to compensate for the higher speeds and the 30D would produce less than desirable results at 6400...which would be common for shooting cheer or hockey at high speeds. IS would let you lower the speed a little which might keep you at 3200 indoors. Shooting indoors is your only issue here...outdoors you will be fine.

just my.02

IS helps with camera shake (from the person who is holding it), not with subject movement.

Your suggestion would be accurate when dealing with stationary subjects, but if she wants to capture any action shots...IS will not help the lowering of the shutter speed.

Unfortunately...good sports photography requires good gear. But between the camera or the lens, an upgrade to the lens will benefit the most.

Like previously mentioned, you will have a tough time getting what you need with a $1,000 budget. A camera that gives decent results at ISO 6400 and a fast telephoto zoom lens will run $2,000 to $2,500 if they are new.

My experience
Well lighted school gyms and football fields (soccer) at night: ISO 6400, f/2.8 and 1/640 sec. There is a 100% chance of motion blur with any shutter speed below 1/500 sec.

A 70-200 mm lens will cover very well just over 1/2 of a basketball court when sitting behind the baseline. Focal lengths can vary wildly for cheerleaders. The teams can spread so wide an ultra wide lens is needed, 70mm is often too wide unless concentrating on one person.

A 70-200mm lens will cover less than 1/4 of a football or full size soccer field. They are perfect for reduced size youth soccer fields.

Baseball fields: Lighting ranges from impossibly dark to same as football fields. A 70-200mm lens is too short for diagonal shots across the infield. Forget the outfield unless setting up down the foul line and shooting the nearest player.

I love my 70-300mm lens for daytime soccer and baseball (short for outfield.) It is useless at night or inside.

What to do? First, you need a fast lens. I don't see how you get a new camera and fast lens. The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD lens is one of the cheapest. Adorama list it for $549 new. I know nothing about this lens.

Second, a body newer than your 30D with better high (3200+) ISO performance would really help for those action shots in less than ideal light. You have little choice for a camera other than something used like a 50D or 60D. Buying a used camera can be a crap shoot, be careful. A refurbished camera from Canon is a good option when they are on sale, not now.

IMO you are going to be in tough with the 30D. The ISO performance and AF will limit you somewhat.

Unfortunately, to shoot indoor sports or outdoor night sports acceptably well is not cheap. Of course, what is acceptable to some is not for others.

If you could stretch the budget to $1500, my suggestion would be a 1D3 and 70-200 2.8 non-IS. Then later, when your wallet has recovered , pick up an 85 1.8 for indoor stuff.

If you're going to make prints, what's the largest size you think you'll need, & what do you intend to use them for?

I'm going to go against the grain here & suggest that you keep the camera & Sigma 17-70 lens. It's f/2.8 on the wide end, isn't it?
Get a 85mm f/1.8 & 2X converter which will give you 170mm @ f/3.5
The 85 will give you some reach indoors & with the 2X TC some reach outdoors, too.
Try out that combination & see how it works out for you.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17627399
Get a 85mm f/1.8 & 2X converter which will give you 170mm @ f/3.5
The 85 will give you some reach indoors & with the 2X TC some reach outdoors, too.
Try out that combination & see how it works out for you.

Extenders don't work with the 85mm. At least the Canon ones. I know nothing about third party ones.

rdalrt wrote in post #17627421
Extenders don't work with the 85mm. At least the Canon ones. I know nothing about third party ones.

Nuts! I wasn't sure & my 2X is in a box somewhere after I moved, so I couldn't check it. Does anyone know about other brands?

Rdalrt,

The 85 1.8 for indoors, that will help me with low light but not the reach, correct? Or am I worrying about the reach too much and not realistic since as a parent, I wouldn't be running around the field or ice like a professional sports photographer? If this is the case, then maybe the 70-200 f4 would be appropriate for the outdoor use. I was of the mindset of one lens for everything but wondering now if that was incorrect thinking.