Lens questions for baseball / football

I started shooting high school baseball and football games 2 years ago to capture my two Grandsons playing on the field.It has been quite a learning curve for me as sports was the last thing I thought I'd be shooting.
I was using a 60D with 18-135 and another 60D with the Sigma 150-500 and much of the time I was satisfied with my results.
How ever as I'm sure most of you have already guessed I struggled with low light conditions at times.
I now have a 70D and am thinking about adding a faster lens for those evening games.The evening football games are especially difficult for me.
I've seen other photographers using the 300 2.8, usually the press and they are doing quite well in the low light situations.
Some of the lenses I've been considering are the 70-200 2.8 which I'm afraid may be too short, a prime 300 2.8 or 120-300 2.8 which I'm leaning towards heavily.
I would like opinions from those of you that cover these sports if any of these options are likely to give good results.
Field positions have not been a problem for me at high school games but one Grandson is now playing for a college team and I may not have the good positions at his games.
I don't like to buy gear just to see my money disappear but at the same time I will be traveling hundreds of miles now in different directions to make their games and would like to get the best results under whatever conditions and light for that game.
Your thoughts and comments will be much appreciated in advance.

Heya,

In the $2k range, the 300 F2.8L (non-IS) and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS (older model) become available. Both are excellent options for what you're looking to do. I'd probably get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, because of the flexibility, and because it won't be a 20 year old lens that cannot be serviced. Both take TC's pretty well, so in good light you can get more reach if needed. Both are heavy, so a monopod is going to be your best friend.

Your 70D can MFA so you can get the most out of these lenses. Again, I'd go Sigma here. The Canon probably has faster autofocus, but frankly, humans don't move that fast and the Sigma is fast.

Very best,

Thanks MalVeaux, I'm thinking along the same lines as you have suggested.
I have a monopod and it has truly been my best friend for the 150-500 at ball games as well as birding. It was one of my better investments.
I tend to be overly cautious and missed getting a Sigma 120-300 two weeks ago that was a good deal just because I couldn't make a decision. I'm trying to be better prepared with some knowledge, so I can pull the trigger sooner if something should come up again,lol.

I have the 120-300 Sport, had it a little over a year. I too shoot a lot of sports, both inside and out. I have mostly used Canon 70-200/2.8 II indoors and Canon 100-400 outdoors. I picked up the 120-300 to gain some reach in low light.

Out of the gate, I wound up not using the lens as much as I'd planned because it didn't not get along well with my 1D Mark IV despite being dialed in with the Sigma dock. Then I used the lens last fall quite a bit shooting my 2nd child's marching band with my 5D Mark III, and it was a great performer.

So recently I started trying to use the lens again for sports with the 5D Mark III and it is much better with that camera.

Overall the speed and reach are great, and the IQ is quite good. The AF system works well with my 5D Mark III. It is not quite as fast or quite as reliable as my two long Canon zooms, but it is pretty good. Here are a couple examples of the kind of stuff I shoot.

Steve,

Congrats on your grandson getting to play college ball. I'm sure both grandsons have appreciated you taking the photos and I'm sure it has been a joy for you as well.

Can you quantify "low light conditions" with regards to ISO, f-stop and shutter speed?

With regards to baseball, if you have any flexibility and can shoot a couple of daylight games, I'd write off the night games completely. I've never been satisfied with the quality I get at night games, even on a college field. The higher shutter speed and lower ISO during the day/twilight provide photos that are 10x better. If your college fields are well lit, then the equation changes.

An option for football would be to use flash with existing gear instead of upgrading the glass. You could pick up a couple of PocketWizard Flex TT5s, a TT1 and two 550-EX or original 580-EX flashes (not the II version as it doesn't work well with the PWs) for ~$400. This would allow you to shoot in HyperSync mode with the flashes mounted low on a monopod. Much less expensive than upgrading glass.

If you are in a position to buy better glass, you won't likely regret it as your photos will improve in almost every regard. I owned a first generation Sigma 120-300mm lens and the focal range was excellent for baseball. The later lenses perform much better and I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed if you bought one. I'm also seeing the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS lenses sale for much less than $3K (one just sold here for $2,500 or less). If you're talking $2K for a Sigma or $2.5K for the Canon, the Canon would get my vote every time.

Good luck and enjoy the games ahead of you.

I use a 300 2.8 on the monopod, if it's a field sport put the 1.4 TC in a belt pouch and 70-200 2.8 on a 2nd body and then a 3rd body with wide angle or fish eye. That can be a lot to carry, the prime keeps me moving and it's a significant cost. Baseball the short lens typically is out pre and post game but I'll duck back and put it in my bag for the bulk of activity, I've been using Fuji for that, so it's lighter and easier to cary as a 3rd body and it has wifi which helps with in game transfers (and lead me to be using wifi SD cards for mid game uploads).

I often do wonder if I wouldn't have been happier, saved a good chunk of money and gotten more shots if I had gone the 120-300 2.8 route, it also has OS. My 300 2.8 prime is a Sigma and it's a great lens, but can have some CA issues in particularly harsh light with harsh transitions. Not an issue at evening football, but white facemasks with shadows cast over the face got a little purple at times 99% of people don't see it but I do (and to be fair I knock it on FOX/CBS/NBC coverage of NFL games too) and 90% of the time it's a non-issue. Still gets cranks out photos that go to the NCAA website. I actually think the 300 2.8 is of a tougher build than the 150-600 C (I have not compared it to the S model).

For baseball a 70-200 gets a good workout for me on all the infield and runner action, but most batting for me was covered with the longer lens. I found my keeper rate was higher with the zoom, leave it in the 100-135 range track then zoom in when I know where the play is going to be. So that could certainly play right into the 120-300 being the one lens to worry about and still cover all your needs making travel a little easier. Lighting is going to be a crapshoot, but even with the best lit fields, you'll always want more; so make the best that you can with what you have for evening baseball and don't be afraid to shoot heavy before the sun goes down.

For evening football, if you don't mind moving regularly then 300 2.8 prime is fine, if you're getting to where you like to camp out a little longer, then go for the zoom. If the game is after sunset then I wouldn't be using a TC, see above about always wanting more light.

No harm at all in going with Sigma, their game has been stepped up for a while.

Thanks JefferyG for the info and examples, this is helpful.

It also might be time to consider a body with better iso performance.

Thanks Pat for both the congrats and information, much appreciated. I may have taken 4000 plus photos last season and haven't uploaded any to Flickr so grabbed a couple from the same day on the same field for an example of what sometimes happened. Later in the season my photos improved dramatically as the lighting seemed to be much better, I think mainly because of the Sun position, five pm on May 15 is a whole lot different than five pm on March 30th. These two shots are not exciting at all, just examples,

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DQRT​Bp

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DXeg​6E

Motor On thanks for the reply, I can visualize you moving around with those lenses.
I was using one camera with the 18-135 on a black rapid strap to catch those before and after game shots or close ups. Kept my 150-500 on the monopod and since I'm always standing I could swivel the lens over my shoulder to rest or grab the short lens hanging on my side for quick close shots. Kept my camera bag close and ready to change if I needed something different.
I do tend to camp out so that is why I've been concerned about getting a prime. I only own one prime, a 50mm, really like the photos it takes but feel so limited. I have just used zoom lenses too long maybe and have became so comfortable with them.
From what I've been reading most seem to agree that the late versions of the 120 -300 are performing well.
I was standing beside one photographer at the game I posted pics of and he was shooting a Canon 300 on what looked to be a full frame body. He was opening up and talking to me for awhile, said he shot a lot in St Louis of the Cardinals. As the Sun got lower in the sky he informed me this was the time I would like his 300 2.8 over what I had on my camera.
Then Blake, my youngest Grandson got on first, stole second, made it to third then stole home and the camera conversation came to an end. The guy never said another word so later in the season I did not let anyone know which team I was cheering for.
I'm not planning to buy something real soon so the info you all are sharing will make me feel more comfortable/informed if I do go shopping. It would be nice to try out a couple different lenses and I may do so but have a hundred mile drive in any direction to a store that carries any high end gear.

gonzogolf, you may well be right, but I will deny giving it any thought if my wife finds out.
What is on your mind, the 7d mk II or further up the ladder than that?

Grizz1 wrote in post #17909163
gonzogolf, you may well be right, but I will deny giving it any thought if my wife finds out.
What is on your mind, the 7d mk II or further up the ladder than that?

7D2 or 5D3 are the most likely suspects although the 80D sounds promising.

Is there really any noise improvement between the 70D and 7D2? I've looked at samples from the 7D2 and the 70D looks just as good. Of course I might not be entirely objective since I own the 70D.

Grizz, I would think that the 70-200/2.8L on a crop body would be enough lens if you're shooting from the sidelines/endzone. No, you won't be able to shoot across the field, but you want to wait for the action to come to you anyway. And by all means I'd shoot with your 70D and use the 60D for sidelines stuff that can accommodate slower shutter speeds and lower ISO. I have no complaints shooting ISO 6400 with the 70D.

Some ISO 12800 shots from a 7D Mark II https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=139798​0&page=621

They are labeled ISO 12800 but are actually ISO 16000 from reading the description.

Grizz1 wrote in post #17909089
This is a terrible photo but could have been great with better light and landscape orientation and probably a better photographer most importantly.

I'm going to disagree. A better photographer isn't going to necessarily get the shot if the gear is limited. They're just going to be smart enough to look for a different photo to take, e.g., go wide to capture ambiance as motion blur will be more acceptable, catch the intimate shots at the bench or in the stands, and coach/player interaction. All of these shots can use a lower shutter speed to compensate for reduced light. Either that, or they'll pack it in earlier, which is harder for you to do as you're emotionally invested in the game.