Lens for baseball football field

What size lens would you need to take good action shots on a baseball or football field? thanks.

Well on APS-C, and if you are essentially at the touchline I would probably want to be covered from 18mm all the way through to 600mm. I'm a wheelchair user and got persuaded to become the official photographer for my local non-league football team (everyone else's football, not the American one). This was a semi-pro team, so the guys got paid for each game they played, everything else was done by volunteers. I got roped in as editor of the match day programs, and did the photography at home games so I had some nice photos to use. I used a Sigma 28-300 on one camera, and a Sigma 150-600C on another. This allowed me to get action shots from one goal line to the other, from any point around the pitch, even the goal lines themselves. Didn't do it for long, realised I was being screwed over by someone I thought was a friend.

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (857823)

James, for my first couple years shooting High School ball I was using a Sig 150-500 on a 70D. Lighting being a major problem in my area I bought the Sigma 120-300 Sport and loved it. I had good field access at all the games. It is a 2.8 lens and was so much better that I never missed having the reach of my older 150-500. The Sport is expensive and heavy, I'm sure the C will do a fine job as well. Others I saw often used 300 primes and once saw a 400prime.
Where I live baseball starts in mid March, Football in October with 7PM game time, low light that changes every minute until the lights come on and actually help over that pre dusk to dark period.
Later in the fall it is dark at game time. So the faster lens certainly helped me and I feel I'd want a Minimum of 300mm. The 120-300 became a favorite of mine and also carried an 18-135 on another camera for off the field pics.
I shot some college baseball of my Grandson for a couple years, the 120-300 was a little short at times because I wasn't able to get good field position as I had been for HS ball.
I know one person that took some great photos with a 70-200 , it did appear that they had to work very hard to be in a good position especially at football games.
We were allowed to be from the end zone up to the 30 yard line on both ends and side of the field. Anyone with shorter than 300mm appeared to get as much of a workout as did the players.

What level of sports are you talking about? Middle school, high school or higher? Daytime or nighttime? What kind of access will you have to the field? All those questions will play into the answer. What is your budget?

duckster wrote in post #19160479
What level of sports are you talking about? Middle school, high school or higher? Daytime or nighttime? What kind of access will you have to the field? All those questions will play into the answer. What is your budget?

kids soccer, girls softball and high school football, day and night shooting. I'm not sure on access for high school sports. I'm sure I'd be looking around 10k or so.. thanks!

Well, with a $10k budget, you have plenty to work with. The night aspect is what will drive the purchase. You will want a fast lens, at least f2.8 and for football you need some reach as well. What camera body do you have?

duckster wrote in post #19161127
Well, with a $10k budget, you have plenty to work with. The night aspect is what will drive the purchase. You will want a fast lens, at least f2.8 and for football you need some reach as well. What camera body do you have?

The eos R. I would need the 1dx or 1dx ii for sure..

A 5DIV would probably handle the AF and ISO needed but certainly a 1DxII would be great. A 70-200 f2.8 zoom and possibly a fixed 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 would certainly cover your needs, I would think

James Crockett wrote in post #19160910
kids soccer, girls softball and high school football, day and night shooting. I'm not sure on access for high school sports. I'm sure I'd be looking around 10k or so.. thanks!

Back in the mid 200s I shot my son in high school football. Mostly night games. Mostly very small town horrible lighting conditions. I did not have access to the field.

I had a Canon 10D and a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS (v1), and I found it was still not enough for the really small schools.

I know this is probably not relevant anymore as today's equipment is so much better. I know my current 6D is far better in low light than my old 10D was.

I still have my 10D. Not worth much so I keep it out of nostalgia. And who knows... 6mpx images may become all the rage again.

But I did try to shoot some sports with the 10D and a 70-200 f2.8. Mine was a sigma variant. It literally fell apart in the end. But I did get some pretty decent images from it. I didn't like the yellow tint the images had though.

Regardless, even on a crop body, 200 mm is a bit short. I had a 300mm f4 at the time and it did work ok. For field sports you really do need an effective 400mm plus to be able to capture good action. I ended up using a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on a crop 1D mk IIn for a long time. The combo served me well. The 1D had a 1.3x crop to it... so it pushed it up over the 400 effective limit. Still short sometimes - good up to about mid-field, still to short for full field shots.

Since I moved up to full frame, 300mm is too short. I was going to move up to the Sony 400 2.8 this year, but fortunately with covid, I just opted out of football this year. Can't say I miss it. I may pick up a used Canon 400 2,8 which is a lot cheaper for next season, but still will probably opt out of football. I became part of a sideline play last year, and my butt bone is still recovering. Anyway.... I wish there were good crop cameras out there. I prefer them over hauling a 400-600 around. My choice right now is the Sony 200-600 zoom. But its not super fast.. high school fields may be an issue.

Good luck

Croasdail wrote in post #19165212
I still have my 10D. Not worth much so I keep it out of nostalgia. And who knows... 6mpx images may become all the rage again.

But I did try to shoot some sports with the 10D and a 70-200 f2.8. Mine was a sigma variant. It literally fell apart in the end. But I did get some pretty decent images from it. I didn't like the yellow tint the images had though.

OK so I can understand not liking a colour cast from a lens, back in the days of shooting colour transparency film, where the slides are being projected. I just don't understand it in the digital medium though. In digital it is really easy to correct a simple colour cast at the point that the white balance is applied. Be that in camera for JPEG output, or in the RAW converter. Actually most colour printing processes should be able to correct a colour cast from the optics too for that matter.

Alan

Croasdail wrote in post #19165212
I still have my 10D. Not worth much so I keep it out of nostalgia. And who knows... 6mpx images may become all the rage again.

But I did try to shoot some sports with the 10D and a 70-200 f2.8. Mine was a sigma variant. It literally fell apart in the end. But I did get some pretty decent images from it. I didn't like the yellow tint the images had though.

Regardless, even on a crop body, 200 mm is a bit short. I had a 300mm f4 at the time and it did work ok. For field sports you really do need an effective 400mm plus to be able to capture good action. I ended up using a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on a crop 1D mk IIn for a long time. The combo served me well. The 1D had a 1.3x crop to it... so it pushed it up over the 400 effective limit. Still short sometimes - good up to about mid-field, still to short for full field shots.

Since I moved up to full frame, 300mm is too short. I was going to move up to the Sony 400 2.8 this year, but fortunately with covid, I just opted out of football this year. Can't say I miss it. I may pick up a used Canon 400 2,8 which is a lot cheaper for next season, but still will probably opt out of football. I became part of a sideline play last year, and my butt bone is still recovering. Anyway.... I wish there were good crop cameras out there. I prefer them over hauling a 400-600 around. My choice right now is the Sony 200-600 zoom. But its not super fast.. high school fields may be an issue.

Good luck

Actually, still have my 10D, too. It's my back-up, but in all honesty I haven't even unpacked it in about three years now. (Battery has been removed.)

Croasdail wrote in post #19165212
I still have my 10D. Not worth much so I keep it out of nostalgia. And who knows... 6mpx images may become all the rage again.

But I did try to shoot some sports with the 10D and a 70-200 f2.8. Mine was a sigma variant. It literally fell apart in the end. But I did get some pretty decent images from it. I didn't like the yellow tint the images had though.

Regardless, even on a crop body, 200 mm is a bit short. I had a 300mm f4 at the time and it did work ok. For field sports you really do need an effective 400mm plus to be able to capture good action. I ended up using a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on a crop 1D mk IIn for a long time. The combo served me well. The 1D had a 1.3x crop to it... so it pushed it up over the 400 effective limit. Still short sometimes - good up to about mid-field, still to short for full field shots.

Since I moved up to full frame, 300mm is too short. I was going to move up to the Sony 400 2.8 this year, but fortunately with covid, I just opted out of football this year. Can't say I miss it. I may pick up a used Canon 400 2,8 which is a lot cheaper for next season, but still will probably opt out of football. I became part of a sideline play last year, and my butt bone is still recovering. Anyway.... I wish there were good crop cameras out there. I prefer them over hauling a 400-600 around. My choice right now is the Sony 200-600 zoom. But its not super fast.. high school fields may be an issue.

Good luck

Which 400mm from Canon? would you wait on the Rf 400mm version to come out? thanks.

Depends on what you are shooting with. Back in the day when I shot a canon 400, I used the ef mk II IS version. That was on a 1D that had a 1.3 crop as well.

Honestly any new Canon lens is going to be sharper. It just depends on if your camera body can resolve the difference. An r5 will do a lot better with the new glass. I haven't seen any test with older EF 400s, but I imagine it still would be better than with an old body, the extra pixels will make up for the lack of crop factor.

My issues is I am in the later years of my sports shooting. I have one last son playing college ball... and when he retires, I'll likely stop shooting as well. Dropping 12 to 14k on a new 400.... that is a hard trigger to pull. I shoot an Mk 300 ef 2.8 on my sony, and most of the time I am real happy with the results. I use a metabones to adapt my 300... and it and my 120-300 sigma adapted with a MC-11 usually work... but sometimes don't. I know the Canon EF to RF adapter works a lot better.

The 200 - 600 Sony will likely be my last "new" big lens. But I think an EF would get you by just fine until you really decide to take it to the next level. I did read recently that Canon is suspending making a lot of their EF lenses... so you might be able to find a deal on a new lens as well. The RF will just be better... and likely have better contrast too.

5d4 and 100-400, or Sigma 150-600... this combo has been great, and you can add the 1.4xIII to the mix on a good day to get some more reach if you go with the canon.