Best Canon lens for fast action

thekid24 wrote in post #2203762
Well most games around here are night games with the somewhat bright lights and Ill be relatively close.Not as close as the players on the sidelines but close

OK... I'll try on this one. Several people have told you that you need f/2.8 and long focal length for high school football. These games are at night, and under the lights. While the lights may look bright to you, they are not to the camera. Unless you have a very unusually bright field, you will need a constant f/2.8 or faster (lower number) lens to do this. Also, for football you will need a minimum of 200mm focal length to get much action. The pros use a 400 f/2.8 lens for this, but that is out of your price range. I think most people would say to go with a 70-200 f/2.8 if you can swing it, because its an outstanding lens. If that isn't in the budget, then next down are the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, or the Canon 200 f/2.8 prime, or the older Canon 80-200 f/2.8 (used). Any other lens that isn't constant f/2.8 will not do high school football well. The 85mm f/1.8 is a good basketball and volleyball lens, but very short for football.

I shoot sports for two newspapers and sell images on my website to players and their families. If you want to shoot night football and are on a budget, the two best options are the Canon 200L and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I use both of them for sideline shooting. For indoor sporting events, the 85mm f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, and the 100 f/2 are all good choices at reasonable prices. There is no single lens that works for all sports, although the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS can work in a pinch if indoor lighting is optimal.

HAHA for my night time football I use my 75-300mm 4-5.6 III USM
it gives decent pictures

BradT0517 wrote in post #2203934
HAHA for my night time football I use my 75-300mm 4-5.6 III USM
it gives decent pictures

You must have awfully good lighting on your field for you to be able to get a decent shutter speed with that lens. I have difficulty getting much more than 1/250 shooting wide open at ISO 3200.

well im typically at 1/100 200mm 1600 ISO and its ok

Im right up on the sidelines next to the players

So are the 17-85mm IS lens and/or the 28-200mm lens worth having just for general zoom?Forget the fast pace night capture for a bit.

thekid24 wrote in post #2203983
So are the 17-85mm IS lens and/or the 28-200mm lens worth having just for general zoom?Forget the fast pace night capture for a bit.

I'd pass on both of those. The Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 are better choices. And hyperzooms like the 28-200 are usually soft. Most people have two lenses to cover that focal range.

liza wrote in post #2204062
I'd pass on both of those. The Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 are better choices. And hyperzooms like the 28-200 are usually soft. Most people have two lenses to cover that focal range.

Oh I see,so are most hyperzooms on the soft side as far as quality of pictures or just THAT particular lens?And I have heard of Sigmas causing errors on Canon cameras.Error99 or something along those lines.This is my first big-time camera and not only am I very very proud of it but I dont want to damage it weeks into having it.

Most hyperzooms in general. There isn't one lens that does it all. You'll get better IQ with two lenses of good quality. The error 99 thing happens from time to time when the camera isn't communicating properly with something attached to the camera body. It isn't just Sigma lenses. What you heard probably pertained to older Sigma lenses which need to be rechipped at the factory to be compatible with a newer camera. If you remove the battery for 30 seconds, the error usually resolves.

70-200 2.8 (Canon's or Sigma's)

But, if you have more cash, and for any big field event like soccer or football, it would be better to have 300mm range even on a 1.6 crop camera.

best bang for your buck 300mm 2.8 out there. It also makes not having a 2nd body easier(I love them both so i carry both of them on me, generally if im doing telephoto stuff).
Sigma 120-300 2.8, if you need 300 range.

liza wrote in post #2204115
Most hyperzooms in general. There isn't one lens that does it all. You'll get better IQ with two lenses of good quality. The error 99 thing happens from time to time when the camera isn't communicating properly with something attached to the camera body. It isn't just Sigma lenses. What you heard probably pertained to older Sigma lenses which need to be rechipped at the factory to be compatible with a newer camera. If you remove the battery for 30 seconds, the error usually resolves.

Fantastic help.Big thanks.I read reviews and I hear the same thing.More about delivery problems or preference differences.I need to hear about the quality of captures.If its crisp,sharp,clear,fast AF etc.Not a review that changes just because someone doesnt like the color black,or "putty",or its heavy.I appreciate it.

The 17-85 IS is decent considering the current price, which is a good $100 cheaper than it was a year ago. For the night sports, I'd consider getting a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX. A very good lens for the cost. If that's out of your range your choices are pretty limited... Maybe a 100mm f/2 or something.

So would this lineup be a good one to start out with?
-EF 50 f/1.8
-EF 85 f/1.8
-EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
-Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5
-Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

thekid24 wrote in post #2204209
So would this lineup be a good one to start out with?
-EF 50 f/1.8
-EF 85 f/1.8
-EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
-Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5
-Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

It's not really going to be very good at all for football/soccer or really any field sport.