Enough screwing around...i'm sick of this.

I'm merely weeks away from my first expensive lens purchase which will be a telephoto zoom.

The reason for this is because i own a very very crappy sigma zoom. It is soft trough the entire focal range and only becomes decent at f/11.

So what do i use it for? Typically birds and the such...but i have made a semi commitment to myself and my former coach to take pictures for the football team next year. These are highschool games so they are friday night. The fields we play at are fairly well lit considering...but i just question if the f/5.6 of the 100-400 will be fast enough. Deep down i know it wont be, but the added price of faster zooms is an annoyance as well as the smaller focal length.

I'm mostly refering to the 70-200 f/2.8. I know it's a great lens both because of it's speed and more so it's sharpness, but it is only 200mm and i question if i will miss that 200mm once football season is done.

Another thing to think about is that focal length on the football field. I will have as much access as i'd like with the exception of stepping over the white out-of-bounds line. I took my 300mm sigma to the field a few months ago and was suprised at how much 300mm really is when your on the field.

So in that aspect i'm not too worried about 200mm.

I really have to question thoug hif the 2.8 is absolutely needed with typical football highschool lighting, and a 550EX flash.

Depending on how much money i end up making in the next few months at work i may just spring for the 120-300 f/2.8 sigma...but thats pretty much a grand over what i would like to spend, which is a lot of money for someone who does this for fun.

Discuss...

If you need the 200mm lens for your shooting I doubt that the 550EX flash is going to help much at such distances. Why not take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is highly praised across various photography forums (deltainternational.co​m sell them for about $650) and add to it some x1.4 TC ? You'll end up with 448mm lens which will still maintain AF and help you to produce some nice photographs (after some post-processing of course - noise removal as you'll be shooting at high ISO volumes and some USM).

I'd rather not rely on extream Post. and extenders to get my photographs.

I recall reading that the 550 is good up to 55 meters...which is roughly half a football field??? (just tell me if i'm wrong, i dont need a flash debate started here)

From the 550EX specs - "With normal flash: 0.5-30 meters/ 1.6- 100 feet", that's maximum. I guess that the "normal" working distance with the 550EX would be about 20-25 meters.

I myself have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS version) which I dearly and truly love, if you can find it used in good condition - just grab it ! The question is - what will your working distance be ? If you can get pretty close to the field, then I can recomend the fast primes line - 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L (expensive).

You've inspired me

I'm going to go take a drive to the field right now

Good luck ! 8) Just remember - you don't buy a lens for a single event (unless of course you are a pro and this is some special event that absolutely NEEDS this specific lens). The 85 f/1.8 is good for all kinds of photography - low light concerts, plays, theatre, low and normal light portraits etc, and so is the 70-200. My point is - whichever you buy, just try and use it to the maximum, you won't be dissapointed

Flash at a football game? I don't think I would try it. There are large distances to cover, and subjects at many varying distances. Even if you mounted a 550EX on each pole of the field lights, you may find yourself with one player properly exposed (probably the closest), and the rest just shadowy figures.

Lens speed is your friend. 2.8 is a good number to keep in mind, and if the 135 f2L is a length you can use, you get 1 more stop. I don't like the thought of fixing things in post-processing either, but cropping a well-exposed shot from a 135mm lens would be preferable to trying to reclaim a poorly-exposed shot from a longer, slower lens, IMHO. But I could be wrong.

At this point i'm just going to try my best to see if i can afford the 120-300 f/2.8 sigma.

I am not sure what is available in your area but the Pro camera shops rent quality equipment by me. I would rent the 2 or 3 lenses you are considering before making a purchase. You may find the results helpful.


I have never looked into it but you may even be able to rent from store outside of your local area and have them ship the lens to you (and back).

Michael

If you have money for the Sigma.............what about searching for the ever elusive 200 f1.8

If I were in your situation, I would spring for the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

---------------and a really fast prime if 2.8 is not enough------

ie

Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 135 f2 L

Ro1

roanjohn wrote:
If you have money for the Sigma.............what about searching for the ever elusive 200 f1.8

If I were in your situation, I would spring for the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

---------------and a really fast prime if 2.8 is not enough------

ie

Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 135 f2 L

Ro1

Actually that may not be a bad idea...i could get the 70-200 and the 17-24 L for the price of the sigma...but again it's sitll only 200mm

It's really 200 X 1.6 if you cam has a multiplication factor. You're talking more like 310mm and you can crop a little too. I was wondering today if my 400mm would be enough to shoot a baseball game .... Then I remembered multiplication

YOU ****WILL**** NEED THE 70-200 IS lens !!!!!!!!!!!!
Anything else (including standard f2.8 zooms) just won't be bright enough so the f2.8 combined with the IS feature will be essential! If you can't afford this lens then rent it

To prove how much you need a superfast lens,try you sigma lens at the same ground at night-you can very easily work out what kind of shutter speed the camera would want even at f2.8

I tried a night rodeo recently.I'd estimate the lights were several stops dimmer than a good football field, but even so i was only getting shutter speeds around 1/20th-1/40th using iso400 and an f1.8 lens.All i could get that night were arty motion shots

hey Tim if you wanna rent, you can take a drive to Calumet photographic in chicago. They rent a lot of stuff, including the Canon 70-200 lenses. They have pretty fair prices too...

First a serious note:
I highly recommend the 70-200/2.8 w/wo IS I have used this lens with a 550EX flash and find it gets very good results to at least 10 meters with okay at speed 1/125, ISO 100 to 15 meters (about 45 feet) at ISO 400 should get close to 25 meters. It will go out 30, but not enough to make a difference in average stadium lighting. In the meantime just having the f2.8 will make a huge difference. When not at the game, The 1.4X extender does not affect quality too much and on a bright day even the 2X is not bad.

On a not so serious note. Get a couple of AB1600 and a vagabond with radio remotes (or pocket wizards) and set them about 5 feet back from the side lines and flash away. (Not that they will let you do this, but it couldn't hurt to ask . Those puppies will light up the sky at full power. Be sure to aim them at the opposing team so they are blinded and can't see. 8)

Just a couple of thoughts.