Best bang for buck lens for H.S. football shots

Hi!

I have a Canon XTi and currently have use of an (canon film) 70-300 lens, plus I own the kit lens and Tamron 17-50.

My little brother plays highschool football and I can shoot from the sidelines, I'd like to get the best shots I can as this is his senior year then he's off to play college ball.

I'm purchasing a 580 exII and want to have the best lens to complement it for outdoor stadiums within reason. Last year I was shooting with the 70-300 handheld and it was a disaster, naturally. I got a few keepers but nothing tack sharp.

My local camera store told me that with the flash the 70-300 would be sufficient, but I'd like a good zoom to use for portraits as well. So that being considered, what would you recommend? I'd appreciate a budget choice and a mid-range choice (I can't afford the 70-200 2.8 IS!)

My budget is flexible, but I'd like to get the best bang for my buck because I'm a hobbiest (and not a rich one)

I guess my priorities would be
1. zoom
2. focus speed/tracking ability
3. ability to use as a portrait lens for outdoor kid shots
in that order

Unfortunately, even a 70-200 f/2.8L would not guarantee good shots. Some stadiums just have p-poor lighting. If your stadium is a dungeon (with regards to lighting) a 580 EXII might reach out a bit, but won't cover more than maybe half way straight across the field at best.

All of the local stadiums in my area have the same lighting layout. Compared to the quality I get in the daytime, shooting in a HS football stadium at night has been a disappointment to me. Even the local JC stadium is not very good.

If I lowered my expectations, perhaps I could learn to accept grainier output that comes with higher ISO settings, but after comparing to what I get in daylight I just don't get excited about shooting sports at night.

BTW, your 70-300 never had a chance.

JMHO, YMMV.

I have always been satisfied with the 70-200 f2.8 non IS version.

Nice used ones go for around $900--give or take.

Combined with an inexpensive monopod and proper camera setup the results can be pretty darn good.

Quite a few members have had good success with the Sigma version also--and it's a few bucks less expensive.

Best of luck with your decision.

ashleynaugust wrote in post #6147052
I guess my priorities would be
1. zoom
2. focus speed/tracking ability
3. ability to use as a portrait lens for outdoor kid shots
in that order

Hmmm....what was the disaster part of the 70-300? Too slow?

Are these night football games?

If you are really looking to shoot night football on a budget, I think you have to sacrifice 1) and go for the EF 200/2.8L for $600 or stretch a bit and go used to get the 70-200/2.8 L for about $900.

Either way, I think you really need f/2.8 and 200mm to have a chance at night football.

You can shoot portraits with the Tamron. 50mm is plenty long.

If f2.8 is do-able, the 200mm prime might be best bang-for-buck. At my last local high school, the light was so bad, I had to shoot with 135 f2, most often with flash, as well. With a crop body, that's 216mm eq. You wind up limited to action on your side of the field, and to end zone plays. That might have to do.

If you can get on the sideline an 85mm f1/4 would give great low light shots

jbgeach wrote in post #6147584
If you can get on the sideline an 85mm f1/4 would give great low light shots

Doesn't canon only make a 1.8 and a 1.2 ?
It will give great low light but 85mm is not nearly long enough for football.
Unless the plays only go towards your side of the field.

For the OP, I say you get a 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8. I know tamron and sigma make their version.

I shot high school football for the first time last season. I was using my XTI with the 70-200L and 300L. It all worked well, a lot of keepers, but not as many as I had hoped to get. I have since gotten a 40D and 85 1.8L. I'm expecting my keep rate to increase! Next week is their first scrimmage game and the season starts 9/5. I can't wait to get out there and shoot.

on a budget get the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8...it has HSM compared to Tamrons slow micro motor

if you can get canon 70-200mm f/2.8...that'd be even better

Thanks for all the replies, sorry it took me a bit to get back. Last year I was using the 70-300 handheld, w/ no flash, so there just simply was not enough light for the lens; blur and motion shake were my two worst enemies.

So in a nutshell, the Sigma 70-200/2.8 would be superior to the Tamron if I can't afford the Canon? I really hate to invest that much in a prime because I feel I'd use the zoom more for other things. I'd rather be limited to my side of the field than get no shots at all, KWIM? I was hoping the f/4 would be enough but I figured it probably wouldn't. The lighting is average for a night H.S. stadium, I would say. Most of the ones they travel to are the same.

I use the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 for both soccer (with the sigma 1.4tc) and for football. It is very versatile (zoom and low light capabilities) and I am extremely pleased with the speed of focus and the image quality. If you want to see example images, let me know and I can send you my Smugmug web site location and passwords to view photos from the lens. Good luck with your decision.

"Either way, I think you really need f/2.8 and 200mm to have a chance at night football."

That pretty much sums it up for me.

I have been shooting night high school football for years. It all comes down to the lighting of the fields in your area. In our area 2.8 is cutting it close and many times practically unusable. I can't tell you how many times I have been the only one left shooting with a 135L that I have. And even then, I'm limited to my zone, have ISO jacked up to the max, and use a marginal shutter speed. I'm happy with any decent photos I can get.

Without breaking the bank, the 70 - 200 series or something like the 200 2.8 are reasonable choices.

Football at night at your typical high school field can be as challenging as it gets. Every once in awhile a field is nicely lit, but that seems to be the exception. And unless we are all shooting on the same field it's hard to interpret each persons actual lighting conditions.

Good luck. The season is upon us.

The best bang would be a 200mm f/2.8 prime wait for the action to come to you. If you can shoot early in the season shoot as much as you can before dark. When it does get dark and the stadium lights are on you will need to shoot at a minimum of ISO 1600, more like 3200, to get a shutter speed of 1/320. As good as it is, even the 580 EX II has a hard time at the far reach of the 200mm.

Jack

Given your situation, I'll second a 70-200 f2.8. Flash+outdoor sports is a bad idea unless you have a good wireless transmitter and a stand. 580ex+PW (2x)+good enough stand so it doesn't fall and kill the flash and pw, about 700-800 bucks. You can probably find a sigma 70-200 f2.8 for that price, and at 200mm, the 2.8 is four times faster than your 70-300