Lacrosse game with a 135 f/2 on crop? PITA or Okay?

Hi guys, I've committed to photographing a few upcoming lacrosse games. Since I never shoot sports, I don't own any "sports" lenses and would have to rent one for the events. I was thinking of getting a 70-200 2.8 IS but now I have the opportunity to borrow a 135 f/2. Have any of you photographed any football games or any other field sports with the 135 f/2? Is it quick enough? Will I have to run around the field like a mad man or it is manageable and I can expect to be able to get good shots? I appreciate your input.

i shot some of my friends basketball game with the 135L. AF is fast enough with my 50D and indoors lighting was decent enough when shooting wide open, thankgoodness this lens is sharp wide open.

A zoom would definitely be more ideal since sports are hardly stationary.

135mm is way too short on 35mm and still too short on APS-C. You want 400mm+ on 35mm for field sports.

I actually shot a couple of night soccer games with the 135L. AF is definitely up to the task, and TBH, the FL was pretty good. Obviously some cropping will be involved, but it's managable. As others will say, position yourself well and wait for the action to come to you.

Good luck, Pixel Junkie .

BTW, if it's daytime, you could add a 1.4xTC. I would caution you about using one at night - when I did, there was terrible ghosting around the white uniforms - so if you do, check your images closely.

Do you own a 1.4X? - that would be much better than the 135L alone in terms of FL. I've used a 200 f/2.8 for soccer and it worked well.

Shooting sports with a short prime would be too much of a challenge for me. You'll need to move quickly with the action. Go with a zoom and get the shoots you'll want.

I found some stuff online on this and I think I'm better of renting a 100-400 or a 70-200. I just have to figure out which one I want. I may get lucky on a few shots with the 135 but overall, a zoom would serve me better for this. I do appreciate all your replies though.

I've shot several college lacrosse games from the sidelines with a 300 2.8 on a full frame camera. That setup is very good and depending on where I stand, I do sometimes wish I had a 400, but its not essential for me. On a crop, a 70-200 is doable and similar to a 300 mm lens on full frame, but I would also look into renting the 300 f4 IS (if the game is during the day). Good luck!

Dpsteak,

I imagine where your position yourself on the field is key when shooting with a prime? Any tips on that. I'm sure you still have to think about where you stand if you were to shoot the games with a 70-200 for example but but not as much. And thanks, I do need luck.

Depends what shots you want. If you can set up at the correct distance from the goal, 135 f/2L is a great sports lens, fast focus, sharp at f/2 as at f/5.6 so no need to stop down. If you can't move around then the 100-400L is great if there is enough light to shoot at f/5.6, quite sharp wide open but can benefit from going down to f/6.3 or 7.1 if possible. I have both lenses and use them for sports, usually soccer, indoors at the moment of course where the 135 f/2L stops action much better.

I've shot a few lax games with my 70-200 f2.8 and it works just great even at night under stadium lights. I haven't used the 135 f2 but I can vouch for the 70-200 f2.8. You can get a spot behind x and it works perfect for getting shots of the shooter up top (near mid field) or on the wings (just watch out for shots off goal)

I can move around, that's not a problem. Don't see what can stop me. But since I've never done this type of photos before, I'm more concerned with which lens will give me the best IQ but if this means that I'll have to end up with only just a few good images just because of the nature of the lens, I'd rather go to a zoom. I just don't know what to expect when I get there. Right now I'm leaning toward the 70-200 2.8 just because it is a safe bet but I know that the images from the 135L will give me the best IQ and I'd like to make it work if it is possible because I won't have to spend money on the 70-200 (rental). Basically, looking for enough reassurance from 135 users that the lens can work for that type of photos on my body. Otherwise, I'll just play it safe.

I don't get it. A LOT of sports photography is done with prime lenses. My main lenses for sports are ALL primes (300, 135, 85, 50). So why is there so much talk about "it won't work".

I've shot a lot of soccer / lacrosse with the 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC. I get some good shots at all focal lengths. There is nothing magic about a zoom for sports.

With a 135L you won't be able to cover all the field, so don't try. There WILL be action shots that are the right distance for that lens. Put yourself on the side lines or the end line and wait for the action to come to you. With lacrosse there is action all over the field as players work the ball up and down the field.

Give it a try. You won't get every shot but I bet you'll get some awesome stuff.

Thanks Keith, I actually found your lacrosse photos and one of them was shots with a 135L, looks great!

pixel_junkie wrote in post #9339926
Thanks Keith, I actually found your lacrosse photos and one of them was shots with a 135L, looks great!

Really? You mean I actually did something I talk about? Wow, I'm surprised!

Mind you, my main field sports lens is the 300 f/4 so don't get to thinking the 135 is the cat's meow.

But, if you're talking indoor Basketball with a 1D, then the 135L is sweeet!