Need help with lens for soccer/ football

[B712]

I have a 10D and am shopping around for a lens for soccer and football. I am looking at the canon 70-200 2.8 non is. The only thing is I dont know if the 200 end will get me into the action. Any suggestions??????

[bacephotography]

A 1.5x teleconverter would make your 200 into a 300. You would lose a couple stops of light, but since the games are outside, you should be ok. A 300 is about perfect for football, and since your lense is a telephoto, you can get action that is closer to you also.

[JBlake]

I shoot a lot of kids sports...football, soccer, baseball, softball...and have access to the field 99% of the time, rather than shooting from the stands or off-field. I shoot with an 80-200 f2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter which gives me 160 - 400 mm at f5.6. This is usually enough to fill the frame with the intended subject, since I am on the field and close to the action. There are times, though, when 500mm is needed. That said, 200mm is not enough, unless you will only shoot sideline action.

Where will you be shooting from? What are the lighting conditions? What are your goals? What do you NEED to accomplish your goals? Think of these things first and it will help you make informed, better purchases. Hope this helps.

Joe.

I have a 10D and am shopping around for a lens for soccer and football. I am looking at the canon 70-200 2.8 non is. The only thing is I dont know if the 200 end will get me into the action. Any suggestions??????

[Sebastian]

I'm with JBlake, 200 is not long enough. 300 at the very least, 400 preffered.

[B712]

Thanks Joe !!!
That was what i was afraid of. I would really like a 400 or 500 2.8 but if I spent that much money on a lens, my next posting would be for a room to rent. My kids are still in little leage soccer/ football/baseball so I do have access to the sidelines. With the 2x are you still able to use AF?
Also with these numbers are you figuring in the x factor of the 10D?

[bacephotography]

As long is there is enough light, a 2x would work fine. The autofocus also works with a teleconverter. The only real problem with a teleconverter is that they let less light in, forcing you to have a higher iso or shutter speeds... especially with sports.

[Photo-John]

In your situation, I'd say buy the 70-200 f/2.8L. It's arguably one of the best lenses ever and it's very versatile. You can use it for all kinds of photography. So no matter what, it will be a good purchase. Then get a teleconverter.

I'm not willing to give up 2 stops of light, so I have the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. That makes my 70-200 f/2.8L an f/4.0 lens. That's acceptable to me. It might not have as much reach, but I'd rather have the extra stop of light. Light is a bigger problem than focal length, in my opinion. Also, remember the digital crop factor will give you an effective reach of 420mm with the 70-200mm/EOS 10D combo. That's pretty damn long. And you won't be spending too much or buying equipment that's too specific. It's the smart way to spend your money.

[JBlake]

B712,

I shoot the 80-200 f2.8 AFS Nikkor with the Nikon TC20EII (?) which is suited to work seamlessly together, but not all teleconverters will do this with all lenses. You'll have to research what will work best with your needs.

PJ brought up the downside of my set-up...the loss of 2 stops of light. That is definately a downside. Most of what I shoot is daylight, and I chose my combo based on this. When I do shoot at night, or on heavily overcast days, I have to approach the shots differently and more creatively.

He's right about the 70-200 Canon glass, too. Regardless of what else you decide to buy or add, you will never regret owning that lens.

Joe.

[JDub]

In your situation, I'd say buy the 70-200 f/2.8L. It's arguably one of the best lenses ever and it's very versatile. You can use it for all kinds of photography. So no matter what, it will be a good purchase. Then get a teleconverter.

I'm not willing to give up 2 stops of light, so I have the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. That makes my 70-200 f/2.8L an f/4.0 lens. That's acceptable to me. It might not have as much reach, but I'd rather have the extra stop of light. Light is a bigger problem than focal length, in my opinion. Also, remember the digital crop factor will give you an effective reach of 420mm with the 70-200mm/EOS 10D combo. That's pretty damn long. And you won't be spending too much or buying equipment that's too specific. It's the smart way to spend your money.

This is my setup. I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. The 200mm focal length is definitely not enough for most football shots, even with the 1.6x crop factor. With the 1.4x on though, it is pretty good. The 70-200 focal length lenses are very versatile, my personal favorite of all my lenses.

[B712]

Thank you for the info JDub.. What about the sigma lens I think it's 110-300 2.8???? Anybody using this lens for sport/action???

[straightarm]

Having read various articles about professional sports photographers shooting soccer in England, it seemed that the "standard" lens on a film camera was a 300mm f2.8. Allowing for the cropping factor, a 70-200mm might just be enough. However the sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be execellent, especially given the cropping factor.

The other thing about shooting soccer is to make sure you have the correct vantage point.

Most pros shoot from the goal line, approx 15 -20 yards in from the corner flag. That way they are facing the strikers as they attack the goal. Very few published pictures seem to have been taken from half way along the touch line.

Simon

[gmen]

This is a very interesting thread...

Just to add my 2 cents worth, I generally shoot with a 300mm f/2.8 lens on one body and the 70-200mm f/2.8 on another. I have been using two 10ds, but have just swapped (plus money *lol*) one for a 1d mkII.

"Shooting positions" seems to be a hot topic: I often like to shoot from the sidelines, about 20 yards into one half. I can fill the frame with the nearer goalmouth and this position also gives access to all the midfield play. And, at a stretch, you can still shoot the other goalmouth. It also often makes 'goals look like goals'... i.e. instead of a lone player shooting towards goal, you get to include the goalkeeper diving, net bulging, etc.

But bear in mind that some venues restrict the positions you can shoot from, so you have to be ready for anything. Best to practice from all angles.

Here are a couple of shots taken on the 10d with the 300mm. Your feedback on the pics would be appreciated.

[wyojack46]

I shot high school and college soccer for a number of years. I was able to shoot from the sidelines for all of those games. I found that a 200mm f2.8 lens to be the minimum to use. Most shots had to be within a 20 yd radius from where ever you shot to adequately fill the frame. I always brought my 1.4 teleconverter and used it if possible. That gave me another 10 yds of shooting area. Many times, in good light, I used my 300mm f4 lens with good results (and at times also used my 1.4 converter). One of the major problems I had was shooting at night under lights. That was the only time I absolutely needed an f2.8 lens. Even using that lens I had to wait and time my shots to get sharp images (using 3200 bw film). During this time I was using a film camera (Maxxum 7) with Minolta's G lens. Those lens have focus hold buttons that helped a great deal in obtaining sharp images. Good Luck.