lens for outdoor sports like rugby

hoganpoly

just wondering if the lens below is any use , got a good review from digicambuyer magazine, only new to dslr photography so looking to learn first before buying 70-200 2.8 any advice most welcome
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/2523/Show.html?SkuId=2523&tduid=33ac73c474724372e851d4fc4a1584b7&url=http://www.jessops.com/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?SkuId=2523

XLR8

It isn't fast enough... Unless you know the players and can ask them to stand still while you take the shots

You mentioned the 70 - 200 2.8. This is really the least you can get away with for sports photography and if you'r planning on doing it seriously, you're going to be looking at spending a lot of money on glass.

hoganpoly

XLR8 wrote: »

It isn't fast enough... Unless you know the players and can ask them to stand still while you take the shots

You mentioned the 70 - 200 2.8. This is really the least you can get away with for sports photography and if you'r planning on doing it seriously, you're going to be looking at spending a lot of money on glass.

this one any use and will i need image stabilisation
http://www.purelygadgets.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=21936&wysiwyg=9

XLR8

That looks like a good starter lens for sports photography.

Image stabilisation is really only useful when you're shooting still subjects handheld to compensate for camera shake (Disclaimer... I know VR lenses have an 'active' function for moving subjects but I've found it of little use)

I would personally be buying the 70 - 200 2.8 if I was starting out in sports photography because to be honest and in my humble opinion, anything less is simply a waste of money.

hoganpoly

XLR8 wrote: »

That looks like a good starter lens for sports photography.

Image stabilisation is really only useful when you're shooting still subjects handheld to compensate for camera shake (Disclaimer... I know VR lenses have an 'active' function for moving subjects but I've found it of little use)

I would personally be buying the 70 - 200 2.8 if I was starting out in sports photography because to be honest and in my humble opinion, anything less is simply a waste of money.

just seen this l lens might be worth a shot or should i just go 2.8 and be done with it
http://www.dabs.ie/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=3JDW&CategorySelectedId=11198&PageMode=1&NavigationKey=11198,4294953439,50330

XLR8

I personally wouldn't use anything but a 2.8 for sports photography. You might get away with that F4 on nice sunny days but we're in Ireland

This is just my opinion and some people will tell you that F4 lens is ok for the job but you really should be going with the best glass you can afford because there's nothing worse than spending all that money on a lens that you find isn't up to the job.

Do a bit of research and see what others have to say about it but at the end of the day, it's your money and your decision... choose wisely.

Paulw

There are a number of things that you need to consider. Reach, aperture, conditions, speed, sharpness, etc.

I gather you're talking about local rugby? For that range around 200mm should be fine.

Conditions - if it's local rugby, you need to consider if you'll be shooting under floodlights. If you will, then you need an f/2.8 lens.

If not, if you'll only be shooting during the day, then you can certainly use an f/4 lens.

On bright days, I'd normally shoot with a 300mm f/2.8 lens with a 1.4x TC, giving me a 420mm f/4 lens. Works fine for me.

For dull days, I wouldn't use an extender.

If I shoot local rugby/football, I'd generally use the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

It really comes down to what you can afford and what you really need. If you want, have a look over my website and if you look through my galleries, you will see what camera/lens and settings I use.

City-Exile

Word of advice, if you buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 and look after it, you'll have a lens for life. It will be one of the best investments you'll make.
While you might say that it's expensive, I would argue that a cheaper lens is more expensive, given that you'll "grow out of it" very quickly and look to offload it.

hoganpoly

thanks for all your comments budget is the obvious factor for me so anyone recommend a good starter lens which will not frustrate me and give decent results, will be shootting mostly day time games with the odd leinster match thrown in , bugdet around 400euro thx

City-Exile

Look for a second hand 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS version.
You might find a Sigma version out there too.

hoganpoly

City-Exile wrote: »

Look for a second hand 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS version.
You might find a Sigma version out there too.

will do anyone outhere selling one ?

Ballyman

I can wholly recommend the Sigma 70-200mm lens. It's an excellent piece of kit.

There is a canon mount second hand Sigma for sale on adverts, http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=89164&cat=51

You should be able to pick one up for <€600 second hand.

Paulw

For Leinster games, you'll definitely need an f/2.8 lens. While the floodlights are actually quite good, you will still need it.

Also, the 200mm might be a bit limiting for Leinster Rugby matches. But, you have to make do with what you have.

Ricky91t

XLR8 wrote: »

It isn't fast enough... Unless you know the players and can ask them to stand still while you take the shots

i've used an f/5.6 lens for night time rugby with images i'm pleased with and it greay during the day...And my lens is an older canon 90-300 too,OP if you want something cheap that will do you just fine

challengemaster

....and aren't you saving up to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 L at the moment, Ricky?

:pac:

Paulw

Ricky91t wrote: »

i've used an f/5.6 lens for night time rugby with images i'm pleased with and it greay during the day...And my lens is an older canon 90-300 too,OP if you want something cheap that will do you just fine

At night? Under lights? Got any picts of that? I gather you were using ISO 1600 (or expanded to ISO 3200) and getting shutter speeds around 1/50??

You really do need an f/2.8 lens for night sport, even when using high ISO. At some games, you will barely get 1/250 with f/2.8 and ISO 1600.

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

....and aren't you saving up to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 L at the moment, Ricky?

:pac:

Well thats totally different,i'v had my lens 2 years now and have outgrown it,OP on the other hand has just started i'v seen him posting on DSLR's on adverts recently

Paulw wrote: »

At night? Under lights? Got any picts of that? I gather you were using ISO 1600 (or expanded to ISO 3200) and getting shutter speeds around 1/50??

You really do need an f/2.8 lens for night sport, even when using high ISO. At some games, you will barely get 1/250 with f/2.8 and ISO 1600.

Have pics on my flickr,but flickr have deleted 800(200 hidden) from my stream and i can't link,Was getting 1/200 as i could freeze the action

If you read he said before getting the 70-200,might turn out he want's to go into landscapes instead

XLR8

Ricky91t wrote: »

i've used an f/5.6 lens for night time rugby with images i'm pleased with and it greay during the day...And my lens is an older canon 90-300 too,OP if you want something cheap that will do you just fine

Congratulations, you're obviously easier pleased than I am... Do you have any example shots?

I knew someone would jump down my throat about this, that's why I stated that it was just my opinion.
I know you can get satisfactory shots in good light at f5.6 but you're shooting wide open whereas you have a bit of scope with a 2.8. How pleased would you be with your shots if you were to stop down to f8?

I made my mistakes when I started out first buying lenses that weren't up to the job but I'm older and a little bit wiser now and throwing money at inadequate lenses isn't my idea of fun any more.

If you're happy with your 5.6 then fair play but I like to know that I'm going to get the shot I want, regardless of lighting conditions.

And again, it is just my opinion.

City-Exile

XLR8 wrote: »

I knew someone would jump down my throat about this, that's why I stated that it was just my opinion.

Your opinion would be shared by most people who shoot sport at night.
It's a simple matter of being able to freeze the action and allow enough light into the sensor.

As for wanting to take landscapes instead, a decent lens will hold its value, so long as you take care of it. If you buy in a bricks & mortar shop, you could always do a trade-in.

Ricky91t

Ricky91t wrote: »

Well thats totally different,i'v had my lens 2 years now and have outgrown it,OP on the other hand has just started i'v seen him posting on DSLR's on adverts recently


Have pics on my flickr,but flickr have deleted 800(200 hidden) from my stream and i can't link,Was getting 1/200 as i could freeze the action

If you read he said before getting the 70-200,might turn out he want's to go into landscapes instead

Now that you have fixed Flickr you can show us these shots.

soccerc

Ricky91t wrote: »

i've used an f/5.6 lens for night time rugby with images i'm pleased with and it greay during the day...And my lens is an older canon 90-300 too,OP if you want something cheap that will do you just fine

Ricky, I'd really love to see these night time sport action f5.6 images

Ricky91t

soccerc wrote: »

Ricky, I'd really love to see these night time sport action f5.6 images

^ HAve to excuse that one i used picnic to mess about with the colours and messed to up





Quite a few of those are crops too

XLR8

Ricky91t wrote: »

Well thats totally different,i'v had my lens 2 years now and have outgrown it,OP on the other hand has just started i'v seen him posting on DSLR's on adverts recently

How could you possibly outgrow a lens that will freeze action at 5.6 in the dark?

Does 'outgrown' mean you're not happy with its performance and want something faster or do you just want the 70-200 2.8 because it looks better?

And if you have 'outgrown' it, will the same thing not happen to the OP?

I'm sure most people here would attest that underspending on glass can be a costly mistake but on the flip side, it's these mistakes that keep the cost of good s/h lenses so high so i suppose that's a bonus.

You wouldn't be trying to sell your old lens to the OP would you?

The 70-200 2.8 is a great lens and a 1.4x converter for about €120 makes it even better. I wish someone had advised me to go with it when I started out instead of having to learn the hard way.

Ricky91t

XLR8 wrote: »

How could you possibly outgrow a lens that will freeze action at 5.6 in the dark?

Does 'outgrown' mean you're not happy with its performance and want something faster or do you just want the 70-200 2.8 because it looks better?

And if you have 'outgrown' it, will the same thing not happen to the OP?

I'm sure most people here would attest that underspending on glass can be a costly mistake but on the flip side, it's these mistakes that keep the cost of good s/h lenses so high so i suppose that's a bonus.

You wouldn't be trying to sell your old lens to the OP would you?

The 70-200 2.8 is a great lens and a 1.4x converter for about €120 makes it even better. I wish someone had advised me to go with it when I started out instead of having to learn the hard way.

The 70-200 is L glass,meaning sharper better build quaility and a nice DOF at the f/2.8 aperture,my lens is basic

As i said above the OP has only started and may not like sports photography it would be much easier to sell a cheap lens in this recession than an Expensize one

If i was trying to sell a lens,I would firstly have it posted on adverts,if you check you'll see i havn't got it on there
I'd normally link it in my sig,if you look there i havn't got it in there

Which would probably mean i'm not trying to sell it,

When someone starts photograhy you spend alot on a camera and get cheap glass,If i chose to get a 70-200 first i'd still be saving,OP may not loose interest in photography and want to sell up,the face his lens has a €700 difference to the 70-200 would leave a smaller dent in the bank account when buying the glass


Edit:Just discovered the ignore list,i'm sure the person i just added to it know who they are

Ricky91t

And anyway you're totally going against what the OP said

just wondering if the lens below is any use , got a good review from digicambuyer magazine, only new to dslr photography so looking to learn first before buying 70-200 2.8 any advice most welcome

He asked for a lens before the 70-200,maybe he wants to go easy on the spending at first,I was trying to help the Original poster by answering his question correctly

challengemaster

And the point being made is, it's easier and more benificial to the OP to buy A 70-200 f/2.8 (be it sigma, or Canon's L glass) as it will no doubt save him money.

Ricky91t

But the fact he specified "before" getting better glass he obviously would like one soon and can't afford to buy a 70-200,you have to remember that not everyone on here has money to blow on camera equipment

challengemaster

Exactly, not everyone does. Which is why we're making the point it works out cheaper in the long term to buy it straight off. Hence he's not wasting any money on a crappier lens.

That's the point. There's no if's or buts about it. That IS the point.

From there, it's the OP's decision.

XLR8

challengemaster wrote: »

And the point being made is, it's easier and more benificial to the OP to buy A 70-200 f/2.8 (be it sigma, or Canon's L glass) as it will no doubt save him money.

Exactly!... Relatively speaking, you lose a lot less on professional glass than you do on consumer glass if/when you decide to sell it and there will always be a market for good s/h glass (contrary to what Ricky91t might believe)

Ricky91t.. why do you think the market is flooded with cheap s/h consumer lenses and it's almost impossible to find professional lenses s/h for much less than new price? It's because people buy the cheap lenses and realise they want/need better glass. This is why I'd always advise someone to go for the best glass they can afford... it works out a lot cheaper in the long run.

Ricky91t

Well i'm trying to help the OP out,i'v made a point different to everyone else trying to help him make a decision.I don't see why you had to come in and basically repeat what everyone else said?

He might not have money like that for a while,with the amount of people loosing jobs and what not,i'd be surprised to see many going out spending best part of €1000 on a lens with a new hobby.I could ask you the same question
Why a cheap studio set for around 300-400 instead of one for 2000?

Why a sigma flash instead of a canon 580 ex MKII?

You bought the crapier one meaning you've lost more money and don't forget"That's the point. There's no if's or buts about it. That IS the point."

You're really contradiciting yourself here.That IS the point

Are you trying to be an ass or are you just coming across as one?

OP, if you can afford it, get the best you can. If not, then Ricky's shots show that the cheaper lens can do the trick. Your call, based on what you can afford and what you want to do.

Have I missed anything out here Ricky? Nice shots by the way.

AnCatDubh

temporarily being closed. should reopen soon.

AnCatDubh

Right, the thread is reopening for new business. There were a number of reported posts which have now been dealt with and have resulted in moderation action being taken. Thank you to everyone who I have contacted tonight for your understanding and feedback. Without exception you all have responded positively and I appreciate that. I trust that the issues are now resolved.

As i've moderated down to user level, I need to call a halt to the previous discussion over the f2.8 v f5.6 and I will summarise the thread as follows;

OP - you will read two bodies of opinion, a considerable swell of opinion that f2.8 being the way to go and an opinion which has achieved acceptable results at f5.6. I think there is plenty of content posted to assist you so should you require further clarification on the specifics then you can PM any of the individual posters or feel free to PM me to assist.

The discussion over that aspect is now closed but the thread is back open for new discussion.

As normal once a moderation notice is posted on thread, all users are expected to follow.

Thanks again.

Calina

OP, to be honest I am not sure that I would go for the 55-200mm. You have to look at it in the context of my having a) never used it and b) not being a rugby specialist. I am, however, a watersports specialist and I don't as it happens use the 2.8.

There are a couple of reasons for that and the primary one is that 200mm in my experience isn't really enough reach and I suspect a few of the field sports heads use their 300mm slightly more often lately.

If you're looking for a budget starter, and you're looking at day time/afternoon rugby, I actually like the Sigma 70-300mm which is not as fast a lens, but in terms of bang for buck, it is very good. You need to go for the DG APO version of it - that's the newer version although the lens itself has been around a while.

I'm not going to comment on the arguments which took place above regarding the speed of the lens; only that sometimes things have to be done incrementally. Depending on what you are shooting, you may well be better off using the less expensive lens as a learner; it may be you discover you don't like trying to photograph a game instead of enjoying watching it.

Me personally I haven't bought the more expensive L lens for my own reasons. But nor have I needed it on the beach. It's a nice to have but at this stage for me, not essential and if you reckon you could use the extra grand or so on something else...then it's the call you'd have to make.

Paulw

A lens up to 200mm should be perfectly fine for local rugby. You have much more scope to move around the pitch, and follow the action, therefore getting closer to it.

For Leinster Rugby, you will find yourself lacking the reach with only a 200mm lens.

hoganpoly

just purchased a canon 30d eventually had ordered a 40d from jessops in newry but order was messed up and delayed by 6 weeks so cancelled glad it happenened as very pleased with the 30d(thanks bobby), at present only have the body and a 2 gb card so itching to buy a sports lens and 50mm lens budget of around 500 for both so any one with a 30d/40d with good success rates point me in the right direction and i will be sorted any help gratefully accepted thx