decent lens for rugby this saturday

theblowin

guys, im going to the ireland vs france match this saturday, im shooting with a standard canon 40d with kit lens, but as im in the stands what combination i.e zoom lens would suit is f4 okay and will i need monopod also, heading up north friday for shopping so might buy up there, budget around 400 but cheaper suggestions welcome as long as the quality is good, thanks

bmcgrath

You could get away with using a 70-200 f/4 for sports. I know I do.

But a 70-200 f/2.8 would be optimal if you can afford.

Ricky91t

bmcgrath wrote: »

You could get away with using a 70-200 f/4 for sports. I know I do.

But a 70-200 f/2.8 would be optimal if you can afford.

Errr yes you can,
If croke park is well lit then an f/4 would do fine,OP it really depends if this is just a once off or a more common thing?

bmcgrath

Doesn't have to be croker. I've had photos published from rugby in the RDS and drogheda united games from united park in Drogheda. Both have woeful lighting.

It's difficult with a f/4 lens but it can be done

theblowin

just sort of getting into sports shotting will auto mode suffice or what settings are recommended using either f4 or f2.8, the 2.8 is bit pricey i know but also i dont want to buy f4 and regret it

bmcgrath

Sigma have an okayish 70-200 f/2.8.

Paulw

theblowin wrote: »

just sort of getting into sports shotting will auto mode suffice or what settings are recommended using either f4 or f2.8

You should try shooting in either Shutter Priority (Tv), Aperture Priority (Av) or Manual (M). You want a shutter speed faster than 1/400, an aperture lower than f/4 (where possible). You may need to increase your ISO to 800, 1000, 1250 or even 1600.

Have fun.

theblowin

bmcgrath wrote: »

Sigma have an okayish 70-200 f/2.8.

i know but the canon f2,8 is the dogs pity its so dear

Mycroft H

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 . Better iq then sigma slower auto focus.

Sigma 70-200 less iq, faster auto focus.

Image quality wins imo.

Gambler

Looking at getting a 70-200 f2.8 myself, What sort of iq difference are we taking about between the Tamron and the Sigma?

theblowin

Paulw wrote: »

You should try shooting in either Shutter Priority (Tv), Aperture Priority (Av) or Manual (M). You want a shutter speed faster than 1/400, an aperture lower than f/4 (where possible). You may need to increase your ISO to 800, 1000, 1250 or even 1600.

Have fun.

thx paul i will take note of those settings , seen this lens and its f3.5 also can be used as a general walkaround lens , yes or no?
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/Sigma/28-300mm%20f3.5-6.3%20DG%20Macro%20(Canon%20AF)-32746/Show.html

Paulw

theblowin wrote: »

thx paul i will take note of those settings , seen this lens and its f3.5 also can be used as a general walkaround lens , yes or no?
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/Sigma/28-300mm%20f3.5-6.3%20DG%20Macro%20(Canon%20AF)-32746/Show.html

That lens - 28mm f/3.5 and then when you move up to 300mm it's f/6.3. That f/6.3 would be too slow for sport, especially under floodlights.

For taking picts from the stands, you're going to be shooting at maximum focal length (200mm, 300mm or more if you can), because you are just so far away from the action. Even for photographers pitch side, they are shooting 300mm, 400mm, 500mm to get close to the action, and shooting f/2.8 to f/4 to get good DOF and also fast enough shutter speeds.

I've shot from the stands before, and used the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. While the lens has good reach, it is simply too slow.

Ricky91t

landyman wrote: »

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 . Better iq then sigma slower auto focus.

Sigma 70-200 less iq, faster auto focus.

Image quality wins imo.

I'd have to disagree,
Its all good having great image quailit,but for the sigma if its not up to much you can touch it up in lightroom or whatever.

With the Tamron the AF will be too slows and you'll get alot off out of focus images which can't be fixed in lightroom

OP
I'd read this topic basically it's your question so it might help

theblowin

Paulw wrote: »

That lens - 28mm f/3.5 and then when you move up to 300mm it's f/6.3. That f/6.3 would be too slow for sport, especially under floodlights.

For taking picts from the stands, you're going to be shooting at maximum focal length (200mm, 300mm or more if you can), because you are just so far away from the action. Even for photographers pitch side, they are shooting 300mm, 400mm, 500mm to get close to the action, and shooting f/2.8 to f/4 to get good DOF and also fast enough shutter speeds.

I've shot from the stands before, and used the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. While the lens has good reach, it is simply too slow.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/Canon/EF%2070-200mm%20f4.0%20L%20USM%20Lens-22119/Show.html
this l canon gets great reviews but am i clutching at straws here

Ballyman

Gambler wrote: »

Looking at getting a 70-200 f2.8 myself, What sort of iq difference are we taking about between the Tamron and the Sigma?

None whatsoever. And you can include the Canon 70-200mm in that too. I have the sigma and it's an outstanding lens.

Have a look at the horse racing stuff at punchestown on my flickr see what the Sigma is able to do. Do yourself a favour and save the 700 difference between the canon and sigma and buy yourself something nice!!

The snobbery towards canon is gas.

Ricky91t

Ballyman wrote: »

None whatsoever. And you can include the Canon 70-200mm in that too. I have the sigma and it's an outstanding lens.

Have a look at the horse racing stuff at punchestown on my flickr see what the Sigma is able to do. Do yourself a favour and save the 700 difference between the canon and sigma and buy yourself something nice!!

The snobbery towards canon is gas.

Have to agree with you on that,your horse pics are excelent!
Super sharp for f/2.8
Issue with sigma is,you seem to get good and bad lenses

Paulw

Ballyman wrote: »

The snobbery towards canon is gas.

Have to disagree there with you about snobbery.

Like with anything, you can get great photos with any gear, given the right circumstances. Any half decent P&S can also capture a good sports photo.

But, there is a difference when it comes to consistantly being able to capture those images, under alternating conditions.

A few users here will say that the Sigma 50-500mm is a brilliant lens. I wouldn't disagree with them, since I've never used the lens. I've seen some brilliant sports images taken with that lens. You get great value for your money.

And, for those who want value for money, then yes, Sigma (and even Tamron) will give you good results for what you pay.

You will find most reviews of similar lenses stating that the naitive lens (Canon, Nikon, etc) would do better than the generic lens (Sigma, Tamron). More probably down to quality of build, interworking, quality of glass and workmanship.

I really doubt it's snobbery.

mrboswell

A bit late in on this one but...
I have to agree with Paul - just because someone has the money and is willing to spend it on canon does not make it snobbery. I have briefly used the Sigma 50-500mm and it is a nice lens. At full zoom the f number goes up and as Paul mentioned it is too slow for some conditions, particularly under lights. To be honest if you are planning to use it from the stands at 500mm you would need a tripod never mind a monopod. Sports file use 600mm from behind the advertising hoarding and they still aren't even happy about being so far back from the action!

If you have the money it makes sense to buy a lens that was made for a camera by the same manufacturer. Thats not to say that Sig or Tam lenses wouldn't do the job.
Colm

thatsnotmyname

as a relative newie to the world of DSLR.

i am keen to have a go at shooting sports soccer ,G.A.A rugby etc
i came across this lens on komplett.ie http://www.komplett.ie/k/kl.aspx?bn=10198

any opinions on it would be greatly appreciated
thanks in advance.

mrboswell

I have never used it but for starters its and EF-S lens so it can only be used on a canon camera that had a cropped sensor - that basically means that it will only work on consumer to mid-range cameras - fully pro and its no good. If you need to move now and are tight on budget then its not a bad place to start.
The f-number goes from 4 to 5.6 so it may be good enough for low light conditions when you "zoom out" because the f number can go as low as f4 but it may not be good enough when you zoom in as the f-number can go up to 5.6 meaning that it will not let as much light in. This means that you may not get a shutter speed fast enough to capture the action and the depth of field may be reasonable large.
All in all it depends if you are shooting mainly during the day and outside...
As said previously, what ever the brand, get a f2.8 lens if you have the money

thatsnotmyname

thanks for the response
mr boswell
i appreciate it.

hoganpoly

mrboswell wrote: »

I have never used it but for starters its and EF-S lens so it can only be used on a canon camera that had a cropped sensor - that basically means that it will only work on consumer to mid-range cameras - fully pro and its no good. If you need to move now and are tight on budget then its not a bad place to start.
The f-number goes from 4 to 5.6 so it may be good enough for low light conditions when you "zoom out" because the f number can go as low as f4 but it may not be good enough when you zoom in as the f-number can go up to 5.6 meaning that it will not let as much light in. This means that you may not get a shutter speed fast enough to capture the action and the depth of field may be reasonable large.
All in all it depends if you are shooting mainly during the day and outside...
As said previously, what ever the brand, get a f2.8 lens if you have the money

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/1443/Tamron-70-200mm-F2-8-Di-LD-(IF)-Macro---Canon-Fit.html

this lens any use for sports not to bad a price i think