Sports Camera Lens

whiz

Hi Guys

I take some pics at League of Ireland Games and I was thinking of buying a specific sports lens for a Canon Camera, that would be good value. Does anybody have any recommendations ?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorcanmulligan/

Ballyman

Are you on the sideline? You'll get away with a 70-200mm f/2.8 on the sideline.

If the pockets are bottomless then a 300mm f/2.8 is the way to go.

Ricky91t

Canon 300mm f/2.8

Assuming you budget isn't as issue?

It's great value for money too and super sharp..
It is one of the better lenses for sports

What is your budget?Cause "good value" can be seen very differently by others

wersal gummage

Ballyman wrote: »

If the pockets are bottomless then a 300mm f/2.8 is the way to go.

Ricky91t wrote: »

Canon 300mm f/2.8

Assuming you budget isn't as issue?

the lad's flickr shows he's shooting at 200mm at 6.3 so i'm guessing the lense mentioned above is out of the price range??

maybe a 70-200 2.8 or 4is with a 1.4x convertor. or a sigma equiv.?

Ballyman

wersal gummage wrote: »

the lad's flickr shows he's shooting at 200mm at 6.3 so i'm guessing the lense mentioned above is out of the price range??

Thats a bit of an assumption. Do you have to be poor to shoot a 200mm lens at f6.3?

Also, he may not know what he's at and already has a 70-200mm f2.8 and shooting at 6.3 with it

We did however both say if budget wasn't an issue then the 300 was the way to go. I have no idea what his budget is though.

Mycroft H

A 300 f2.8 is probably a bit expensive for a starter. This is more ideal:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1027430

For new under 800 euro you cant do much better.......

wersal gummage

Ballyman wrote: »

Thats a bit of an assumption. Do you have to be poor to shoot a 200mm lens at f6.3?

Also, he may not know what he's at and already has a 70-200mm f2.8 and shooting at 6.3 with it

We did however both say if budget wasn't an issue then the 300 was the way to go. I have no idea what his budget is though.

of course you're right.

i was assuming that 6.3 must have been the largest F stop on the current lense, in which case it would be some jump to the 300.

whiz

Thanks lads, I already have a sigma 18-200 (F3.5-6.3) os lens. Would a converter help and give u lower F stops ? or are you looking at a new lens to get you F2.8 ? My point about good value, is that some sport lens go for €4k or more.

Ballyman

wersal gummage wrote: »

i was assuming that 6.3 must have been the largest F stop on the current lense

It probably is too. I was just pointing out other possibilities

wersal gummage

whiz wrote: »

Thanks lads, I already have a sigma 18-200 (F3.5-6.3) os lens. Would a converter help and give u lower F stops ? or are you looking at a new lens to get you F2.8 ? My point about good value, is that some sport lens go for €4k or more.

convertors will make it worse.

you need a new lense i'm afraid.

your pics on flickr are good but very grainy (which is normal cos you're shooting at 1600 iso on a 350d).

i'd say go for a 2.8 lense and maybe take the ISO down a touch???

Ballyman

whiz wrote: »

Thanks lads, I already have a sigma 18-200 (F3.5-6.3) os lens. Would a converter help and give u lower F stops ? or are you looking at a new lens to get you F2.8 ? My point about good value, is that some sport lens go for €4k or more.

A converter won't fit onto the 18-200.

The only way to get f2.8 is to buy an f2.8 lens.

The Sigma posted above is an excellent lens and is f2.8 It also takes a 1.4x converter which increases the focal length to 280mm but reduces the aperture to f4. Under floodlights f4 won't be much use to you but on a bright day it is more than sufficient.

The soccer game below is with the Sigma f2.8 mentioned above. The GAA one is with the same lens but with a 1.4x converter fitted.

whiz

Thanks Ballyman for illustrations, the lens that is mentioned is not os / is , so would there need for a tripod or monopod ?

mgbgt0_0

Hi
Have you looked at the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 which is a great sports lens.
As its a zoom you can follow the action as it comes close to you and it has a constant F2.8 aptaure.

whiz

No I haven't, but if u stick a convertor on the lens, like mentioned above will you be shooting at F4 ?

wersal gummage

whiz wrote: »

Thanks Ballyman for illustrations, the lens that is mentioned is not os / is , so would there need for a tripod or monopod ?

whiz, maybe just bare in mind that ballyman is shooting with a 40d @ 3200 ISO. that camera seems to be able to handle that very well.

the 350d @ 1600 ISO might not handle that situation as well.

mgbgt0_0

A 1.4x converter wil lose 1 stop and a 2x converter will lose 2 stopsHope this helps

Ballyman

The soccer image was cleaned up with Noise Ninja afterwards but like you said it wouldn't be as noisy as the 350D.

For daytime shooting though the 350D and 70-200mm would be perfect.

Mycroft H

whiz wrote: »

Thanks Ballyman for illustrations, the lens that is mentioned is not os / is , so would there need for a tripod or monopod ?

Remember the rule of 1 over the focal lenght. Ie. 1\200 sec and you should be ok without a tripod on a bright day. On a dim day a monopod will be handy

mgbgt0_0

The 1.4x converter will lose 1 stop and the 2x converter will lose 2 stops. Hope this helps.

one2one

Right lads,Bit off topic..Sorry.. I'm new to photography, so here goes. I have a Canon 1000D with 18-55 & 75-300 lens. Would I be able to shoot GAA/Footie from sidelines with just what is mentioned? Thanks.

Mycroft H

^ you have the reach but not speed. Bump up the iso to greater then 800 (1600 on a dim day). I've found it essential to keep the speed above 1/125 sec.

Ballyman

one2one wrote: »

Right lads,Bit off topic..Sorry.. I'm new to photography, so here goes. I have a Canon 1000D with 18-55 & 75-300 lens. Would I be able to shoot GAA/Footie from sidelines with just what is mentioned? Thanks.

On a bright sunny day then yes, you'll have no problem with the 75-300mm

On dull overcast days though it will struggle to cope as it will be too slow.

wersal gummage

one2one wrote: »

Right lads,Bit off topic..Sorry.. I'm new to photography, so here goes. I have a Canon 1000D with 18-55 & 75-300 lens. Would I be able to shoot GAA/Footie from sidelines with just what is mentioned? Thanks.

definatley i'd say (assuming its just a hobby thing).

a lot easier at day time, but the lad who asked the original question got a decent picture under floodlights at F6.3/200mm.

i'd say give it a try with your current equipment and see if you can find limitations before you consider spending money.

whiz

Hi Guys, a few more quest, thanks for replies far

1) Shooting under Flood lights, should u be using a lens that is less than F4, in order to help get a clearer picture ?

2)As regards noise ninja, would this be better than photoshop was on some of my pics on flickr?

3) One person mentioned earlier in the thread about a sigma lens that is 120 -300 and is F2.8 constant, does anybody have any experience of this lens?

Ballyman

whiz wrote: »

Hi Guys, a few more quest, thanks for replies far

1) Shooting under Flood lights, should u be using a lens that is less than F4, in order to help get a clearer picture ?

2)As regards noise ninja, would this be better than photoshop was on some of my pics on flickr?

3) One person mentioned earlier in the thread about a sigma lens that is 120 -300 and is F2.8 constant, does anybody have any experience of this lens?

1. Yes.

2. Not really. Photoshop has it's own inbuilt noise reduction software so this should do the job well enough for you.

3. Yes it is constant. It's also very expensive at over €2.5K and no, I have no experience of it but if you read online reviews then this lens is supposed to be top notch.

Howitzer

I'm looking at getting a sigma 50-500 for a safari. Will hope to get some sport use from it too (on bright days mainly). Anyone ever use one of these bigma's for sports? Is it hopeless on a cloudy day at f6.3?

Here are some sports pics I took on a Canon 75-300 non USM (slow focuser)
bitly.com/j3final09

I'm happy enough with the results. I think the 40d and better noise handling /focusing has helped here.

I have a feeling the sigma 70-300 APO would do an even better job - for cheap money

Another chap was at the same match with a £1500 70-200is canon lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tompdaly/sets/72157616592008397/

You can see the comparison.

However that IS comes at a cost of about £400. Is it worth it in this scenario shooting at 1/400. Does it even get a chance to kick in?

Hope some of this is helpful.
Link to my cheapy lens: http://url.ie/1g5l

wersal gummage

howitzer,

there was a thread on this the other day. somebody on here has one of those lenses.

i think they point they were making was that a filter costs about 120 quid:rolleyes:

but if you do a search you might find the person and be able to ask them directly about it.

irish147

whiz wrote: »

Hi Guys, a few more quest, thanks for replies far

1) Shooting under Flood lights, should u be using a lens that is less than F4, in order to help get a clearer picture ?

2)As regards noise ninja, would this be better than photoshop was on some of my pics on flickr?

3) One person mentioned earlier in the thread about a sigma lens that is 120 -300 and is F2.8 constant, does anybody have any experience of this lens?

i use the sigma 120-300 mm at tennis, this week I'll be in Monaco for tennis, and I'll post some tennis images with this lens, I also use this for snooker, as the zoom is great.....

M

Ballyman

irish147 wrote: »

i use the sigma 120-300 mm at tennis, this week I'll be in Monaco for tennis, and I'll post some tennis images with this lens, I also use this for snooker, as the zoom is great.....

M

Would you recommend it over the Sigma 300mm f2.8? That zoom lens is supposed to be even sharper than the primes, if that were possible!!

Will you post an uncropped straight out of camera shot when you get back to get an idea of what it's like?

irish147

Ballyman wrote: »

Would you recommend it over the Sigma 300mm f2.8? That zoom lens is supposed to be even sharper than the primes, if that were possible!!

Will you post an uncropped straight out of camera shot when you get back to get an idea of what it's like?

here is one of the images from todays fun ..

Big Pic

Ballyman

Looks good. I'm going to buy one of them but I am torn between which one. The zoom seems handier but I can't imagine it being sharper than the prime although this looks pretty good sharpness wise and the bokeh is excellent.

Even more confused on what to do now.