Best Lenses to purchase for sporting photography?

Rob · Oct 11, 2005

Yeah, what Doc said is especially true of the UK. It's getting to the time of year here where the light is only "good" at dawn. Evening local footie matches are almost always done at dusk under crappy floodlights or first thing on a cold morning brrrrr.

And he's virtually up North in Birmingham

Rob

usayit · Oct 11, 2005

If the final print is on newspaper, does it really matter if the pictures are grainy? I say crank up the ISO to 1600 or 3200 and focus on content. Doesn't matter if the final print is low quality B&W on newspaper.

If by "newspaper" he means a magazine like Sports Illustrated or something like that, then you are going to need some expensive glass.

Marctwo · Oct 11, 2005

People don't really want to see general pictures of football matches - we all know what they look like. We want to see initimate close-ups of elbows in faces, crunching tackles and the facial expressions that go with them.

200mm (320 equiv.) will leave you way short - even if it is the best lens in the world.

It may be a good idea to see if you can hire a couple of lenses for a match then you can get some first-hand idea of what works best for you. You may even sell a picture or two and cover your costs.

Sigma do a 50-500mm (80-800 equiv) which would be a good zoom range. They're most likely too expensive to buy but it may be worth hiring one now and then.

thebeginning · Oct 11, 2005

well, that's a nice idea, but if you're going to rent a lens you might as well rent a top quality one (not saying anything bad about the bigma). You may want to try renting something like the the 500 f4 if you decide on renting. like i said before, it all really depends on how close to the action you are. in cases like this it's almost best to get a little 'too much' lens so you wont have to worry about how close you get. i agree with the statement that you can just crank the ISO if you're going to try to use it in BW newspapers.

Marctwo · Oct 11, 2005

Yes, I guess I singled out the 'bigma' because on the one hand it has the all-important big zoom range and on the other hand it's not inconceivable to save some pennies and buy one if you like it. Afterall, you can get them for less than £700 new.

DocFrankenstein · Oct 11, 2005

Yeah... with the effective aperture of 6.3 the bigma would need an ISO of about 12000 to freeze some action.

Marctwo · Oct 11, 2005

Well... that's not true though, is it! :lol:

Today is a very overcast, gloomy day in Birmingham and I've just pointed my camera at some grass at ISO 1600/f6.3 and got a respectable shutter speed of 1/350 - 1/700 @ ISO 3200. I think that would do very nicely if you're on a tight budget.

Mike Jordan · Oct 11, 2005

DocFrankenstein said:
Valid opinion. I do have to note that:

1) all sports that you've shot are held exclusively with daylight, except maybe dog shows.
2) You're in oregon, which is closer to the equator so it gets more sunlight. And has significantly less precipitation and cloud coverage than UK does. So at any time of day he'll most likely be getting 1-3 EV values less than you do. Which sucks for him.

Football games tend to be held in the evenings too... not middays.

But I sometimes wish I had f/4 instead of 2.8 It is so much lighter and more compact.

Well, yes, you could say we are closer to the equator. Oregon is at about 47 degrees or so latitude and Birmingham is at about 53 degrees. But we have a lot of mountains around us that cut down on how long the sun shines and being on the wet side of Oregon, we probably get as much rain as he gets in England. We probably even get almost as much fog in the winter as some parts over there do. In normal years, our rainy season runs from about Oct till either just before or just after the 4th of July. So in this part of Oregon at least, we don't have any edge on sunlight. His being closer to the North Pole though, gives him more sunlight in the summer than we have.

Games tend to be in the evening here as well... although most of the fields have lights, though making for harsh conditions.

I do have the advantage of this being Oregon with all of our mountains and rivers and forests and waterfalls though. That beats any old football game any day... even the English version of football. ;D

Mike

cbay · Oct 15, 2005

Well im thinking about purchasing a Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM I recon this will work wonders, as i attended a game to day with my 18-55mm and got a few gr8 shots and that got me pretty close to the action, so a 90-300mm USM will get me even closer!

What does everyone think??

DocFrankenstein · Oct 15, 2005

LOL

Did you even read the thread?

cbay · Oct 16, 2005

Hello All!

It sounds like you all thing i havent read the thread, but for the Image Stabalising Lenses, they are completely out of my price range as I only currently do it for fun as a hobby. But i went to a local football game which is the main sporting photography and saw another photographer whom actually was from the local paper, and she only had a 90-200mm and came out with some nice shots so the 90-300mm should do me fine. PLUS its in my price range..

Look i took this pitcure with my 18-55mm Lens.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32295