Looking to upgrade but clueless - need to get further in-field for sports shooting

[cupcake1142]

I am an amateur photographer and I've only recently gotten into photography, mostly shooting soccer games. I've tried reading a bit about what the lens lengths mean and all that, but it's always explained in really confusing terms. The bottom line is that I have a Canon Rebel T3 and the lens I use for soccer games is the EFS 55-250mm IS II. It's been a great entry-level lens that has allowed me to get some nice shots, but it's a bit of work, I have to overshoot and requires a bit of luck sometimes. I am looking for a lens that will get me closer to the action further in-field so I don't have to only rely on shooting action happening near the out-of-bounds lines. It would be great if it would work in situations where objects are in motion and lighting isn't great.

What sort of lens should I upgrade to? When I browse the available lenses, I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking for, to be honest. I wouldn't want to spend $500 on a lens that is the same as the one I already have. It really needs reach a much further distance -- like 20 feet more at least, maybe? How much do I need to spend and are there any lenses anyone can recommend for under $1000, preferably closer to $500? (I also am assuming the camera body I have is fine and upgrading the lens will be the most cost-effective way of meeting my needs.)

I'd really appreciate any recommendations. I can upload some photos of mine if necessary but I figure my question is pretty self-explanatory! Thank you in advance!! :blushing:

 

[RichieT]

Hi. I have taken a couple of thousand high school soccer pictures and I can tell you what worked for me. First off, I use Nikon so I cannot help with specific canon lens. My main lens was the 70-300. With that I was able to cover about half the field. I would take the offense on one end and concentrate on defense on the other. For late games I would switch to a 70-200 2.8 sacrificing reach for better low light performance. However, these tend to be expensive. I also tried my 150-500 but felt that was to much trouble for the added reach. You didn't say if these are school games but I found by offering the coach or AD my pictures, and making sure I had good shots of all the players, I was given a lot more access to the field, including being listed as a coach to get access to championship games where access was severely limited. Hope this helps.

 

[The_Traveler]

The budget is the problem.
Long, fast lenses are grotesquely expensive.

 

[RichieT]

The budget is the problem.
Long, fast lenses are grotesquely expensive.

I agree that fast long lenses are too expensive. The canon 70-300 4-5.6 is about $650 and I found the Nikon equivalent was good enough for about 80% of the time. The 70-200 I used was a sigma for $1000.

 

[cupcake1142]

The budget is the problem.
Long, fast lenses are grotesquely expensive.

What sort of budget are we talking about? I can't upgrade the lens for less than $1,000, really? Is photography a rich person's game after all?

And no offense to the other poster, but if you own a Nikon camera and can't actually given any recommendations of zoom (or telephoto? I don't know) lenses that are a step up from the one I am using, it's not really helpful to reply. I made it pretty clear what I was looking for. I don't know what the different mm numbers mean or the specific features I am needing or can afford. I am hoping someone who knows Canon lenses might have some general ideas of good upgrade lenses and then I can research the lenses myself a bit more.

 

[table1349]

These are what I use for field sports shooting.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens 4411B002 B&H Photo Video
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens 4412B002 B&H Photo Video

They get me right were I want to be.

Of course these are the two bodies I have attached to them.

This one to one of the above lenses. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html
This one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656378-REG/Canon_3822B002_EOS_1D_Mark_IV.html usually attached to this lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

I'm not trying to put a damper on what you are wanting to do but you need to realize that sports photography is one of the most demanding form of photography there is, both on the shooter and the equipment. The kind of convenience you are looking for doesn't come cheap by any means.

 

[Tony S]

Unfortunately for shooting sports far into the field and getting great quality images it costs a lot of money. Those Canon commercials that put you right in the players face with a kit lens from the bleachers are a fairy tale.

If you are shooting soccer games during the day then you will get some reliable shots on days with decent light with the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens. On cloudy days it will still work if you crank up your ISO, you will get sharp pictures but may have to deal with a bit more noise in the image. If you shop around a while you can find a good used one at about $1000.

Now if you are looking to shoot evening or night time games you better be ready to shell out some big money, you not only will need a faster lens but also a camera body that will perform to the level of the lens. You are now talking in the $5,000+ range.

 

[cupcake1142]

I feel like these lenses have to be several steps above what I have, though. I am looking for even just one step above. The lens I am using now and make do with is $300. There isn't a lens I can "make do with" that is better than the lens I have now for under $1000? I am not looking for perfection or to be hired as a sports photographer for the New York Times, but I would like to be able to get a bit closer to the action. As it is, the lens I use now, at night I have to crank up the ISO and the pictures get a bit noisy. I don't do any post on my photos, so maybe I need to learn about processing and editing and all that. But Photoshop won't fix the fact that I can't get near the action.

How much closer in-field would something like this get me? Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

And what about this one? Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 70-200mm f/4L USM I don't understand what the numbers mean. I am using a 250mm camera and this one that's $400 more expensive is only 200mm - would that get me closer? Or is just better quality?

 

[lennon33x]

A couple of thoughts:
1.) Are you getting paid for these, or are they strictly hobby? If it's hobby that you're going for, you might want to consider the 70-300mm/75-300mm. The 75-300mm isn't particularly fast, so if you can be more patient with it, then it's a consideration. That lens runs $200ish. The 70-300mm is a USM I believe, so it should be significantly faster (other forum-ers...you're input is appreciated on this lens.) If this is a paid gig, then consider renting from someone like LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Leica, and more or Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax.

2.) Borrow Lenses and Lens Rentals sell their used gear...such as this:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Rentals
That one is pretty close to your range (in price and in necessary focal lengths). I'd highly consider saving just a few more bucks.

Another side note...I shoot with a Rebel T3 as well. It is not near as fast as you would probably like. Starting with something like a 5D Mk I and upgrading your lens to the 100-400 would probably be best, at least to start with. The T3, even with a class 10 SD card can only shoot about 3 fps (realistically...ignore what all of the literature says). KEH.com has a 5D Mark I for a steal.

I don't shoot sports, and I'm not sure I would like it. I spend more time on natural light and edgy flashes...but definitely things to consider.

Good Luck

 

[lennon33x]

I also looked into a DoF calculator and your subject, at 10 meters away, with an f-stop of 22 and shooting at a 400mm focal length, would only have about 0.5 m to be sharp. Meaning that your subject could only go .25 meters away from you and .25 meters towards you to be in focus. If you upgraded to a 5D, it would almost double your subject distance, meaning you have more play with your distance from you.

Look at this to consider your lens and camera:
Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

[table1349]

I also looked into a DoF calculator and your subject, at 10 meters away, with an f-stop of 22 and shooting at a 400mm focal length, would only have about 0.5 m to be sharp. Meaning that your subject could only go .25 meters away from you and .25 meters towards you to be in focus. If you upgraded to a 5D, it would almost double your subject distance, meaning you have more play with your distance from you.

Look at this to consider your lens and camera:
Online Depth of Field Calculator

A few points.
One if you are shooting at f22 you are not taking sports shots, just snapshots.
Second, if you are 10 meters away from the action, you are on not where you should be since you would be on the field of play.
Finally, if you are shooting at 10 meters you are getting a head shot. Not a lot of action in a head shot.

 

[lennon33x]

I also looked into a DoF calculator and your subject, at 10 meters away, with an f-stop of 22 and shooting at a 400mm focal length, would only have about 0.5 m to be sharp. Meaning that your subject could only go .25 meters away from you and .25 meters towards you to be in focus. If you upgraded to a 5D, it would almost double your subject distance, meaning you have more play with your distance from you.

Look at this to consider your lens and camera:
Online Depth of Field Calculator

A few points.
One if you are shooting at f22 you are not taking sports shots, just snapshots.
Second, if you are 10 meters away from the action, you are on not where you should be since you would be on the field of play.
Finally, if you are shooting at 10 meters you are getting a head shot. Not a lot of action in a head shot.

My example was just that, an example. Even if I changed the parameters to f/11, focal length 100mm, subject still at 10 meters, there really isn't a lot of play in focus. My point was to prove that the T3 is not a great camera to shoot sports work, or at least high-speed (high school, college, pro) work. The 5D almost doubles to focus area.

 

[KmH]

Yep!
At 30 feet away (10m) I would likely be using my 24-85 mm lens, not 100 mm.

I shot action sports with 3 lenses, and 3 camera bodies.
The lenses were the:
24-85 mm f/2.8-4
80-200 mm f/2.8
200-400 f/4

For daytime outdoor field sports, consider the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Or the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Fast long reach lenses are very expensive, because the glass has to be quite a bit larger to accommodate the larger maximum lens aperture.
In other words, the fast long reach lens cost factor is mainly about lens optics physics.

 

[lennon33x]

I digress...shouldn't the OP consider upgrading the body instead of the lens?

 

[KmH]

Not when reach is the issue.