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

[lambertpix]

I've got the Canon 70-300 IS USM -- I switched to this lens from the 55-250. I think it's an improvement, both in reach and in quality, but only marginally. If you're looking for something a little better than what you've got, that'll be a step in the right direction. If you're looking for something a *lot* better than what you've got, you'll need an extra zero or so on your budget.

The 70-300 isn't super-fast at f/5.6 at 300mm, and I've found it to be slightly soft wide-open and zoomed-in, so plan on stopping down to f/7.1 or so. At that aperture, you'll be glad you're shooting outdoors, because you'll need all the light you can get. I've used this lens to shoot swim meets, for instance, and it's really, really hard to get anything decent with indoor lighting -- you really need to be closer to f/2.8, which is pricy glass at that length. This lens has a two-mode IS, which is great for panning -- but only if you pay attention to what you're doing and set the IS mode correctly ahead of time. I've used that mode with some success shooting cars, but I doubt it would do you much good for soccer.

All things being equal, if you can't get a super-fast lens, you might find you'd benefit from positioning yourself close to where you expect some action, then do a great job with the stuff that happens near you -- forget about the stuff that's out of reach.

 

[lennon33x]

If s/he's shooting with a 55-250mm, why is reach the issue? At the widest aperture, the depth of field should be plenty. My estimation is that speed of the lens/camera are inhibiting good shots.

 

[Derrel]

The 55-250 is at the low end. I'd say that a Canon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 is a full "step up" from what you have; it's probably the best 70-300 on the market; the Sigma 70-300mm APO model is similar, not quite a s good, but lower-priced, and "decent" from what I have seen. It would be a step-up as well.

I think the next lens up would be one of three lenses. A good one would be the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM from Sigma. It's 100 to 300mm and f/4 all the way, discontinued maybe a year or two ago I think. I have one in Nikon mount, and on a crop-frame body, I used to use it reasonably well. From every account I have read, it "seems" to be better in Canon mount than in Nikon mount, due to focusing system differences that Nikon implemented in the D200 and newer generation cameras. Focus on mine was fast, but as I said, IN NIKON fit, it had occasional focus hunting issues on the D2x...my copy was "Older" and pre-dated that AF system for my mount.

The Canon 100-400-L series USM is an okay daylight soccer lens, from what I've heard...I've shot one a bit, but not on soccer...I think focus on it is a bit slow(ish), but you're at "distance", so that's a bit better. Sigma also made an 80-400 OS, which I bought, used for a short while, then loaned to my buddy Steve, who has been using it for several seasons now on minor league baseball, and getting good shots. HE KNOWS BASEBALL (former catcher and 30+ year baseball fan) so he ALWAYS KNOWS,exactly, where the play will be, and besides, baseball's pretty predictable compared with soccer, which is much more free-wheeling and has wild swings in ball position, within seconds, back and forth.

So... 70-300mm f/4~5.6 zoom; then 100-300 f/4 EX HSM Sigma: 80-400 Sigma OS (Optical Stabilizer) or Canon 100-400 L.

I think you might be able to scrounge up a 100-300 F/4 Sigma EX lens for five bills, maybe an 80-400 Sigma OS similarly priced. But $500 is just really a low figure for a decent lens these days.

 

[cupcake1142]

Maybe examples would help. Here are some and I think they should show the limitations and problems with my camera. The U.S. national team games show basically how hard it is to shoot at night with this camera and how hard it is for photos to look sharp. Even though those shots are in focus, they don't look that great. The other shots are from a game on a very sunny day. Much easier to get clear photos, to be sure, but still a lot of problems having the camera focus correctly and still too far from the up-field action. I purposely uploaded some bad ones to show the issues I run into. (But I do like the third one from the bottom.) I always position myself at the endline next to the goal since it seems to be the only way to get the action facing me but also close to me.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/b5552c6266aa5d900d51bb4285767533/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/0964c860e58f938d5debc4c44c0aa651/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho2_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/1d6a119233a90f858d0cf31b8275c44a/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho3_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/c0cc95cdbd712c88c8034b297039153b/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho4_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/cdd346ea0ad9113f14a7a7fe1a2e2409/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho5_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/9e73999996d83ce99b451c2b879d48cc/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho6_1280.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/a367903b87235d9d575c14515da0073d/tumblr_mua6a58Lcv1s93atho7_1280.jpg

I guess there are competing problems. 1) My camera can't get very close to what's going on, so my sharpest shots are the ones closest to me, and usually the players backs are to the boundary lines. 2) The camera I have in low light situations looks noisy. On a sunny day, I can manage to take some nice shots. But soon as it starts to get a bit darker, it looks pretty bad. 3) Getting it to focus correctly on fast moving action is difficult, and whether it's manual or auto focus, or manual or auto selection. (You should be able to see all the file data about the settings I was using if you download them.)

I still manage to get some decent photos. Out of maybe 800, I'll pick 30 photos I really like. And out of that list of three problems, #2 isn't as important (I can cross my fingers for afternoon games, I suppose.) I guess maybe I should open the question up and ask what might be the most cost-effective way to get better photos? My current camera and lens were a Christmas gift last year. I was hoping to see if I could get an upgrade lens as another Christmas gift this year, since I'm not exactly rich and I am lucky enough to have family who can afford nice gifts and enjoy giving them, haha.

Thanks again. I really appreciate the help.

 

[lennon33x]

These shots aren't bad. What I (personally) think is that your "reach" is fine, but that your exposure and focus seem to be off. Have you considered back button focusing. With the T3, it can be especially slow to focus using the shutter button. The concept with back button focusing allows you to use a button on the back of the camera to focus then you can snap away with as many pictures as possible without having to refocus every time. Again, I think that the limitations of the noisy high ISO on the T3 is a disadvantage of sport shooters.

 

[The_Traveler]

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?

The next time and money you spend should be learning about your camera and learning how to do post-processing. No matter what lenses and bodies you buy, you will be up against the lack of knowledge and the inevitability of having to edit pictures to make them fulfill their potential.

 

[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?

The next time and money you spend should be learning about your camera and learning how to do post-processing. No matter what lenses and bodies you buy, you will be up against the lack of knowledge and the inevitability of having to edit pictures to make them fulfill their potential.

If you read my first post, you'd see that I said I have tried to read up on the camera lens lengths etc. but it's always confusing because they explain it in technical terms and not results oriented explanations that helps me understand what is better or worse than my current lens (x lens will be better at y than x lens). That's why I am here. Duh. The post-processing issue is a separate issue. I want to take better photographs, period. I can learn more about photo editing separately and, if necessary, open a new thread elsewhere. Instead of scolding judgements, can we just answer the question about lenses, please?

 

[lennon33x]

Essentially, the lower the number, the wider the shot. The higher the number, the tighter, or more zoomed in on the subject you'll be. For example, you can stand 10 ft from a subject and use the 18 mm length of a zoom lens. You will get a lot of the scenery and most of the subject. But if you use a 70mm focal length, you might only get the subject's face.

It honestly really depends on how much of the action you want, and how much of the subject you want in the picture. The 55-250mm that you have (correct me if I'm wrong on the length), should be plenty of distance.

 

[lennon33x]

Watch this video

 

[Derrel]

Your shots are better than what I expected, by far. On three of the frames, the camera has "back-focused"...meaning, focused way behind the subjects...the crowd, being made up of many colored shirts, and lots of detail, is a strong, contrasty subject to a camera-brain. STRONG, large patterns,like chain link fencing, or hundreds of stadium seats, make a very strong "pattern", with tons of "detail", and detail is what autofocusing sensors tend to lock onto. Especially if the camera is allowed to select the autofocusing point or points in use.

If you owned a faster lens, one with a wider aperture, your lower-light shots would be better exposed. I think you show real potential, but you are working with beginner-level equipment. I can see potential and ability is already in you. If you were to be handed a pro-level Nikon or Canon, and a high-grade lens, your photos would improve immensely. After a month of using a higher-end LENS, just a higher-end LENS on your current camera, your issues would be fewer, and your images better, technically, and probably artistically as well.

I've shot with low-end Rebels, Nikon D40, Fuji S1 Pro (one of the cheesiest, and simply slowest, clunkiest, and WORST d-slrs ever made), as well as intermediate,prosumer cameras, as well as four different models of Nikon 1-,2-,and 3-series bodies, and lenses from consumer, prosumer, and top-level pro-grade. In 'action" shooting, especially in poorer light, the tools make up a HUGE part of the results and in tough situations, are VERY important. Especially when shooting after sunset, under the lights. Or when shooting fast, distant action.

f/5.6 telephoto lenses suck. They make autofocus only marginally workable, and kill your exposures with a low-end body. You could actually utilize a good lens, right now.

 

[The_Traveler]

If you read my first post, you'd see that I said I have tried to read up on the camera lens lengths etc. but it's always confusing because they explain it in technical terms and not results oriented explanations that helps me understand what is better or worse than my current lens (x lens will be better at y than x lens). That's why I am here. Duh. The post-processing issue is a separate issue. I want to take better photographs, period. I can learn more about photo editing separately and, if necessary, open a new thread elsewhere. Instead of scolding judgements, can we just answer the question about lenses, please?

I'm telling you enlarge your scope of understanding so you can make better photos instead of spending money in a futile attempt to buy quality results.
If you know post-processing, you can shoot in lower light conditions and still get acceptable results.
If you know some post-processing, you can rescue shots that are under-exposed or too contrasty because of harsh light.

What is interesting is that you admit you don't know much and yet you think you know the best way to get better results.
I'm saying that you don't.

 

[Derrel]

The_Traveler is right in some ways, but he is also ignoring the fact that your lens is, politely, a P.O.S., cheap, kit-grade zoom lens...made with Canon's bottom-run focusing system. Slow focus, and slow-to-recover focus problems. A double-whammy on a sports lens.

From this review:Review of the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II lens - LENSTESTS

"The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II uses an old style micro-motor for autofocus operation rather than the better ultra sonic motors (USM). This is a pity and probably the lens's weakest spot. Why should that bother you? Well as mentioned the lens is great for wildlife and sports but in this type of photography the subjects are usually moving a lot. The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II's autofocus is very accurate but also very slow - especially in the tele range. I tried following a low-flying bird to no avail because whenever the autofocus locked on something in the background it just took forever to get the subject back in focus again."

Your samples show a severe issue with back-focusing.

"When using the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II at 200 mm or 300 mm (effective) you will have to cope with a bit of curvature of the focal plane. That means that the ideal focus setting differs for objects that are in the center and for those that are in the corner of the image. Either of the two can be in perfect focus but not both at the same time. You can help it by choosing higher f-stops. The predecessor lens EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS has a slightly better (less) curvature of the focal plane but shows its weaknesses at the same focal lengths."

"The micro motor autofocus used is accurate but slow which makes it difficult to use on fast moving targets. Focus motors of this type also don't allow you to override the autofocus manually unless you set the lens to MF mode first. The aperture range of the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II is mediocre and can make early morning or late evening wildlife shots rather difficult but that is to be expected of a lens in this price range."

 

[grafxman]

The very inexpensive way to achieve greater reach is to use a teleconverter. Kenko's Teleplus PRO 300 DGX series is available in 1.4 and 2.0 powers. They can often be found used for a reasonable price such as this 2X one:

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Lens-Converters/1/sku-CE10999124438N?r=FE

They come with severe limitations as to flexibility though. They slow down the lens speed and they typically won't autofocus unless three pins are taped. Sometimes they still won't autofocus. They will slightly or sometimes significantly degrade the image quality. Only you can determine if you can tolerate the limitations. However many people use them on all makes of cameras and are very happy with them. I've used Sigma Teleconverters on my Sigma lenses and have been reasonably pleased with the results.

 

[lambertpix]

Would it be crazy to consider something like Canon's 70-200 f/4? It's got slightly less reach than the 55-250, but it's optically a lot nicer, it's probably sharper wide open than the 55-250 stopped down, and the focus motor is fast. I've seen these used or refurbished in the $500 range, so it's much more affordable than the f/2.8 versions of this lens. It's still not going to be the ideal lens for sporting events, but it might be a step in the right direction. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 that Darrel mentioned sounded like an interesting option, too, but I think that's going to wind up being closer to $900. Just a thought....

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well fully prepared to have vegetables hurled in my direction - but.. I don't use a DSLR for sports shooting. I use a bridge camera. Yup.. total soccer mom camera. Panasonic FZ200 is my preferred weapon of choice for softball and football games. 600 mm zoom with F2.8 all the way out to 600 mm is just too hard to beat. Yes, I own a DSLR - and yes I do like the larger sensor camera for a lot of things, but for sports shooting it can't compare with my FZ200, not unless I go out and dump 5 or 6 grand on a lens that I'll need a forklift to carry around. So let the veggie hurling begin I guess, but when it comes to sports shooting I'll stick with my FZ200. Until I win the lottery. Then maybe.. lol