Sports Photography Lens

[ang]

Can you recommend a size lens for sports photography. What focal length would you recommend? I already have an 28-90mm and I can only spend about $500 at this time. I'm thinking 100-300 or should I go to 400mm. I'm only doing local, high school college athletics.

 

[LizM]

Get a 400 if you can afford it - but make sure it has a small F stop so it can get the most light possible!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Big Mike]

It really depends what sports you are shooting. Basketball wouldn't require as long a lens as football or soccer or other field sports.

Indoor venues like gymnasiums are notorious for poor lighting. You may not think it's that dark but when you want to shoot at 1/250 or 1/500 to freeze the action...you will need a large aperture.

This is why pro sports shooters use big expensive lenses. Often with a mono-pod to help keep it steady and so they don't have to hold the weight constantly.

There are a lot more variables depending on the sport you are shooting, the location you can get to and the lighting available. Fill us in on some details.

 

[Jeff Canes]

I agree 100% with Mike, my person sports shooting experiences is with collage baseball and very little football, using a 10d with 70-200 and 2X handed head and on a monopod, this setup work good for shooting the batter and infielders up to about 100 feet or so with good day light

You example of my work with this camera and lens set
baseball http://www.pbase.com/jjarboe1/canebaseball
football http://community.webshots.com/album/135482469YGFxTi

 

[Sharkbait]

Yup, I'll 2nd what everyone else has said. I shoot hockey games inside and soccer games outside. For the indoors stuff I've got a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. For the outdoors stuff I've got a Canon 75-300 f4-5.6. The smaller aperture on the Canon lens isn't a big deal outside during daylight, but at night or inside, you really need that f2.8. Problem is, those 2.8 lenses are very expensive. My 70-200 was $525 used. To go up to a 400 or 500 mm f2.8, you're looking at around $4000-$6000. :shock:

 

[ang]

Shark,
What speed film do you typically use with your 2.8 indoors/night? How about your 5.6 outdoors?

 

[Jeff Canes]

Ang, I believe Mike, Shark and I all use the Rebel D or 10D

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Can you recommend a size lens for sports photography. What focal length would you recommend? I already have an 28-90mm and I can only spend about $500 at this time. I'm thinking 100-300 or should I go to 400mm. I'm only doing local, high school college athletics.

What system do you shoot?

You'd need 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x tele. That's unless you have 5 grand to get anything even slightly faster. :cry:

 

[Sharkbait]

Shark,
What speed film do you typically use with your 2.8 indoors/night? How about your 5.6 outdoors?

As Jeff mentioned, I'm shooting a digital--Canon 300d. I typically run ISO 100 or 200 for outdoor stuff, and have yet to give the f2.8 lens a real shakedown on indoors--hockey season starts up around here in a couple weeks. It draws so much light though I'm pretty sure I can shoot ISO 100 and might have to increase exposure by a stop or so, if that. I've shot that f2.8 outdoors at dusk (would need headlights on on the car kind of lighting) and was at ISO100 and still had shutters of 1/250s or higher. :shock:

 

[ang]

Doc

I'm using Nikon 35mm N65. I wish I had 5 grand to spend on a lens.

So it seems that 2.8 is the key, even if I'm shooting daytime.

I'm assuming your refering to a 1.4 tele extender. Will that reduce the quality of the photo?

Ang

 

[ang]

Maybe I should have asked this question:

Which would you rather have for sports photography?

2.8 70-200mm

or

4.5-5.6 100-400mm

 

[Sharkbait]

Maybe I should have asked this question:

Which would you rather have for sports photography?

2.8 70-200mm

or

4.5-5.6 100-400mm

I really think it depends on whether you're shooting inside or outside. If you're outside in daylight, that 100-400 would be great. Inside though you'd really need the larger aperture of the 2.8, even if it's at a sacrifice of focal length.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I really think it depends on whether you're shooting inside or outside. If you're outside in daylight, that 100-400 would be great. Inside though you'd really need the larger aperture of the 2.8, even if it's at a sacrifice of focal length.

What he said ^

I'm assuming your refering to a 1.4 tele extender. Will that reduce the quality of the photo?

Yes. Definitely.

But usually not by much and it still increases the effective resolution of the final image. Note that with the 1.4 extender you'll lose 1 stop of light. With 2x extender 2 stops.

From what I heard, the 2x extender will reduce the quality significantly, while 1.4 won't...

If you're sure that all of the sports you're shooting are held outside, on a sunny day between 10 and 4 then get 100-400.

If not, then you'll suffer because the lens is not fast enough.