Youth Sports - best lense to buy?

HeatherO71 · Mar 26, 2014

My son plays ice hockey and baseball. I am looking for a lense or lenses that won't break the bank ($1k +) but will take good close-ups and action shots. I shoot with a Cannon 50D.

grafxman · Mar 26, 2014

I don't photograph hockey or baseball however I take a lot of wildlife photos. I don't think you can beat the Sigma 50-500mm. It focuses close, under 4 feet, at 500mm so you'll be able to get very intimate photographs. At 50mm it's almost wide angle for indoor stuff. At 500mm it'll bring the outfield and the bases in close. I don't think you can make a better choice for the activities you describe. It works great on all my Canons. I hope this helps. Good luck.

ronlane · Mar 26, 2014

grafxman said:
I don't photograph hockey or baseball however I take a lot of wildlife photos. I don't think you can beat the Sigma 50-500mm. It focuses close, under 4 feet, at 500mm so you'll be able to get very intimate photographs. At 50mm it's almost wide angle for indoor stuff. At 500mm it'll bring the outfield and the bases in close. I don't think you can make a better choice for the activities you describe. It works great on all my Canons. I hope this helps. Good luck.

what is the f stop on that 50-500? The hockey could be in some tough lighting conditions and a slow lens probably won't cut the mustard. (Same with any night/evening baseball games.) You are going to want to get, if possible an f/2.8 lens, but You probably won't find one that comes in under $1K unless you find a heck of a deal on a used lens.

D-B-J · Mar 26, 2014

A 70-200 2.8-- it will work well in an ice-arena and out on the diamond. Grab a used canon one, or a sigma/tamron one. I'm not a canon shooter so I can't chime in on specifics, but you will NEED 2.8 for shooting inside a hockey arena (f4 just won't cut it, really).

Best,
Jake

grafxman · Mar 26, 2014

I've never felt the need for a fast lens. Its all about shutter speed and ISO level. I allow the camera to select the ISO. Shots such as this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8430595573/in/set-72157632649257185 shot at f10 in a dense jungle

and this one of underwater manatees in black water:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8431811172/in/set-72157632649257185 shot at f6.3

and this one shot up close at 450mm:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8191202082/in/set-72157632025033268 shot at f10

All of these photos were shot in very dark conditions. Canon's basic DPP software that comes with Canon cameras can easily brighten up all but the darkest photos. It also does a pretty good job of getting rid of noise. A lens that goes no higher than 200mm will not allow the user to fill the frame unless the target is very close. The user will have to crop many if not all photos resulting in a lot of work and probably poor quality photos after cropping. Use a lens that allows one to fill the screen with the item of interest simplifies everything and is very quick as well as convenient.

Derrel · Mar 26, 2014

Go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as a good all-around zoom lens. It has adequate lens speed (f/2.8) for poor indoor light. I've used the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 for many events over the last 10 years, and it's a good lens. I have the Canon "Mark I" version with Image Stabilizer or "IS", and while IS is nice, the non-IS, "Mark One" 70-200mm f/2.8 is available used for around $1,000, and that would be the lens I'd suggest. The newer Mark Two version 70-200 f/2.8 is very expensive.

For baseball a 70-200mm lens is too short for the outfield, but is about right for infield shots when shooting from right behind the batter, or from the third base or first base areas. You will need to crop some to get tight shots of outfield action.

KmH · Mar 26, 2014

The has-no-IS lens Derrel and I recommend getting a good used copy of - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
Using good camera handling/holding technique will more than make up for the lack of IS.

table1349 · Mar 26, 2014

grafxman said:
I've never felt the need for a fast lens. Its all about shutter speed and ISO level. I allow the camera to select the ISO. Shots such as this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8430595573/in/set-72157632649257185 shot at f10 in a dense jungle

and this one of underwater manatees in black water:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8431811172/in/set-72157632649257185 shot at f6.3

and this one shot up close at 450mm:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80431173@N00/8191202082/in/set-72157632025033268 shot at f10

All of these photos were shot in very dark conditions. Canon's basic DPP software that comes with Canon cameras can easily brighten up all but the darkest photos. It also does a pretty good job of getting rid of noise. A lens that goes no higher than 200mm will not allow the user to fill the frame unless the target is very close. The user will have to crop many if not all photos resulting in a lot of work and probably poor quality photos after cropping. Use a lens that allows one to fill the screen with the item of interest simplifies everything and is very quick as well as convenient.

Not one of them is a sports shot and none are were shot in an inside environment. There is more to taking a good sports photograph than just letting the ISO run wild. I shoot sport, and have for 40 years. Sports photography is not all about shutter speed and ISO. It is the proper combination of all three.

A good sports shot is taken at largest aperture possible and still have the minimum DOF to capture the action. Everything else not on the exact plane of field as the action should be out of focus. Shooting at f6.3 or f10 at the distances the OP will have to shoot from with not get him a sports shot, just sports snapshots. Good sports photography requires fast glass especially indoors. The lighting is poor and the action is fast.

To the OP a Derrel suggested, look for a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 or perhaps a 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma. Darrel is correct, the 70-200 is going to be a bit short for the outfield, but a 400mm f2.8 will run you 7k+. Like I said, I shoot sports and in my lens lineup is a 200mm f2.0, 300mm f2.8 & 400mm f2.8. They are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Sports shooters just don't own glass slower than f2.8 for the very reasons I have outlined.

As for shutter speeds this chart might help you as well.

Braineack · Mar 26, 2014

One could get the tamron vc used for roughly the same price. Fwiw.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

BillM · Mar 26, 2014

You are getting some good advice, a 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent choice for your budget. The f/2.8 is really going to be needed for shooting in a rink and on a crop body you'll have plenty of reach.

It will work great for baseball too, 300 to 400 MM would be better but as already mentioned price is an issue with those. You could always get a 300 f/4 for outdoor sports later if you still feel the need. Just remember to keep one eye on the puck or ball too, those things hurt :wink:

manicmike · Mar 26, 2014

Braineack said:
One could get the tamron vc used for roughly the same price. Fwiw.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

I second this opinion.

table1349 · Mar 26, 2014

Just curious about the Tamron, have either of you shot that lens? I haven't so I didn't recommend it since I don't know what the focus speed was like. I own the Canon and have shot the Sigma. If the Tamron can keep up then it is another lens I will start recommending.

Braineack · Mar 26, 2014

Not on a canon but are plenty of canon users that love it

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

robbins.photo · Mar 26, 2014

I would agree with the 70-200 mm 2.8 recommendation and would add a 2x teleconverter for when your shooting outdoors in good light. I use a similar setup for my nikon and it is a great combination

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk