200mm for Sports?

[shaunly]

versatility

Your legs make it versatile

Your legs aren't allowed on the court or field and cant swim well (ocean) etc...

Thank you .... or step back so far into the stand to get group photos

 

[shaunly]

Here are a few shots I did in the spring of 2006, using a 200mm prime lens. These are sharpened for newsprint reproduction, so they have a bit of "tooth".

_DSC5965_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5884_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5743_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5643_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5856_for newsprint.jpgg.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

Nice photos!

 

[gsgary]

versatility

Your legs make it versatile

Your legs aren't allowed on the court or field and cant swim well (ocean) etc...

He wouldn't have to go on the field or court, you wait for the action to get closer, i never had a problem before i got my 300F2.8 still got the 200 would never sell it fantastic on a 5D
ISO3200

 

[shaunly]

Your legs make it versatile

Your legs aren't allowed on the court or field and cant swim well (ocean) etc...

He wouldn't have to go on the field or court, you wait for the action to get closer, i never had a problem before i got my 300F2.8 still got the 200 would never sell it fantastic on a 5D
ISO3200

Your example photo is useless. The guy is obviously stationary, so yea a prime is ideal here. What if you can't step back and you need to grab the whole stage? Now what? The suggestion was that if he is going to only have ONE telephoto, it's best that he get the 70-200 for it's versatility. No doubt that any telephoto prime is great but it's not ideal when you need it to do multiple things.

 

[gsgary]

Your legs aren't allowed on the court or field and cant swim well (ocean) etc...

He wouldn't have to go on the field or court, you wait for the action to get closer, i never had a problem before i got my 300F2.8 still got the 200 would never sell it fantastic on a 5D
ISO3200

Your example photo is useless. The guy is obviously stationary, so yea a prime is ideal here. What if you can't step back and you need to grab the whole stage? Now what? The suggestion was that if he is going to only have ONE telephoto, it's best that he get the 70-200 for it's versatility. No doubt that any telephoto prime is great but it's not ideal when you need it to do multiple things.

Easy i move back a bit

or change cameras

 

[shaunly]

EXACTLY! you had to either MOVE back or CHANGE CAMERA. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a BUDGET and can only buy ONE lens.

 

[gsgary]

EXACTLY! you had to either MOVE back or CHANGE CAMERA. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a BUDGET and can only buy ONE lens.

Yes thats why he is thinking of getting the 200mm instead of the 70-200 a 200mm prime is not a problem shooting sport, i shoot sports and print on site and don't have a problem if i need a zoom i use my 70-200F4 which is perfect for daytime shooting equestrian

 

[Derrel]

This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies. The 200mm f/2.8 is available used in the $650-$675 range (there's one for sale right now on TPF), whereas the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon zooms are fairly costly. In terms of flexibility, the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon is a fast-focusing lens with very good image quality. Sigma makes a decent 100-300mm f/4 HSM lens that is also a nice compromise on weight, price, AND focal length range.

Personally, I'd take the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma over just the plain 200mm f/2.8 Canon in terms of versatility for the most different types of sports assignments. The 100-300 f/4 is pretty handy for baseball and soccer, and handy for track and field also. It's nice to have the shorter end, the 100mm to 200mm zone, as well as also having the longer reach from 200mm to 300mm WITHOUT needing a telephoto converter.

The Canon 135mm f/2-L is fast enough that it can accept a 1.4x converter and make a decent longer lens for many uses.

 

[shaunly]

EXACTLY! you had to either MOVE back or CHANGE CAMERA. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a BUDGET and can only buy ONE lens.

Yes thats why he is thinking of getting the 200mm instead of the 70-200 a 200mm prime is not a problem shooting sport, i shoot sports and print on site and don't have a problem if i need a zoom i use my 70-200F4 which is perfect for daytime shooting equestrian

See exactly, you already have a 70-200, so the next thing would be a 200/300 prime. You have option, where the OP does not, so the best thing for him right now is to get a lens with versatile. I don't understand how you can argue with that.

 

[prodigy2k7]

EXACTLY! you had to either MOVE back or CHANGE CAMERA. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a BUDGET and can only buy ONE lens.

Yes thats why he is thinking of getting the 200mm instead of the 70-200 a 200mm prime is not a problem shooting sport, i shoot sports and print on site and don't have a problem if i need a zoom i use my 70-200F4 which is perfect for daytime shooting equestrian

See exactly, you already have a 70-200, so the next thing would be a 200/300 prime. You have option, where the OP does not, so the best thing for him right now is to get a lens with versatile. I don't understand how you can argue with that.

I agree, start with more versatile lenses, gets you a better idea with what focal lengths you can work with. Then if you want, start accumulating primes for the focal lengths you often use, and bodies to use them on. For sports photographers, I often see two bodies, a large prime on a monopod or tripod, and a 70-200 on a body around their neck.

 

[table1349]

Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?

To answer your question. Yes the Canon 200mm f2.8L is a good lens for sports. Sharp optics, fast focus. I shoot sports. I have it and the 200mm f2.0 and I use both. Two different beasts. The 200 f2.8 is one of Canon's hidden gems in L glass. Well built, sharp and cheap. Much cheaper than the f2.0L. :mrgreen:

Is it as others have pointed out, not as versatile as a zoom, but as you pointed out the price is great. It comes down to what you can afford or what you are willing to spend.

I would suggest, depending on what sports you shoot, that you stick with nothing slower than f2.8 glass unless you are only shooting daytime outdoor sports. Inside and under the lights, even at the NCAA Division 1 level f2.8 is pretty much a must.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com :lmao:

All this talk about 200mm f/2.0 has got me looking. Damn you guys! My wife is tired of hearing "this is the last lens I need, I promise"

 

[prodigy2k7]

Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com :lmao:

All this talk about 200mm f/2.0 has got me looking. Damn you guys! My wife is tired of hearing "this is the last lens I need, I promise"

LOL I saw that photo but didnt notice the guys face on the right...that is LOL!

 

[IDLaxStar]

What I was thinking though is that I will be able to get sharper better images with the 200 prime. I will have to work around it being a prime but with football being my main sport I shoot it would be easy to move around on the sidelines. I could always have myself positioned in a good place before every snap and such right?

 

[Derrel]

Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com :lmao:

All this talk about 200mm f/2.0 has got me looking. Damn you guys! My wife is tired of hearing "this is the last lens I need, I promise"

LOL I saw that photo but didnt notice the guys face on the right...that is LOL!

Yeah...that's kinda' what the shot is 'about'...the look of the guy in 2nd place as he focuses on the hurdle ahead of him...