Advise on Equipment/Lenses

[ORphotoGUY]

OK, so I need some help and hope somebody with experience can do so.

I like Canon, not sure why... but I just buy allot of that brand and use a Mac and it has always worked well.

I am looking at 60D or 7D and I plan on taking pictures during soccer games, so I was looking at the 70-200 2.8. I also want to take pictures of small products for a website our business has, and have looked at the 100 2.8 macro.

In the last week I have run across the Sony a55 DSLR and their 70-200 2.8

On a soccer field is 200 enough? do I really need the F2.8?

Hoping some of you out there can help me out, or suggest something else.

Thanks.

 

[Overread19]

For sports work if you can afford it I would go for the 7D for its more advanced and improved AF system over that in the 50D. However if it comes to a choice I wouldn't hesitate to go for the 50D and instead put a bit more funding into a good lens.

The 70-200mm f2.8 has 3 variations - the normal, the IS edition and the IS M2 edition - which one of the 3 are you considering purchasing?

As a general point yes you will need f2.8 for when the light is dimmer and you still need a fast shutter speed. In addition a 70-200mm is a good choice, however you might well find it too short at times. Additional options would be:

100-400mm - not as fast, but a similar ish price; it won't give you the ideal apertures to work with, but gives you the versatility of focal lengths in a single lens

Sigma 120-300mm - there are a few versions of this lens, the original and the newer (more expensive) OS edition. This would be the ideal single lens choice in my view since it gives you the focal ranges most used whilst retaining a single lens operation.


Additional options would be best served with 2 bodies rather than a single one since they involve adding a longer prime lens to your setup (thus if you have two cameras you can swap between the two very fast). These would well support the 70-200mm which is a very good overall range.

1) Canon 300mm f4 IS L/Canon 400mm f5.6 L - not the fastest ideal apertures, but they are more budget friendly and give you a good long reach for the field

2) Canon 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8- this is somewhat jumping up the prices a lot, but this is the idea gear if you can work toward/afford it.

In the end a lot of this depends upon how much you can initially invest and how much you can expect to be able to put toward further purchases as well as how fast. You need to consider your current needs as well as your possible future investments to best plan your approach.

 

[KmH]

I shot soccer from the end lines near the goal, in daylight only, using a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras mounted on a monopod, an 80-200 mm f/2.8 lens on a second body, and a 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 lens on a 3rd camera body.

Though I use Nikon cameras and lenses made for the Nikon mount.

70 mm is to long for the close in shots and 200 mm is not enough for the long shots.

Shooting from the sideline sucks, because to capture faces and emotion you have to run up and down the sidelines for the whole game.

Shooting from the end line you shoot the players as they approach you and you can easily capture their faces and emotions.

 

[ORphotoGUY]

Do you have any examples of your soccer shots with the 150 to 500. I was just on SIgmas site and saw the 50-500 4.5-6.3 and was thinking about looking into it and have never looked at Sigma Lenses

I shot soccer from the end lines near the goal, in daylight only, using a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras mounted on a monopod, an 80-200 mm f/2.8 lens on a second body, and a 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 lens on a 3rd camera body.

Though I use Nikon cameras and lenses made for the Nikon mount.

70 mm is to long for the close in shots and 200 mm is not enough for the long shots.

Shooting from the sideline sucks, because to capture faces and emotion you have to run up and down the sidelines for the whole game.

Shooting from the end line you shoot the players as they approach you and you can easily capture their faces and emotions.

 

[KmH]

The new 50-500 with OS has slightly better image quality the the 150-500 f/5-6,3 , but it costs more too.

By the way the 50-500 will be at or near f/5 at 150 mm too.

This shot was made on an ovecast day with the Sigma150-500. EXIF data is intact. phot is SOOC, Raw converted straight to JPEG for posting.
ISO 200
1/400
f/6.3
500 mm

Basic edits, 8x10 crop;

 

[jaomul]

You mentioned the Sony and a 70-200mm 2.8. By all accounts a great camera and fast focus etc, with that added bonus of built in IS. No matter what lens you get the will be a down side. The 50-500 sigma has massive range but is very heavy and relatively slow. There is discussion often about built in IS but no one will argue that it is better than no IS. If you go the Canon route with IS lenses it may be your best option but at a cost. The Sony seems like a good option, a fast lens, IS. If you could add a 1.4 teleconverter to this you may be set, though I font think you will feel 200 mm is really that restrictive

 

[penfolderoldo]

For soccer (or any anything fast moving to be honest) the 7D wins hands down over the 60D. The 70 - 200 2.8 will get you some stunning shots, even in low light, so you really need to keep the 2.8 option if you can. A fair chunk of my work's soccer, and I use a 7D with a Sigma 300 2.8 (sometimes with a converter) and a 1Ds mark III with the 70 - 200 non IS 2.8. I'm so impressed with the 7D i've ordered a 2nd body. With the crop factor, the 300 effectively acts like a 480 2.8, and the 70 - 200 becomes a 112 - 320, so I think before splashing out on a 300/400 2.8 i'd try out the 70 - 200 and see how you get on.