Sports Shooting Lens?

[Frozen]

I was wondering what focal lengths are best for sport photography(specifically mountain biking/cycling in general), I am assuming get as fast of a lens a possible. Specifically what length lens would I need to get a shot like this?

Would a lens like this(Canon EF 35mm f/2) be suitable? For longer distance right now I have a 55-250mm F4-5.6mm till I figure out what distance works the best.

Since I have this thread open would that 35mm F/2 be suitable for macro shooting since it has a minimum focus of .8 ft?

Thanks

 

[tenlientl]

Would you always be near your subjects like the picture?

When I frst read what you wanted to use it for, I was thinking you'll be in the sidelines taking photos. So I was gonna say wouldnt a zoom lens be better?

 

[DRoberts]

70-200 f/2.8 Can't go wrong.

 

[Ptyler22]

.8ft won't work very well for macro. The cheapest, but also a great lens, is the 50mm F1.8. it will only put you back about $90. and I would also go for the 70-200mm F2.8 That's what I am currently looking to buy.

 

[Village Idiot]

A lens with an aperture of f/2.8 or one with a long focal length. 100-400 or as mentioned several time, 70-200 f/2.8. They're expensive though. You're looking at at least $700 for just a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

You could buy a 70-300 but those come in variable apertures and aren't always the best quality. Then again, it's $300 vs. $1700. And the linked photo looks like the photog was using flash to get the double exposure.

 

[jwsciontc]

55-250 should do you fine, its what im getting for marching band, soccer shooting

 

[Village Idiot]

55-250 should do you fine, its what im getting for marching band, soccer shooting

Except that it's a variable aperture lens that shoots at f/4.5-5.6 and to get sharp photos, I'm pretty sure you're going to be shooting at f/7-f/9. Not exactly ideal if you're shooting in places that can be dark and not very well lit. Like in the woods, where mountain bikes go?

And IS won't help for action shots if you're compensating from f/4 to f/2.8. Shooting a fast mocing subject at 1/150 vs. 1/50 will show a big difference in motion blur.

Plus it looks like that lens only has a standard AF motor. The 70-200's, even the Sigmas, have some type of USM/HSM that allows the lens to focus much faster than the standard AF. That's a huge difference when shooting sports.

Like when I was shooting motorcycles at the local road course. Having a lens with a fast AF motor let the lens make focus adjustments between shots when I was shooting at 5fps. That's not something the standard Canon AF motors can keep up with.

So the 55-250 might not "do him fine" despite the fact that you're purchasing it for shooting a marching band and soccer.

 

[Frozen]

Would you always be near your subjects like the picture?

When I frst read what you wanted to use it for, I was thinking you'll be in the sidelines taking photos. So I was gonna say wouldnt a zoom lens be better?

There would be times that I would be within 5-10ft or less for some shots, and if I go to a race I could be farther(like 10-75ft or more). And most of the shots I would shooting would be out in the open where there is plenty of light, if I was shooting in a forest, I likely would be pretty close-up which is why I am wondering if the 35mm would be suitable.

Thanks for the replies so far!

 

[NateWagner]

well, 5-10 feet would probably be a little close for a 70-200 on a crop body. At least, you'd have difficulty getting the whole person or whatever in the shot... a detail or small portion maybe (would be tough though if they're moving).

I do want to say that I am a big proponent of the 70-200 2.8 made by sigma. The reviews all pretty much say that image quality is at or near to equal with the canon version (I can attest to this, mine is awesome (thanks keith204)). Also, it does focus very quickly, and also very quietly.

A couple other thoughts with that range is the canon 70-200 f4 (it's a bit cheaper if you can handle the loss of a stop). Tamron makes one you can get new for around the 700-800 dollar range (though it doesn't have the quiet focusing).

Canon makes a 70-300 IS which is great, but it won't stop motion blur and it's (I think) a 4-5.6 so it'll be a stop or two slower. However, I believe you can find that lens for around 700 ish.

 

[Village Idiot]

There would be times that I would be within 5-10ft or less for some shots, and if I go to a race I could be farther(like 10-75ft or more). And most of the shots I would shooting would be out in the open where there is plenty of light, if I was shooting in a forest, I likely would be pretty close-up which is why I am wondering if the 35mm would be suitable.

Thanks for the replies so far!

No, but you keep talking about it even though everyone else is recommending different lenses so it looks like you're set on it. A prime is a horrible idea for shooting in the environments you're talking about. At 75' away, you're not going to be able to make out any details in the riders.

This was shot with a 70-200 @ 200mm focal length on a crop body. The rider here was probably about 30'-40' away. @ 35mm, there's no way he would fill the frame, or have much visible detail at all.

It's you're money and you can spend it how you want, but if you're asking for suggestions, it's probably best to consider them, especially if the people you're asking for suggestions from have experience with the certain distances/types of photography you're wanting to shoot.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just the Village Idiot.

 

[Frozen]

No, but you keep talking about it even though everyone else is recommending different lenses so it looks like you're set on it. A prime is a horrible idea for shooting in the environments you're talking about. At 75' away, you're not going to be able to make out any details in the riders.

This was shot with a 70-200 @ 200mm focal length on a crop body. The rider here was probably about 30'-40' away. @ 35mm, there's no way he would fill the frame, or have much visible detail at all.

It's you're money and you can spend it how you want, but if you're asking for suggestions, it's probably best to consider them, especially if the people you're asking for suggestions from have experience with the certain distances/types of photography you're wanting to shoot.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just the Village Idiot.

Well I guess I didn't make myself clear, I am wondering for the less then 10ft, situation if the prime is a waste of time, I am not naive enough to think that from 75ft away I can get a suitable shot with a 35mm prime. I should have cut the sentence up to make it clear. Right now being a college student, I don't have the coin to drop on a super nice lens so my 55-250mm will have to do, and I will have to pick my races such as those in bright light.

And I am getting the 35mm anyways for landscape and indoor, so I am hoping that I can kill two birds with one stone, I am in no way ignoring or disregarding anyones suggestion. If those with more knowledge that I do say that for less then 10ft a 35mm prime wont work I will take that to heart.

And since I am writing, what do you guys consider suitable shutter speeds, the fastest anyone would be moving would be ~20-25mph, but as slow as ~5mph in more technical section.

 

[GeneralBenson]

35mm is going to suck for indoor, and won't be very good for landscape either. The picture you posted, it looks like the photog is about 5 feet from the guy with a really wide lense, possibly even a fisheye. He's also using rear curtain sync'd off camera flash to get the blur/freeze effect. 35mm on a crop sensor is only a standard lens. I would check something like the sigma 20mm, 24mm or 28mm f/1.8. These are wider and faster, for eitherthe same price or a little bit more. Well worth it. You said you don't have much money, don't waste it on something that isn't going to do what you want.

 

[mxracer32]

i shoot motocross and i have similar distances. sometimes in a corner or next to an a jump im right in the thick of the action and i love to use my 24-70 f2.8; its a great 'walking around' lense, but for the farther shots (like you mentioned 10'-75') the above mentioned 70-200 2.8 is absolutley killer, and worth every dollar. i dont own one but have access to one. id like to see some comparison shots of the 70-200 vs a 70-300....

 

[tsaraleksi]

35mm is going to suck for indoor, and won't be very good for landscape either. The picture you posted, it looks like the photog is about 5 feet from the guy with a really wide lense, possibly even a fisheye. He's also using rear curtain sync'd off camera flash to get the blur/freeze effect. 35mm on a crop sensor is only a standard lens. I would check something like the sigma 20mm, 24mm or 28mm f/1.8. These are wider and faster, for eitherthe same price or a little bit more. Well worth it. You said you don't have much money, don't waste it on something that isn't going to do what you want.

Bingo. The posted shot was way wider than 35, and you'll need a flash if you want to achieve the same look. I'd suggest maybe even something like a 10-20 might be worth looking at for that kind of thing, but perhaps a 17-55 range lens would be a bit more versatile.

 

[table1349]

I was wondering what focal lengths are best for sport photography(specifically mountain biking/cycling in general), I am assuming get as fast of a lens a possible. Specifically what length lens would I need to get a shot like this?

Would a lens like this(Canon EF 35mm f/2) be suitable? For longer distance right now I have a 55-250mm F4-5.6mm till I figure out what distance works the best.

Since I have this thread open would that 35mm F/2 be suitable for macro shooting since it has a minimum focus of .8 ft?

Thanks

Sports is my main interest in shooting and my gear is built around it first. My preference is to shoot primes whenever possible. Good primes are sharper and faster that good zooms. If you know the basic distance you will be shooting from and you know it is not going to change dramatically then primes are your best bet. Having multiple bodies to shoot with also gives you greater flexibility to use primes of various lengths or a combo of primes and a zoom.

If the sport you are shooting has varying distances from the action then a zoom or two will give you more flexibility.

My prime list is as follows:
14mm f2.8L, 24mm f1.4L, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.0, 135mm f2.0L, 200mm f2.8 & 400mm f2.8.

My zooms are as follows:
16-35 f2.8L 24-70 f2.8L & 70-200 f2.8L

I have also been known to use for unique perspective shots either the Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 on bright days and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The 16-35 f2.8L would probably be a good choice if you are close to the action to achieve the style of shot you posted. The 17-50 is also a good lens at 1/3 of the cost of the 16-35. One of the great workhorses for a lot of sports shootes is the 70-200 f2.8. Fast, rugged and sharp.

The lenses I use depends upon where I can shoot from. Field sports I am always on the sideline usually with the 400 and the 70-200. If I drag a third body along it has the 24-70 on it. Indoor sports I am shooting from the floor and almost always with two or three bodies with primes.

Take a hard look at the distances you will be shooting from and pick a lens or two, depending on your budget, that will fit the average range the best. Keep in mind that the wide and ultra wide angle lens range will give that distorted perspective. You might want to consider something in the standard to medium telephoto for more traditional shots.

Sports shooting is a demanding form of photography. Not only on the photographer but on the gear. Buy the best/fastest glass you can afford. From my experience most consumer grade lenes get sharp above f5.6 and usually closer to f8 range. Wide open they are usually fairly soft. Good fast glass like the 70-200 f2.8 are useably sharp at f2.8 and mine at least is extremely sharp at f4. They provide me much greater latitude of shooting for the conditions. Good luck.