Soccer - Telephoto rental choices

<p>Hi everyone and thank you for reading/helping,</p>

<p>This coming July, I will need to rent a telephoto lens for outdoor soccer photography (10-12 years old kids) and I need to choose between two scenarios or your good suggestions. I own a Canon 7D, a 17-55mm f2.8 IS and will have a good monopod and ballhead. I will be in charge of getting everyone a print or two, up to 8"x10" and a Facebook-size picture. Did I forget something?</p>

<p>Where I rent, they offer Canon (and Nikon) gear only, no 3rd parties. For relatively the same cost, my choices are :</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS (I) + Canon 2x Teleconverter (II). I already "know" this lens since I have rented it a few times already, but no experience with a teleconverter.</li>

<li>Canon 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 IS. It would be a first for me and would let me experience (before D-day that is) with an other rental.</li>

</ul>

<p>What are your opinions and experiences in this situation? What would you suggest me and why?</p>

<p>Thank you for sharing!</p>

<p>With the 7D crop factor, and the fact that they are young and so likely playing on a fairly small pitch, that the 70-200 will be perfect.<br>

Adults and a full frame body I'd go D3 and 400 2.8.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Are the kids standing still or you taking shots while they play?</p>

<p>Are the kids standing still for the pictures (i.e., portrait shots) are they playing soccer?</p>

<p>Thank you Steve. Good point, I might be closer that I though. I can image little 10-year-old kid running back and forth on a FIFA-size soccer field :)<br>

Barry, there will be portraits of everyone and a group photo that I intend to handle with my 17-55 f2.8 IS. But the main reason I will be there is for action shots. This is why I need to rent a telephoto.</p>

<p> That age group should be playing on a half sized field. I've used both a 70-300 and an 80-200 on a Nikon D300 for my nephew's games. The longer lens has great reach for that size field if you have good daylight. If it's overcast, the 70-200 2.8 would work better. I think the 100-400 is probably overkill, but would work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it's overcast...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Michael, this is something I did not think about. In my mental preparation for a perfect shooting day, a grey sky was not in the plan. I'm more and more confident that the 70-200 f2.8 IS will do the job decently, without the teleconverter.</p>

<p>At first, what made me think about the 100-400mm, is that when I was searching on the web for soccer photo examples, exif would often show 400mm focal lenghts. But I remember well, these photos were showing adults and I could presume that the size of the field might have been larger than the one the kids are playing.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>I use a Nikon 70-200VR for Soccer. You can't cover the whole ground but realistically you don't want to try anyway because at the age group you are talking about players tend to bunch into groups and you can't get clear shots from distance.<br /> I think that you will find that a 100mm is too long when the action comes close to where you are standing.<br /> I would go the 70-200 size lens and move up and down along the sideline during each half. If you stay on the same side of the field in both halves you get the right side players one half and the left side in the other half.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4547724946_58af3a289f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="820" /></p>

 

<p>While the field size is smaller also remember that your targets are smaller too, filling less of the frame than an adult, twice the height, at the same shooting distance. Shooting my kids as they aged from 7 to 17 I have found the lens focal length requirements to be the same. However, I used to be able to keep up with my manual focus 400/2.8 on film bodies and have just bought an autofocus 80-200/2.8 and 1.4x converter in order to keep up with the action.</p>

<p>I have not gotten the TC yet so conclusions are not ready to be made quite yet. My research shows that 100-400 or 80-400 on a crop body would be ideal except both the Nikon and Canon lenses of this range are either to slow to focus for soccer or deliver poor image quality or both. Hence my choice of the 80-200/2.8 plus converter for my Nikon crop body. Similarly with Canon the 1.4x will maintain better image quality and keep a reasonable lens speed of f4. I will at some point get a 2x as well since I believe the 80-200/2.8 plus 2x will still be a superior combo to the Nikon 80-400 and I think you will find the same with the Canon options.</p>

<p>I still pull out the 400/2.8 for some shots since it is quite magical how it renders soccer shots with only the body of the player in focus and the smooth out of focus foreground/background. You can tell by the blades of grass where focus is and makes the sharp focus areas truly stand out. The 80-200/2.8 just has too much depth of field by comparison.</p>

<p>Richard, John, thank you very much for all this information.</p>

<p>Now, I have to tell you that I will no longer rent the 70-200mm f2.8 IS... Because... I just bought it! After a few rentals and expecting to rent it a few times again by the end of the year, I have decided (and got approval from you know who) to purchase my own copy. There was a considerable rebate (1799$CND) in a Montreal store, I could not pass on this opportunity.</p>

<p>What I might rent for this soccer event is a 1.4x teleconverter, not the 2x, just to experiment with new possibilities.</p>

<p>Again, thank you all for sharing!</p>

<p>Nice Carl, good choice. At almost any sporting event I go to there are folks using a 70-200 (gymnastics, basketball, hockey, football, badminton) - they're everywhere! Except in my bag! I use a 200 f2 as I just love it, even with limitation of a fixed focal length, but would definitely miss out on shots that 70-200 users would get (but the ones I did get would be sharper! lol)<br>

I'd personally be wary of putting converters on zoom, even excellent ones like the 70-200s. Chances are you'd be needing to use it wide open as you'd only have f4 with a 1.4x on, and so a zoom, wide open with a converter all adds up to something to be wary of.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Whilst it is not always the first choice, the combination of the 70 to 200/2.8L and a tele-converter is lighter and more mobile than the 400/2.8 and . . . good results can be had.<br /><br />The EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM is better than the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM with both tele-converters. As one would expect, the x1.4MkII is better than the x2.0MkII. I have not used the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM MkII<br /><br />This is the x2.0MkII on the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM: <a href="../photo/10291553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg</a><br /><br />WW</p>

<div></div>

<p>And Higher ISO and on an (old) APS-C camera, again used at FL = 400mm:<br>

WW</p><div></div>

<p>Not sure about the second shot William, but certainly there's nothing wrong with the swimming one - very impressive.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>steve, <br>

<br>

The second is a JPEG straight out of the box from a 20D at ISO1600 - a little sharpening - I mostly shoot JPEG out of the box with a set workflow sharpening for the school sports shots.<br>

<br>

I posted those two images as examples of extremes of what is "OK" or "acceptable" to me . . . the hockey shot holds quite OK to a 5x7 print - which is what I was shooting for: and the noise is not as noticeable in the print.<br>

<br>

Remember also, to discriminate between the noise and the IQ - but yes I purposely chose the enlarged area on the hocky image from the bottom corner - and the IQ is worse there.<br>

<br>

I think it is important to recognise (consider) two issues:<br>

1. it will never be as good as a 400/2.8L<br>

2. be cognisant of the output requirements<br>

<br>

In regards to (2) for web shots or 5x7 prints I'll often use the 70 to 200 <strong ><em >and the x1.4mkII </em></strong>and a 135/2 on my second camera rather than lumping around the 400, (or 300) which means also I carry the second camera with the 70 to 200 on it. (yeah call me old and or lazy)<br>

<br>

The other consideration is opportunity - I was sitting in the stands (not working on deck) when we had an unexpected world record looming - all I had was my 20D and 70 to 200 and a x2.0MkII - which I brought with my video gear, to capture some stroke analysis of a couple of swimmers from my club . . . so I used what I had at hand to grab her when she looked up and gave me a smile: <a href="../photo/9193632&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9193632&size=lg</a><br>

<br>

<br>

It is technically a very poor photograph, compared to what the pool photographer got or what I would get using the 1 Series gear and 300/2.8 – but it is a world record smile at me, nonetheless.<br>

<br>

I posted the images not to argue - just to explain the limits of what is possible . . . and if you follow the link to the butterfly swimmer, in my first post, you will see a scene of a suburban hill which shows the “warts and all” of the x2.0MkII converter - but that suburban scene is still "OK" at a 5x7 print.<br>

<br>

Thanks for the nice comment on the (butterfly) Swimming Shot. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>William,</p>

<p>Thank you for your participation, it is always a pleasure to read your comments.</p>

<p>Thanks Carl . . .<br>

<br>

Just adding to my comments above . . . the 70 to 200/2.8 are special lenses, IMO and mine is now only one of two zooms I own across all my kits . . . (and I think over 30+ years I have only ever owned four zooms in total). . . <br>

<br>

Like steve, I prefer Prime Lenses, but depending upon the intended use of the image, I have found that the 70 to 200 can be pushed beyond the capacity of other zoom lenses . . . <br>

<br>

So (Carl), I reiterate, that no one should interpret my comments about the tele-extenders to be as arguing with steve - I was not - I just wanted to show what was possible and what the “limit” was also if you will - and it is easiest to do that with a few photographs. <br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>I did understand it that way William, all good points, thanks.<br>

I wonder if the Nikon line has lagged behind a bit with 2x converters, as I gather the Canon has been considered pretty good, even possible to stack with a 1.4x on a tele prime. Until now I've not heard that great things about the Nikons (and don't have one), but the new TC20e mkiii looks very good indeed.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Ah, Good.</p>

<p>Thanks for coming back on this . . . after I re-read this morning what I wrote I thought my meaning could have been misinterpreted. . . and nothing could be further from the truth as I believe that you and I are on the same page . . . and having noticed your passion for Primes before on some threads, I thought you’d be interested in those compassion shots with the 70 to 200</p>

<p>I too think the Nikon teleconverters are (were) a tad behind the Canon MkII versions - I used Nikon Film gear and I never used the teleconverters.</p>

<p>I have stacked my x1.4MkII and x2.0MkII (favourite being on the 135/2) . . . Hmm - I think that is the "real emergency" . . . if you get my drift.</p>

<p>I will get around to posting samples in my portfolio . . . eventually.</p>

<p>Cheers and beers,</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William, interesting to look at your examples. The swimmer photo makes me believe that it is possible to achieve amazing results when combining a 70-200 f2.8 with a teleconverter. I will definitely give it a try one day or the other, under good light and low light situations.</p>

<p>I do appreciate working with primes too. Although I do not own any at this moment, I frequently rent what I need. As we "speak", I have a Canon 100mm Macro f2.8 IS for another week.</p>

<p><em>Last minute confirmation.</em><br>

To make sure I was making a good decision purchasing a 70-200 f2.8 IS, I tried to fill a shopping cart with primes only, just to evaluate what I would get covering 70-200mm, without exceeding the price of my lens. For sure, there was the 85mm f1.8, then possibly the 135mm f2.0 and then the 200mm f2.8. It is roughtly the same investment, but I have decided to go with the flexibility of a zoom and a great stabilization system. Also, I already had a 77mm polarizer that I could re-use, plus the tripod ring delivered with the 70-200, etc. I know, primes are primes, and I will never argue with the fact that they produce wonderful pictures and that they are very helpful under low light circumstances.</p>

<p>Carl</p>

<p>The stacking I was looking at was from wildlife people like Art Morris and Fritz Polking, stacking a 1.4 and 2x on a 600mm f4 for instance. Some of the results I'd seen were amazing, and I assume lenses like the 600 f4 and 400 2.8 etc., are the ones that will work best.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p >Carl - I love your logic and your confirmation - - - have fun with it and it won’t take too long to save up for those other three Primes - as they are all less expensive once you get the purchase of the zoom out of the way :) </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Steve . . . AH . . . I've never been that far away from a subject to stack the two on a 400/2.8 . . . a Swimming Pool is only 50mtrs long and a footy field is only 100mtrs long . . . and I haven't got the patience to shoot birds (with wings) . . . he (Art) is genius at it . . . Crikey, stacked on a 600/4 - I'll go and look at that - do you have a link, please?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Here's one http://www.birdsasart.com/n65.htm but there are many references and shots on his site.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks - very informative commentary also - especially re keepers and the suspected reason for that - I'll research more through his site later.<br>

<br>

Thanks again,<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>7D + 70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4x will be an excellent combination for kid soccer! I now use that combination for high school football (mostly night games) and can get excellent results in all but the worst-lit parts of the field. Before buying the 7D, I used a Rebel XTI + 70-200 f4.0 (non-IS) + 1.4x for youth soccer (mostly daytime games) and was quite satisfied. Even on a full sized field/pitch, this length will get you reasonably full frame shots on most of the field as long as you're close to the sideline.</p>

<p>The impact of the 1.4x on autofocus speed and IQ is minimal. If it gets cloudy, just bump the ISO.</p>

<p>If you happen to have an old body, I suggest you put your 17-55 on that and use it for action close to the sidelines, as 70 mm x 1.4 will be too long for close-ups.</p>

<p>Best of luck!</p>