135 f/2.0 L for kids Hockey

<p>I need a new lens for hockey and rather than the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8, I'm considering the EF 135 f2L, a neighbor is looking to sell his. I've seen a number of posts discussing the 70-200 for hockey, it seems to be the lens of choice, and I am convinced it would be a great lens for hockey. However, I'm interested in hearing from those who have used the 135 f/2L lens for hockey (I think I've seen one other post where it was discussed for hockey, but others where is is mentioned for basketball). Slightly faster lens, and I believe the focal length will work out for me Moving about the rink is not an issue as this is pee-wees. Less flexible than the 70-200, but I grew up using fixed focal lenses and while I like zooms, with sports I find myself not utilizing the zoom during the action. This is just a hobby, in time I suppose I'd get better with using a zoom for sports.<br>

Some additional info - I have crop bodies. This is for my kids hockey. My oldest is in his first year pee-wees, and they are just fast enough on the ice where I need a new lens - I've gotten by with f4, but it just isn't going to work any longer. I appreciate any input, thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't shoot Ice Hockey, but I do shoot indoor (Kids and Adult) sports and I do know how big a Rink is – I also read you can move around. I do have the135/2.<br>

The 135/2 is a wonderful lens and I recommend it to you.<br />But I question whether you might be attracted to it, because it is for sale and it is a wonderful lens but it might not be the most appropriate long term purchase for the task you describe, in lieu of the 70 to 200/2.8<br>

<br />Your kids will only get older and faster and you inevitably will have to stay still at one vantage point.<br />In the longer term I would think for Ice Hockey, <em>getting a camera with higher ISO capacity would better than a Fast Prime Lens.</em><br>

If F/2.8 will suffice on the cameras you have at the moment then a second hand Tokina 50 to 135/2.8 would be worth consideration, in lieu of the 70 to 200/2.8.<br>

You also mention “<strong><em>I have crop bodies</em></strong>” (plural). A Prime Lens is more applicable to your situation if you are shooting with two bodies: if you supply info regarding the Cameras you are using and the other lenses you could use I might be more gung-ho about the 135.<br>

For example – I find a 50/1.4 (or 85/1.8) and 135/2 a very handy two prime/two camera combination for gymnastics - if I can move about on the floor.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Having f2 for indoor sports is awesome. I had a Nikon 200/2 and Nikon 135/2 for awhile that I used in gyms and swimming pools. The 135/2 L, by all accounts, is one of Canon's best lenses. You do have to seriously consider first if it is long enough, and secondly if you can get by without a zoom. As much as I hated selling my two f2 telephotos I finally came to realize that an 80-200/2.8 zoom was more practical for my more frequent outdoor kids sports purposes. It also fits my autoracing photography needs better as well. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the input. I think you both hit the nail on the head, the 135/f2 is a great lens and would work out, but the 70-200 is probably a better long term lens. I was considering the 135 for some time, but as was mentioned, it seems all the better with a very fair deal presented to me out of the blue. Fortunatley, I'll be able to try the 135 out at a kids game today. </p>

<p>I have a Rebel xti and picked up a used 30d. Ive been using the 30d with the 24-105. It works out fine on our home ice which is well lit, relatively speaking, but not so well at other rinks. I thought the 135 would work out for wrestling matches too where the lighting is even worse. For wrestling I've been using the 50/f1.8 but would like something longer.</p>

<p>Interesting you mentioned auto racing. A couple of friends are insistant on going to Montreal next June for a Formula 1 race (I think that's the right place and time - they are the big race fans), maybe the 70-200 would be fun to take along. </p>

<p>So I think I have a good answer, was just looking for some other points of view, thanks again for the input!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I thought the 135 would work out for wrestling matches too where the lighting is even worse. For wrestling I've been using the 50/f1.8 but would like something longer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably have already considered 85/1.8 and100/2, but I thought I would mention these two lenses and personally recommend the 85 as it is great for indoor sports work - I've not done wrestling - not that big a sport here - but as I mentioned it is good for gymnastics and I use it extensive for swimming (indoors), when I have side of pool access and freedom to roam.<br>

Sarah Fox (member here: <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3728023</a> ) prefers the 100/2 and comments on it many times in the forum and on her home page. I trust her judgement. I have only used the 100/2 sparingly. <br>

Don't be put off by the price of these two lenses as they are both exceptional value for money; the 135/2 is a superior lenses to both, though.<br>

I have the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2 and I find these four lenses very handy for indoor sport. Also, as I mentioned <em>I find a Prime Lens for indoor sport is more useful when used as a pair of prime lenses using two bodies</em> – and that being able to move around gives me great advantage to use that pair of cameras. So ponder on that apropos how you might use a prime lens and how your 50/1.8 might become more useful, if it had a partner with which to work.<br>

I would think the 70 to 200/2.8 would be a great lens for auto racing – and the x1.4 extender also. <br>

Basically the 70 to 200/2.8 is a great lens; very practical for sport generally, as John C. mentions. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went to the Grand Prix in Montreal several times in the late 80's and early 90's and miss it tremendously! I keep trying to justify going again and it may still happen this coming year, but I also have a new camera in mind. For this event a 1.4x or 2x woud be nice with a 70-200. Montreal is a lot of fun especially for the Formula One in June. My favourite spot on the track is in the hairpin.</p>

<p>Let us know how you make out with the 135/2 at the rink. If you go this route a good long lens to go with it for other sports is the Canon 300/4. </p>

<p>The 135 f/2 would be good IF you can get inside the glass, ie on a bench or shoot from the penalty box.<br>

I shoot HS hockey and use my 70-200 f/2.8 mostly from up high so I can shoot over the glass and get clearer shots. If I can get access to the penalty box or bench, I also use my 17-40 for team/bench shots and skaters passing by. I just think the versatility of a 70-200 will serve you better in the long run and also shooting at ISO 800-1600 (depending on the quality of the rink lighting) should get you good results. You need to be shooting at 1/250th or faster to freeze the action, unless you are using a flash.<br>

Here are some shots from a recent AHL game in Springfield, MA, using mostly the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS).<br>

http://aceeventphoto.com/2010-falcons/</p>

<p>Oh and shoot RAW and use a custom white balance will also help to get the colors right due to sometimes funky lighting conditions in rinks and indoor arenas.</p>