Best sports lens for canon 40d camera

<p>I have a one off rugby game to shoot it is going to be a night game...what is the best lens?<br>

is it the canon 28-300mm<br>

canon 135mm f2L<br>

canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS<br>

canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

 

<p>I can't speak for Canon lenses but if that was a Nikon selection I'd be taking the 70-200 f2.8 for night shooting. The extra reach of the 100-400 will be comprised by the incredibly slow (compared to f2.8) f5.6 aperture at the long end. At least with the 70-200 you will get shots that will be able to freeze the action to a large degree than you will be able to crop if required.<br>

I'd take the 135 f2 as well.</p>

<p>Thanks very much so do you reckon the canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L would be too slow as well?<br>

so its either the canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L<br>

the canon 135mm f2L (totally love this lens),<br>

canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L<br>

canon 200mm f2L (im wondering if this would be too heavy....im a slender female)<br>

I can only hire one :s</p>

<p>and last option I forgot to mention what about the canon 300mm f2.8 IS L?</p>

<p>I think the 200 f2.8 would work as well, </p>

<p>so In conclusion, bareing in mind Im slim, young female ( referring to the weight of handholding these beast of a lens)....<br>

I should hire out the canon 300mm f2.8 IS L?<br>

or the canon 200mm f2? or f2.8L?<br>

or the canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L ?<br>

I have narrowed it down to four lens now...hehe we are making progress....which one would you personally choose in my position?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would definetly go with the 300 f2.8.<br>

With rugby fields being larger in size, you're going to need the extra reach so that you're not running up and down the field.<br>

The 300/2.8 is the standard sports lens for large field sports events(This and the 400/2.8)<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Thanks very much for your help!...</p>

<p>Might want to get a monopod as well...THat will help tremendously with the weight...I use one with my 70-200 a lot. Not always necessary, but very helpful. You don't have to spend a ton on one either...</p>

<p>I'd go with the 300 2.8 as well. I'd say the 400 2.8 is THE standard lens for this type of thing, but with the 40D you got a 1.6x crop which makes the 300 ideal (plus much smaller and lighter).<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone's help after all that pannicking I just found out that I didnt get the job...thanks anyway for everybody's contribution</p>

<p>The 300 is pretty heavy, definitely get a monopod to use with it. </p>

<p>I have a tripod is that any good?</p>

<p>Excellent again Leila -- best news of the day! Keep at it. </p>

<p>Sorry you didn't get the job. Maybe next time.</p>

<p>Personally I would not use a 300 mm lens alone for Rugby. A lot of the action takes place near the sidelines (scrums, line outs and attacking down the wing). A 300mm lens is not big enough to cover the entire field so I would stay with the 70-200 on the basis that it would be more flexible when the action is close. That's my thoughts anyway.</p>

<p>That's certainly one view Richard, another way to look at it is that close-to action will give you nice tight shots, head shots, portraits, while further down the field you'll be getting action.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>If I could afford it I'd definitely go after a 300 F2.8 to compliment the 70-200 F2.8 (Sigma in my case)</p>

<p>I suppose the Sigma 120-300 2.8 would be another option. Never used one for stills but gets excellent reviews.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>300 2.8 on a monopod and rent a second body to use a 70-200 2.8 on the shoulder.</p>

<p>steves suggestion is the best, the sigma 120-300 f2.8 is perfect for rugby and the likes. very sharp lens.</p>