Best Zoom Lens for Amateur Sports Photography

I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel and need to get a good zoom lens

for amateur sports photography. My daughter is on a competitive

traveling soccer team and I'm the team photographer. I have to say,

the Digital Rebel takes amazing fast action shots, but with the

standard lens I can only get good shots if I'm right next to the

play. Need a lens that will capture close-ups of action from across

the field. I tried reading the different reviews on the site, but

quite honestly, because I'm a beginner alot of the terminology was

over my head. I would prefer not to use a tripod. Price range would

be $200-$500.

 

So in the style of "Zoom Lenses for Dummies" would anyone like to

give me a recommendation? Thanks much!

>>So in the style of "Zoom Lenses for Dummies" would anyone like to give me a recommendation?<<

 

1) Sports=fast action

a) fast action=faster shutter speed

b) faster shutter speeds=greater amount of light required

c) more light=faster lens (f/2.8 min)

d) faster lens=MUCH MORE $$$ than your budget allows :(

 

However, if yu shoot *OUTDOOR* the 70-200 f/4L will work perfectly for you (albeit a few dollars over but, worth it!).

 

So, if outdoor is what you do the 70-200 f/4L is the perfect match for you.

Hi Helen -

In terms of focal length, less than 200mm is going to be too short unless the

action is right in from of you. 200 is really a minimum, 300 is much better. 400

is better still, but out of your (and my!) price range.

 

At the high end of your budget, consider the 70-200/4 L (~$500 new) or the

200/2.8L (about $450-525 used). The results will look great and lenses are

really well-made and nice to work with.

 

You could also consider the 75-300 zoom, with (~$400) or without (~$175) IS.

("IS" means Image Stabilized - it's a special feature that helps reduce the

effects of hand-held camera shake). These will be much cheaper, not as nice

to work with and the images won't be as nice (not as "snappy" colors, "softer"

in resolution), but will give you a little more reach.

 

Also, you could think about buying an inexpensive monopod (~$35), it's a little

cumbersome to tote around, but having a stable paltform to shoot from really

helps.

 

More important than the lens, is your technique, park whatever lens you have

at it's longest setting and stay tight on the action (tough at first, easier with

practice). If it's easy to keep the action in the frame, you are too far away or

need to zoom the lens in more. Soccer is one of my favorite sports to shoot

too - really fun!

-brad

If you can prioritize the >$500 to get a 70-200mm L 4.0 zoom that would be one of the better choices. At <$200 you could get a used 70-210mm 3.5/4.5 (not 4.0) USM zoom. Used because they are not making this one anymore. But it is a sharp, quick lightweight zoom that is equiv to 112-330mm with the Rebel 1.6 factor. Should do the trick pretty well hand held or even better with an inexpensive monopod. Good luck.

Hi, another vote for the 70 - 200 f4. Once I bought the 400mm f 5.6 I did not use the 70 - 200 for a long time. But now that I have a 10D the 1.6x means I'm using the 70 - 200 f4 a lot more now and loving it. It is soooo sharp and versatile.

alternative is the Sigma 70-200 hsm, etc. 2.8 lens, for around 600, but maybe cheaper used (see keh.com). i have used it alot for basketball, see www.leaguelineup.com/ebx photo albums, most closeups taken with that lens. i think its very good -- the focussing with teh canon f4 will be more reliable, but the versatility at 2.8 both in and outdoors is quite valuable.

Plenty of people in this forum will recommend L lenses becuase they are semi pros obsessed by having the best. OTOH there is a reason why canon sell a bunch of consumer zooms of the 75-300 mm variety. They are not too bad and have a more versatile reach and are much cheaper and smaller than the more expensive 70-200 L zooms. The 70-200s can produce pro results, depending on your skill, but their reach may not be long enough to get real closeups. To give you a comparison of quality, the 75-300 consumers zooms, if you keep the focal length below 200mm should give you equal or better sharpness and contrast than the lens that came with the drebel. Above that the sharpness and contrast tends to drop of. OTOH the quality of the L lenses will be better still but will your audience appreciate the subtle increases in sharpness and contrast? You need to judge if it is worth paying the extra money for this.

 

If going for the cheaper zooms, get the USM variant as they focus faster. Also the 100-300f4.5-5.6 for about $270 has a ring USM that is supposed to focus very quickly. The IS feature of the 75-300f4-5.6 (for about $400) may not be that useful given you will be panning a lot.

 

I have produced some nice shots at night at the baseball from the back of the stands with a 75-300 consumer zoom. Sure I could not sell them to sports illustrated but they are perfectly reasonable to pass around for fun in a social setting.

My first vote goes to the 200mm f2.8 L, and my second vote goes to the 70-200/4 L. The prime lens has the advantage of one more stop of light and your 1.6x camera pre-crops your shot to remove enough background to make it look like a 320mm lens, which to me is where you will always rack the zoom out to anyway. Keep your kit lens handy for the group shots before and after the game.

 

 

Later on you can add a 1.4x to either lens if you want even more reach. I like using a 400mm/560mm lens from behind the goal line to photograph the players as they head down the field toward you.

 

 

If you can forego a little focus speed, you might find a used 80-200mm f2.8 L for about the same price as the 70-200mm f4 L. Later on you can only add a 3rd party converter.

 

 

Good luck!

Why does she need to spend to buy such extravogent gear? Wouldnt a 100-300 F4-5.6 USM offer blazing fast autofocus? She could attain the high shutter speeds setting her camera to ISO 800 or even 1600... I mean I doubt the team expects sports illustrated grade photos.

<p>70-200 f/4L, if you can stretch your budget that far. It's faster than most consumer-grade lenses, optically excellent, and focuses quickly. Not sure if you'll get close-ups from across the field, even with the 1.6x crop factor; I've never shot soccer so I don't have a solid feel for what focal lengths would be useful.</p>

 

<p>If you get one of the 75-300 lenses, don't bother with the IS one if this is your only application for the lens. This lens has the first generation of IS, which does not want you to pan; it expects you to be trying to hold the camera as steady as possible. Which is fine in a lot of cases, but if you are following action in a game, you'll have to turn IS off, in which case you're left with essentially the same thing as the non-IS 75-300, at well over twice the price. All of Canon's 75-300s (IS USM, non-IS USM, and non-IS non-USM) are not the quickest-focusing lenses in the world, so initial focus acquisition will not be amazingly fast, but they should be able to keep up with action as long as it's not close to you and travelling directly towards or away from you. For instance, a player running upfield, as seen from the sidelines, may be running full speed, but most of their velocity is parallel to you, so their distance from you changes much more slowly, and that's what AF is tracking.</p>

 

<p>The 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM gives you similar range and much quicker AF compared to the 75-300s, but costs slightly more. Optically, the 100-300 and all of the 75-300s are roughly equivalent - good at the short end, not too bad about halfway out, much softer at the long end. That's par for the course, I'm afraid, for consumer telephoto zooms - which is why L lenses like the 70-200 are so frequently recommended here.</p>

Helen, your best bet is to visit www.soccer-shots.com before you buy any lenses or other equipment. I am not associated with the site in any way - it's just a good place for a newbie at soccer photography to start.

 

There seems to be a lot of well-meaning conjecture posted here from folks who don't shoot sports much or youth soccer in particular. All due respect, it would make a lot of sense not to buy anything based only on what you read here. Rather, go to a local shop that will allow you to buy and return lenses that don't work for you. Try some of the lenses that are recommended on the soccer-shots site and see what you learn. Do shoot in truly variable light with primes and zooms from f/2.8, f/4, and even the variable aperture models. Pay close attention to how well your AF functions with each one and whether each lens will support an adequately fast shutter speed to freeze player motion without diving off your camera's ISO chart. Compare how zooms and primes allow you to compose: the tighter the subject in the frame, the better. Look for reasonable bokeh and sharpness in your files; see whether your work "works" for you. Shoot off a monopod and do some handhelds, too. Maybe even try some indoor soccer work (you will especially appreciate the value of truly fast lenses under indoor soccer lighting).

 

You may find that a relatively inexpensive zoom is a good place to start, while on the other hand you may find that something like a fast medium tele prime fits you well.

 

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

I don't know what sort of age range (and therefore player height) you are trying to cover. The point is that you need a longer lens to fill the frame with shorter/younger players compared with taller adults. Giampero is right that ideally you want a fast, and probably long lens.

 

A quick glance through KEH's current used zoom list throws up a couple of alternatives: first choice would be a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 for about $450 - but beware, this is quite a heavy lens (you will almost certainly want a monopod, which is probably a good idea anyway), although it will be capable of some excellent shots and you can always add a 1.4xTC to increase reach for some loss in image quality (mainly on account of the f/4 maximum effective aperture when using the TC); another possibility (and rather better than the Canon 75-300 lenses suggested by some here, although not quite as fast focussing as the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM which is the only in budget Canon worth considering) is a Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 for $380 which offers longer reach if your daughter and her team are still relatively diminuitive, albeit at the expense of two stops loss of aperture (see below).

 

One problem you will have to face is that the Digital Rebel doesn't offer the AI Servo focus mode that's best suited to sports in anything other than Sports PIC mode - which in turn will limit you to ISO 400 only. Shooting sports, it's preferable to use the lens at its widest aperture and to have fast shutter speeds (preferably 1/500th as a minimum, faster is better), to freeze action and make your subject stand out from the background. This is achieved in lower light by increasing your ISO, which you can only do in the creative zone modes that limit you to using AI Focus. Incidentally, there is little or no point in getting an IS lens which is only really useful in reducing camera shake if you are using slower shutter speeds - not where you should be shooting soccer. Money is better spent on lenses with larger aperture (smaller f number) and/or longer reach.

Any consumer zoom is woefully inadequate for soccer. You're already shooting with a

handicapped AF with the Rebel, the last thing you need is a slow zoom to make it harder.

 

A 70-200 2.8 be the only zoom I would consider, but It's a little out of your price range. It

also might be a little heavy for you.

 

If I had your budget, I'll second the vote for the 200mm/f.28, but it would be my only

choice. It's low weight, fast AF, and a great performer. The results from the prime will

destroy any consumer zoom.

 

Keep the lens hood on, chuck the UV filter in the trash, and leave the monopod in the

mini-van.<div></div>

I have shot soccer using both the 70-200 F4L and the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM. The "L" has significantly better optics, but the 100-300 will focus just as fast and certainly has enough reach (on a Drebel) for a full size soccer field. The 100-300 USM is about $250, while the 70-200 F4L cost just north of $500.

 

If you are willing to deal with a used lens, the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM has a decent reputation and will also provide extremely fast focusing. Zooms are quite useful for soccer, as the action moves across the large field of play. The f2.8 zooms are great, but you would need to deal with both the cost and the 3lb weight of those monsters.

Helen,

pone of the things that has been a revelation is the ability to really alter iso ratings. I don't have the 300D (DRebel to you) but I do have the 20D and the 100-300 f4-5.6 USM lens. I would recommend it for anyone who doesn't wnt to get caught up in the L glass scene and where shutter speed is an issue just up the ISO rating to 400 or 800. For sports photography I would suggest you invest in a cheap monopod, it will do a good job, takes minimal setting up and you can always bash the opposition with it if it looks like they're going to win...

You might also like to take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Zrs

 

It contains examples of shots with some of the lenses discussed above, as well as providing many hints and tips for shooting soccer.