Cheap sports lens.

Is there such a thing as a cheap sports lens? If so what is it? and how much does it run for? Thanks.

 

~Andrew

50mm/1.8: $100

<br>Modest running shoes for keeping up on the sidelines: $75

<br><br>

What sort of sports? What sort of focal length? When you use the word "cheap," what do you mean?

Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L for around $600 or around $450 used.

70-300 IS on a 1.6 body

Indoor sports or outdoor? It makes a big difference.

 

Jason

You really have to specify which sport.

For example, chess is sometimes considered a sport but any lens is fast enough for chess.

If outdoors, a Canon 100-400 IS would be a great choice. Indoors it would be too slow from what I can tell. Here is a link.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html

I'm with John. You don't want anything slower than f/2.8 for most sports -- if for no other reason than the shallow depth of field it provides. I've owned the 100-400 and can't recommend it due to it's variable maximum aperture.

50mmF1.8MkII; 85mmF1.8; (maybe a used 135F2L); 200mmF2.8L; or 200F2.8 + x1.4

 

Depending upon the sport.

 

WW

Addendum: depending upon the latitude of `cheap`: the best value for money zoom IMO is the 70 to 200F2.8L, for sports, and I can `just, mostly always` use mine inside (well lit) arenas.

 

WW

Touchline pros always seem to have big white lenses (I'm convinced that's why Canon makes

them white, so TV viewers see them). What version of the big white lens is not possible to

tell, but I suspect they start with the 70-200/2.8 and work on upwards from there.

 

There is a sports photography forum here on photo.net, if you want to get more info on particular sports.

One of the best is the aforementioned EF 70-200 2.8L, otherwise for a prime at best bargain price and a TOP LENS in all categories, the EF 85mm 1.8, it'll work excellently for sports, especially indoors.

The sideline lenses are usually a 400mm f/2.8, which costs mucho dinero (and some american money also). For an inexpensive sports lens, try the Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($322 at Amazon), or if you want something non-Canon, try the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ($391 at Amazon). I use both and have great results.

"You really have to specify which sport. For example, chess is sometimes considered a sport but any lens is fast enough for chess."

 

 

I have seen some realy fast chess games. THey call it speed or fast chess. Sometimes each player has only 1 minute for all his moves combined. the hands realy move and are almost imposable to stop action on a camera. I still would not consider it a sport.

...even if the chess match isn't quick, blinking your eyes is. Also, you'll likely not be right on top of them (so as to not distract them). So, the inherent nature of using a telephoto lens will put you in an exposure time of at least 1/125 - 1/250 sec, if hand-held, depending on focal length.

Hi

Best value new lens i have seen is an Opteka 500mm F8 mirror lens, on ebay in the UK thats ?79.99 including delivery! (I think it's the same in USD as well) OK thers no autofocus and you will need a monopod to get anything blur free, but you cannot argue with the price!

Andrew,

 

You might also define what you consider to be "cheap".

 

To some a $1500 70-200/2.8 IS is a cheap alternative. To others it's a very pricey lens.

Jim, that monopod isn't going to help you get blur-free images unless you are taking photos in bright sunlight. Anything resembling overcast, or indoors and you might as well kiss that notion goodbye.

For cheap (in price only, certainly not quality!) I also recommend the 85 1.8. Some call it Canon's "L" lens without the red stripe. It's great for sports, especially indoor sports, but also for portraiture and for general use as a short telephoto. It's very sharp and has superb build quality.

What about indoor lacrosse? or hockey? I am looking for a decent lens or lenses to cover this sport. I have a $2000 limit total. I also have the 40D

>>> What about indoor lacrosse? or hockey? I am looking for a decent lens or lenses to cover this sport. I have a $2000 limit total. I also have the 40D <<< (ab)

 

I assume Ice Hockey and US$?

 

I am not sure about the size of the Arena and Camera Vantage points for Lacrosse.

 

If all the stadia are lit reasonably, then the 70 to 200F2.8L should be nearly as efficient for you as it is for me covering swimming: emphasis on NEARLY, let me explain the necessity to work backwards from shutter speeds.

 

I need 1/320 for Breast and 1/400 for Fly Free and Back and 1/500 for relay changes and starts: I suggest you would need 1/500 mostly always for Ice Hockey and also Lacrosse (I am ignorant of intricacies of lacrosse, but I believe it is fast.)

 

In this regard I suggest you really do some arithmetic regarding the EV at the venue and Shutter Speeds you require: you might just find a 135F2 and 85 F1.8 might be a better choice (and the 135 works great with an x1.4MkII)

 

Also a lot depends upon the ability to roam: If I have pool side access (read at the water`s edge) I will only use the 85mm and dump the zoom, F1.8 buys a lot more shutter speed and ISO than F2.8.

 

No one can say this lens is the best for you: really details like Camera Viewpoint, the ability to roam (or not) the Subject Distance and the EV of the venue will all dictate the final choice.

 

And whilst is sounds so boring actually taking light readings and doing the sums as to what Shutter Speed is required and getting at the game an hour early to secure a good vantage point, all these little things add up to become the final product.

 

Also, to a swimming meet, I carry three lenses, not one for use on two bodies one APS-C body and one (more recently acquired) 5D: 50mmF1.4, 85mmF1.8 and 70 to 200F2.8L, x1.4MkII and x2.0MkII and, I am missing the 135F2L as a standard in that kit, IMO.

 

One final point to consider: for indoor sport (actually for any sport) the priority of LENS SPEED must be held above the convenience of zoom.

 

As a practical example: it is no good having a 70 to 200F2.8L (a very nice lens indeed) inside an unevenly lit stadium, covering a sport which needs an exposure combination of 1/500 @ f2 @ ISO 1600 as the average skin tone metered reading.

 

In the above example we would be better to use the 85mm F1.8 and if unable to roam, be content to get the shots possible, crop the ones which needed a little more FL and forget the rest: better to have 75% fewer shots but 90% success with those, than lots of shots and only getting 5% which are not blurry due to inadequate shutter speed, or poor exposure, IMO.

 

WW

It's too bad you don't have a (much) larger budget. It sounds like this would be a good test of the new EF 200mm f/2L IS USM. ;-)

For Hockey with $2000 you could probably get by with the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS or 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) and maybe (depending on your venues' lighting) Canon 300 4.0. [sigma 70-200 2.8 is a great solution and will shave a few hundred dollars off the cost].

 

I shoot Ice Hockey with 24-70, 70-200, and 300 (2.8) with great results. I've shot with another photog's 400 and find it has too much pull on a crop factor unless you're confined to fan seating and at some distance.

 

I know you can get by with 4.0 at over half the venues I shoot.

 

Most sports shots will be fast enough that the IS isn't a real benefit but I do behind the scenes photos where IS is darned nice. It's great to shoot at 1/30 to catch the goalie shaking hands with the 4 yr old fan.

 

Hope this helps.

 

K