Lens for Sports photographs, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT

I am planning on upgrading from my digital point and shoot camera to a digital SLR

camera. My goal is to be able to capture good sports photographs of my children's soccer

games. The digital POS has never performed well while shooting sports activities.

 

I believe I have decided on the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT body and am seeking advice on

which lens would be most economical and suitable for sports photography. I am father

attempting to capture his children at play, not a professional photographer.

 

I would appreciate suitable lens recommendations from the members of this forum.

Caveat: be sure to go to a pro photo store and handle the Rebel XT before buying. It's a

very small camera, and it may be too small for your hands or feel awkwardly small if you're

interested in the bulky fast telephoto zoom lenses. Compare the feel with the 20D, and

make sure they stick some lenses on the bodies that are representative of what you might

buy.

 

You didn't specify a budget range for the glass. I'm assuming you need 300mm reach.

Obvious lens candidates in no particular order:

 

EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM ($1300)

 

EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM ($280)

 

EF35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM ($1400)

 

EF90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM ($?)

 

EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (~$600 -- an update to this lens has been announced)

 

I'm sure some soccer dads will chime in.

Look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.

Martin gave a good set of options, but I would put in one more low-budget one. If you are

shooting sports and are going to go with a f/5.6 lens, you should look at the 75-300 non-

IS version. It is less than $200 new and only lacks the IS of its more expensive brother.

Since IS won't stop action, I would leave it out of the equation (unless you want to use a

long lens for other things).

 

If the purchase isn't urgent, I would wait for some reviews of the newly announced 70-300

IS that replaces the 75-300 version. The autofocus may be faster, the optics may be a little

better, and I can say ahead of time the IS that comes with that one would be at least

potentially useful for sports, as it can handle panning.

 

It is probably too short for most soccer, but I will throw the 135 2.8 SF into the equation. It

is supposed to be superb, and it can be had for less than $300 new at times. I can't speak

from experience about this one, as the one I ordered isn't here yet...

To bulk up the handling of the XT, there's always the BGE3 battery grip, it makes a significant difference for my fat fingers and isnt that highly priced for what you get :D

 

Run down of main fatures:

 

* Makes the camera more easily handled by large hands

* Adds an extra command wheel, shutter release, focus point selection and AE lock button for when the camera is being handled in portrait aspect.

* removable 'cartridges' for either 1/2 NB2LH batteries or 6*AA 'emergency' batteries.

My kids play a number of sports, indoor and outdoor. This is what I used for my kids' sport. It yielded good results for me. Your mileage of-course could vary.

 

I started off with geting a 70-200/f2.8. Depends on your budget, you can get either get a 3rd party (e.g: Sigma 70-200/2.8 used) for around $500. Or get a used EF70-200/2.8L for around $850. Or top of the new line EF70-200/2.8IS for $1700. The 70-200/f2.8 will cover your medium range indoor and outdoor sports. For me, I end up getting a EF70-200/2.8L non-IS.

 

For longer range shots, I got a 1.4XTC. The choice here is go cheap for a $65 Tamron/Kenko or $180 midway (Tamron SP/Sigma). Top of the line of course is Canon 1.4K MK2 (only fit EF lens). I got an used Canon for ~$250.

 

For Soccer, you may found 300mm a bit short at times. This is when a 400mm could come in handy. Of-couse, the ideal lens is Canon EF400/f2.8L IS but the price is no where near ideal. I end up with a used 3rd party 400mm/f5.6 (watch out for Compatibility) and leave it in the bag when afternoon expires.

 

Hope these help.

Soccer - official fields - is shot mostly with 300mm/2.8 or 400mm/2.8 primes, depending on your shooting spot on the field, your budget, etc. Obviously, your kids, depending on their age group, will be playing on much smaller fields, so I am pretty sure 200mm reach will be more than enough. A 200mm/2.8 prime lens (giving you the perspective of a 320mm lens due to the x1.6 crop), however, is most likely to be too limiting in your case in terms of shooting spot and framing; a zoom lens will give you the flexibility you need. A crucial factor here will be focus speed, and you will need a real - that is ring USM zoom lens. I would most definitely stay away from some of the lenses recommended above, the 75-300mm (IS or no-IS) variety, or the so-called new release 70-300mm/4-5.6 IS lens (not to be confused with the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens - which gets mixed reviews, but is sure to be better than all these others I mentioned; and it carries a premium price tag). Those who recommend the non-ring-USM zoom lenses have obviously not tried to focus on action with these lenses. My recommendation will be, depending on your budget either EF 70-200/4L USM or, EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.

<p>

I have the second one (but would love to buy the first one in the future)- got it used from a pawn shop for 100 Canadian dollars. A new one sells for around 600 - this lens is not worth that kind of money in my opinion. On the plus side: Obviously price - it can be found really cheap and in good condition. this lens has full time manual focus, a real USM focus mechanism (it really really rips!), and it is small and light.

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/IMG_3080.jpg"></p>

XT handheld, @ 300mm 1/500, f/14, ISO 400: the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM gives sharp results if you stop down sufficiently. Below is the full frame.

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/IMG_3080-tn.jpg"></p>

 

On the minus side: At the 100mm end this lens need to be stopped down to f/8 for decent photographs. At the 300mm end you will NOT get any decent results before f/11. If you shoot it wide open, your prints will look like crap, and you will be able to tell that even by looking at 4x6 prints. I never try to shoot at apertures wider than f/8, even at the short end. This means shooting @ ISO 400 minimum, and more realistically, ISO 800 and 1600 if you are shooting at a time other than midday. A noise reduction software (I would strongly recommend Neat-Image) could take care of the high ISO noise without a problem, and you would be surprised with the results. Contrast, is pretty low (a really bad thing), but in most cases can be improved upon with photoshop.

<p>

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/IMG_3235.jpg"></p>

focus speed with the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM - XT combo works O.K. for me: XT handheld, @ 180mm, 1/250, f/14, ISO 800

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/deleteme-3-153.jpg"></p>

no photoshop here, straight out of the XT at noon, and I had the hood ON... This is why people pay top-dollar for good telephoto lenses: contrast!

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-constan-2-093-BW.jpg"></p>

Haga Sophia, Istanbul. Obviously there are other uses for this lens, such as this touristic shot of a 7th century Orthodox church: XT handheld, @ 100mm, 1/800, f/10, ISO 400

<p>

Clearly the 100-300mm/4.5-5.6 USM consumer lens involves a lot of compromises, and depending on your perspective, joys/inconveniences like shooting with a monopod (very good idea if you ask me). If you have the money for it, go for the 70-200/4L USM lens; it is totally worth the price, and it is sharp even wide open. Size and weight are not too bad. The only negative point: this lens is white... Otherwise go with a used 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM; if you stop down enough, you will get lots of keepers, and they will look good @ 8x10. Anything larger, you are asking for trouble with this lens.

<p>I would also agree that if your budget restricts you to consumer telephoto zooms, the 100-300 USM is a much better pick for outdoor sports than any of the 75-300s. The 75-300s have a much slower AF system; the 100-300's AF is nice and quick. Optically, they're all in the same ballpark. IS is a wonderful technology (two of my four lenses have it), but in the 75-300 IS, you'll have to turn it off for sports, as this old version doesn't like to be panned, so if sports is the main use for this lens, there's no point buying the IS version. The pro IS lenses, like the 100-400, don't have this restriction.</p>

 

<p>The 70-200/4L USM is well worth considering if it's within your budget. It's sharp, even wide open, and it's faster than the consumer telephoto zooms; put those two together and you shouldn't need to crank up the ISO anywhere near as high. Plus, you may get nicer background blur from shooting at f/4 than at f/11 or f/16. AF speed is another strong point for this lens.</p>

Last fall I went with a friend to his daughters soccer match. He brought his D60 and 75-300IS. I brought my 10D and 100-400L. The difference between the lenses was substantial as far being able to keep up with fast moving action- the 75-300 was totally lacking and is, in my opinion, not a good lens to be using for anything moving faster than a slow walk.

 

Whatever lens you pick, the only option that will keep up with movement is a lens fitted with the RING USM mechanism, whether that's the 100-300 USM, 70-300 DO, 100-400L or even a second-hand 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM. I know based on some of your statements you don't want to spend a bunch of money, but in my opinion if you even want a chance to get what you're after, a minimum of $200 to $250 on a second-hand 100-300 USM is what you need to fork out. If you want to buy one new, around $280 is what it's going to take and you need to spend the extra $$ it will take to get the hood.

 

The attached image was shot at 400mm on my 100-400L, ISO 800, 1/1000 sec wide open at f5.6, an aperture that is iffy on most consumer zooms, including th 100-300 USM<div></div>

Here's a 100% resolution crop to see the detail this lens can cature wide open at 400mm.<div></div>

One more crop of an area in the above image where there's more detail, and remember, this is ISO 800 on a 10D that's no supposed to be as good as the 20D, with the Rebel XT probably marginally better too.

I recently purchased a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO HSM, amongst other things I also intend to use this lens for taking some shots of my son at football - is this lens up to the job for this task?

i've used the sigma 70-200/2.8 hsm apo for three years to take a variety of photos, sometimes combined with a sigma 2x teleconverter. i think on balance it is a very very good lens. its focus indoors lowlight is sometimes a little dodgy on the 10d, and its a touch soft at 2.8, but for sports action i am very happy with it. also good for wildlife. used it for basketball, soccer, birds (see my animals folder if you would like for examples).

Your statement that you are "not a professional photographer" implies to me that you are not looking to carry an expensive, large, heavy lens with the hopes of landing a shot in Sports Illustrated. I have a few suggestions and I'm sticking with Canon offerings because I have no experience with other manufacturers in Canon mount:

 

 

1) 100-300 USM: By most reports, not the sharpest lens, but if you're in good (sun)light most of the time, with smart use of high ISO settings on the XT, you'll get some keepers. I've played around with one of these on a 1.6x DSLR, and I liked the range and size, but I wasn't thrilled with the build quality. I didn't use it enough to make definitive comments on the image quality. The price was around $300 new, and with USM, this is about the best you're going to find on a limited budget.

 

 

2) 70-200/4: You give up a bit of reach but gain build quality and a step up (or two or three!) in image quality. The AF on this lens is quite fast. You will still need some good light, but with the 1.6x DLSRs, you still have some nice reach at the long end, and the lens is very sharp at f/4 across the range. This lens is not too heavy, but it is long and it stands out in a crowd, especially with the hood on. It will run you about $550-600 new. I recently sold this lens for the 200/2.8 (see next suggestion).

 

 

3) 200/2.8: You give up the zoom, but the size of this lens is very reasonable for the reach, the build quality is fantastic, the AF is blazing fast, the image quality is as good as or better than the expensive and heavy 70-200/2.8, and the f/2.8 will allow you to gain action-stopping shutter speeds that you won't be able to get with other lenses. The lens runs about $650 new, but can be found at significantly lower prices used. I shoot NCAA sporting events but not professionally, so I can afford to lose the convenience of the tele-zoom (but I still get f/2.8 in a much smaller package!). The lens also makes an impressive outdoor portrait lens if you have the room, and you're into blowing everything out of focus except the subject.

 

4) Finally, a last, crazy suggestion that will likely raise howls from the (outdoor) sports photographers on the list...If you're on the sidelines, and you're willing to wait until the action comes to you, consider an 85/1.8. The lens runs about $300, has super fast AF, is very sharp, and is very small and easy to carry. But most of all, the f/1.8 can be very, very handy. Indeed, in my experience, nothing substitutes for lens speed and since I can't afford nor do I wish to carry the super-fast long teles, I "make do" with the 85/1.8. Yes, this lens is often marketed toward those doing portrait applications, but I've used it very effectively for indoor sports, and it's probably the lens I use most for documenting my children's activities (plays, dances, and other indoor stuff).

 

Good luck. --tom

You will get fast enough focus with either Canon RING USM (not micromotor USM) or Sigma HSM lenses. Forget anything that doesn't meet that spec. Useable wider aperture gets you motion freezing shutter speeds at lower ISOs in given light and greater subject isolation with background blur giving photos more "pop". Shooting children tends to require longer lenses than shooting adults, because their lack of height more than offsets the fact they may be using a smaller pitch. The budget choice is thus the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. You'd get much better images with a Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM (which you could also use with a 1.4x TC for some extra reach) because f/4 gives great images across the entire focal length range. I suspect a 70-200 f/2.8, while offering the advantage of a faster aperture which might be useful for other purposes, is too short for shooting younger children playing soccer as image quality degrades much more sharply when using a 2x TC compared with a 1.4x TC - so that limits it to 280 f/4 effectively.

 

Bear in mind that a sports PJ will probably be toting $15,000 or more in big white Canon lenses when shooting soccer - it puts some of the choices discussed here into perspective.

the sigma 70-200 has been long enough for the handful of soccer games i have followed. for little kids, plenty long on shorter fields, for regulation youth league, very doable, perhaps a little short depending on where you are in moments, but the range works well generally.

 

i disagree from my experience that the image quality degrades with use of the 2x sigma teleconverter. it is much darker, as the minimum aperture becomes f.5.6, but the optics remain very good to my amateur eye. all the bird photos in my portfolio are taken with the 2x teleconverter. they are photoshopped, but so everything in my folder. i don't mean to say they are spectacular, but i just don't notice any significant drop off in quality when i use the teleconverter. it requires i be on a tripod or monopod and be careful about the shutter speed, but when i get it right, the optics are pretty clear to my eye.

dug out an example of the sigma with the 2x teleconverter. the attached is about 60% of the original frame, taken from behind an outfield fence, at 400mm with 2X teleconverter, iso 400, f.5.6, 1/1000 with only levels added (i often underexpose on the 10d) in ps. didn't take the sharpest, but an example. taken summertime, about 6:30 p.m..

here's the shot.

I just started shooting my daughter's soccer games. I'm using the 20D with an EF 70-200 f2.8 and I use the 1.4 Extender about 75% of the time.

 

I find that the 70-200 f/28 is good but is not long enough. It does have fast autofocus which is VERY important. When I use the 1.4 Extender with the 70-200 it puts me at 280 f/4. The range is pretty good but the autofocus is slower. Enough slower that about 40% more of the shots are out of focus compared to the 70-200 without the 1.4 Extender. The 70-200 by itself is also sharper than the 70-200 plus 1.4 Extender (but that should not be a surprise)

 

I now plan on purchasing the EF 300 f/4L. (as stated above, the EF 300 f/2.8L is really the better lens but it's beyond my budget). The autofocus speed should be about the same as the 70-200 and it should be more sharp that the 70-200 plus 1.4 Extender.<div></div>

Let me see if I can get that attachment smaller...<div></div>

Go to KEH.com........many of the lenses listed above are availible in excellent shape for 60 to 80 cents on the doller for new....my favorite would be a 50 f1.8 and a 300 f4/L...Shooting from the side line your going to be all the way out most of the time any way so the need for a zoom is marginal, you could then do your pre/post game stuff with the 50mm.....and....if an eagle flew by at half time time you could catch this...

and crop to this

agreed, keh.com is recommended. purchased three things from them, each accurately described, no problems. paid average about 70 percent of new price.

John, I took a quick look at your portfolio - most of the posts were 'commercial' in nature - as in selling cars... I guess I should have done this before answering your post.

John, congrats on your decision to shoot your kids' soccer. I'll bet if you stay with it you'll end up shooting other kids as well.

 

My 2 cents, since I'm an amateur youth soccer shooter myself.

 

I've tried lenses slower than f4 and didn't like them due to slower AF speed and poorer performance in anything other than drenching light. In any case, stick to f4 at minimum, while f2.8 is really the norm. But this is my experience - yours may vary.

 

You can shoot very effectively with a shorter focal length. You just have to wait for your shots to come to you, while longer glass allows you more shot opportunities. Position yourself on the end line b/w the goal and the corner flag and concentrate just on the players in and around the penalty area, if you have shorter glass. It works very fine, and you tend more to capture faces and action better, too.

 

If I had to choose b/w a 200 or shorter zoom/prime at f2.8 or a 200+ zoom/prime at f4, I'd take the f2.8. Those late matches in the fall will be unshootable with f4 - remember the difference is twice the light entry.

 

You will appreciate the flexibility of a zoom early on if you are shooting with one body. The Sigma and Canon 70-200/2.8 lenses are great gear, and the Sigma is selling used for around $600 or so. A real value, IMHO. If you do decide to go with the f/4, the Sigma 100-300 is another great value, esp if you a used one in good shape. DO try keh.com for used glass. Very reliable and trustworthy in my case.

 

But for the best combo of sharpness and speed, the posters that mentioned the Canon 200/2.8 and the 85/1.8 are spot on, IMO. If you can learn to shoot without zooming - and most of your shots can be gotten without one, once you become fluid in your technique - for the money these two lenses are wonderful. The 85/1.8 is very versatile, and is a plus on 1.6x crop body for indoor soccer (the smaller fields), btw.

 

My real point is that it's best to just buy a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or the 100-300/4 and then shoot. Your experience will tell you what you need. Then you can sell what you don't like and buy what you know you need. It's the only way, really, to learn what works for you.

 

Good luck and enjoy your shooting!