Tennis photography equipment

Hi all

I’m new here

I would love to get started in shooting sports

I don’t want to spend a lot on a lens but I don’t want to be frustrated by the equipment

If I come away from a tennis match with one or two nice pictures I’ll be thrilled

I have a 7D II

I’d like to get started soon so want to make a quick lens decision

Would 55-250 STM (which I already have) do the trick, and what other lens in that quality or slightly better would one consider for this?

Interloping from the Nikon camp, I've had moderate (amateur) luck with a 150-500mm on a full-frame camera (give or take the quality of the lens), giving me close-ups at the end of the court I sat nearer, and a full body shot at the far end. With a 7D II, the range of a 55-250 is probably not far off, depending on where you manage to sit. It's been a while since I shot Canon, but when I did, something like the 70-300mm IS would have worked, at least in good light; I've found an 80-200mm a bit short on a crop sensor, though a little cropping from a 70-200 f/4 would probably give you good quality at decent cost, but again it depends on the seat. A lens with semi-decent autofocus speed probably helps, though I tended to focus on the player and time the shot for the ball either on the racquet or at least in shot, and if the lens isn't that fast and you're not too close then you've probably got wiggle room. Pros in the press box tend to have something like a 200-400mm f/4 or a fast prime (or maybe the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8), but they're a bit of a size or price upgrade from what you're talking about, and they're after tightly-cropped player reaction shots as much as action.

TL;DR: I'd give the 55-250 a go and see whether you need more speed (if you're indoors in bad light, you might need f/4 or f/2.8) or more reach (70-300 or longer). We shoot differently, so your needs may not match mine (and you may be more demanding!) Good luck!

Great shot!

Looking at list of Canon medium telezooms I have narrowed my choices to just two:

(1) stick with 55-250 STM with IS.

(2) upgrade to 70-200 f4 no IS, for

(a) possibly better AF

(b) presumably better image quality

© 1 stop faster at long end

While giving up

(x) IS

(y) more zoom range at both ends

(z) lighter weight and size

Money aside, is that a worthwhile trade off? I’m thinking not.

Just start , you have a 7mkII and a 55-250,

Nothing stopping you to go out and take some photos. show us some photos in the thursday photo.

Getting the technic good is more important that the equipment.

You will soon know if you need a 2.8 or a 400..

In a few months we will tell you, you need a 1dx and a 100-400..

It all depends on how close you can get to the action.

My morotcoss photo was taken with the 24-70 2.8 at 70.

Just start shooting, talking never resulted in a good photo.

...

Just start shooting, talking never resulted in a good photo.

Hmm... I'm working on an

app for that...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Great shot!

Thank you. Although how up to date I am in tennis photography can be indicated by telling you this was from the 2012 London Olympics, and I've since sold both the camera and the lens. :-) That was ISO 1100, f/4, 1/800s, and cropped from the long end of an 80-200, from way up in the stands, if it's any guidance. (It was also during heavy rain and under cover indoors - there would have been a lot more light at most outdoor events.)

Money aside, is that a worthwhile trade off? I’m thinking not.

Unless you're going to a once-in-a-lifetime event (in which case, hire something exotic if you can get in with it), I'd say start with what you've got. You'll work out where the limitations are for your style of shooting. If you always like environmental shots and would have been better off with a 24-105, you'll find that out. If you always want to crop tightly and want a 150-600, you'll find that too. And shooting under bright sunlight is different from shooting under indoor lighting, which is different from shooting unlit courts outdoors after dusk. (That long Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final? I work not far from Wimbledon, and looked out the window while it was going on - and it was really getting dark. The TV equipment was doing a lot of hard work; consumer lenses would be struggling, and I'd really be looking at a 200 f/2.) Don't rule out sitting at court side with an ultra-wide or fish-eye! Oh, and IS won't help much (except a little with framing and autofocus) if you're trying to get action shots, because the shutter speed would usually freeze hand shake anyway; this isn't true of shots of player reactions, where the subject is moving slower but you probably need more reach.

My general philosophy is that I only buy a lens when I know what I need it for, not just in the hope of it being "better". In this case, you might need f/4, or f/4 might not be enough, in which case keep saving until you can get an f/2.8... or f/2.8 may never give you enough depth of field, in which case you'd have wasted your money. Only experimentation will tell you.

Good luck, and creativity will get you around a lot of equipment issues.

a 7D and a 55-250mm will certainly do the job. Work on technique and practice a lot.

If your skills and interest develop, then you can start to look around for "hotter" cameras (tho' the 7D is very good) and lenses.

Regarding the Focal Length Compass, (55 to 250), what Andrew mentioned is very relevant; "depending on where you manage to sit".

On a 7DMkII that FL compass will give you tight, full body, framing from about 20ft to 80ft (6~25Mtrs), For reference: the Base Lines of a Tennis Court are about 80ft apart, so if your at either end in the Stands and close to the front seats, you'll get a reasonable framing of the Player facing you (and the one facing away from you too.) The same lens will give your reasonable framing from the front rows, at the side of the court. If you are in seats farther back, then you'll be cropping in Post Production to get a tight Full Body Shot.

The Lens Speed is the next major consideration, (that means the Available Maximum Aperture). Your lens is a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom and from about 140mm to 250mm the Available Maximum Aperture is F/5.6. This is a consideration when considering the Lighting Conditions relative to the necessary slowest Shutter Speed that you could use. For Tennis I would like to be typically pulling 1/1600th second, (or faster). For reference, it appears Andrew's shot was pulled at 1/800th second and that shows good freezing of motion, of the athlete in flight, and also the ball. With the good images quality, High ISO capacity of a 7DMkII, on a sunny day, shooting with the sun, you could sit on something like F/8 @ 1/1600 @ ISO1600 and be very technically safe all the match.

The issues (hard choices) begin when cloud cover arrives or if you are shooting against the sun or at dusk: for example a drop in light by three (3) Stops, as the Key light on the Subject, means that you're pulling something like: F/5.6 @ 1/400 @ ISO1600, which is becoming 'unsafe' apropos the Shutter Speed, and you're at full aperture of lens which is 'OK' but not 'ideal' for that lens. A drop in four (4) Stops of light means you're probably bumping to ISO3200, or perhaps ISO6400, probably not so nice, especially if you have to crop a whack out of the frame in Post Production, and night games will probably be way too much of an ask, for that lens.

Re your thinking about buying the EF70-200 f/4 L USM (not IS), I concur with your thoughts, it's not a good idea and better to stick with what you have. Although you get one stop faster lens speed (and yes you will get better Image Quality, which is nice for cropping tighter), you'll not have IS. The AF of the lens you have should be fine, with good technique: select the Centre Spot as your AF point and ensure it is on a good 'contrast edge' of the Subject.

Regrading ANY 70 to 200 (or for that matter ANY Telephoto Lens purchase), account and reckon the value of IS for ALL your Photography needs and desires, it is a very rare case that one will NOT utilize the IS in a Telephoto Lens - I think that you're only looking at the application of "tennis", I doubt if you bought any NON IS Telephoto Lens, it job would be exclusively "tennis".

Any "quick lens decision" is likely heading for a poor choice. Use what you have; identify that gear's short-comings (i.e. poor quality aspects) and shooting limitations (i.e. what it technically cannot do) - these two aspects are different. When you have some flying hours shooting (various) sports, you'll have a better idea of what you require, based upon how your interests develop and the limitation of your gear.

WW

Nice shot Andrew.

Thanks, William.

Just to add: When the players are running around, I agree IS is mostly pointless, other than making it slightly easier to get an AF point on the subject. For a tight crop of the subject when they're between shots - the "reaction shot" I mentioned - then IS comes in useful. It depends how much you're zoomed in - you'll probably need a moderately fast shutter speed anyway because the players are rarely completely still, but I'd not be looking at unstabilised lenses longer than about 300mm just because of the need to keep the lens steady in low light. I have trouble aiming a 500mm lens without stabilisation - but then that's also an argument for shooting a little wider than needed for action shots, so that you can crop later.

But, FWIW, the 80-200 I used for the above shot was unstabilised. :-)

Based on my shooting high school varsity tennis, it depends.

• Where you are vs. where the players are.
  
  • I have one court which is almost too far, and one court that IS too far for a 300mm lens on a crop camera.
    
    • That FAR court NEEDS at least a 400, and preferably a 500mm lens.
      

    [*]If you are FAR away, then you simply need a LONG lens.

    [*]If you are close, then your 55-250 may be perfectly adequate.

    [*]If you shoot at various tennis courts, and from various seating locations, then this changing distance becomes its own problem. And that may call for different lenses, based on the court and where your seat is.

  [*]How TIGHT a shot do you want to get.

  • There are times where I pulled out the 70-300mm lens to get a tight shot of a player, where I would normally use my 18-140.
    

  [*]What time of the day, or how much light do you have.

  • The more light you have (day game), the more lens options you have to select from, vs night game under lights.
    

  [*]As for IS, today I would make that a mandatory item for any long lens.

   

  • Because you WILL have situations when shooting other stuff, where you will be shooting at slower speeds, and will want that IS.
    

  [*]When I shot with a 500mm lens (and even the 300mm lens), I really like shooting with a gimbal head on a tripod. I found it much easier than holding the camera+lens for long periods of time, and the gimbal was much easier to track subjects with and steadier than my hands. But this stuff is BULKY, and the logistics itself becomes another issue. A monopod is better than nothing.

   

  [*]I do not believe in shooting with a TIGHT zoom on a rapidly moving subject, which a tennis player is. I find it much easier, to track a rapidly moving subject, with space around the subject.

As has been said.

Start with what you have, and give it a good work out.

Take good notes of any issues you run into.

This will help guide you in better selecting a lens to meet your needs.

Who knows, the 55-250 might work just fine.