What lens to use for across ground football shots

At the moment I am using a sigma 70-300mm lens. I can take good shots up to

about 40 - 50 metres. anything longer and its a waste of time.

 

Understanding Australian rules football the ball goes either end at any time,

the best shots come from leading players. If you want a good shot in daylight,

you need to be across the other side of the ground to get the leading player in

the shot.

 

What lens would be the best for this, which would be a distance of about 100 -

150 metres. I need full frame shots and no focus in the background.

 

Obviously for all the other shots I'd use a 70-300mm f2.8.

If you really wanted to shoot players from 100-150 metres then you are going to need a lens that is about 3 times as long as your 70-300 (which is f/4-5.6, not f/2.8 I think). You don't say which camera you are using, but some lenses that come to mind are from Sigma: the 300-800mm f/5.6, or the new 200-500mm f/2.8 which has a dedicated 2X converter that makes it 400-1000mm f/5.6 (about $25,000). Either of these will require a very beefy tripod system that will add noticeably to the cost, which will exceed that of a van to transport the lens and tripod. There's also the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 - a second hand one is currently on offer at B&H in NY for $99,000. It's much cheaper to have a mate with another camera who is the other side/end of the ground!

A 400/2.8 would likely be fine on a 1.6x body. If you had to you could add a 1.4x without much image quality loss. A 500/4 or 600/4 would also work well. 800 to 1200 would be overkill. I really don't like the idea of a Bigma but one of their xx-500/5.6 or 6.3 lenses would likely be your cheapest alternatives.

I think I worked out with 3 metres, at 100m you need 700mm lens. Obviously I'm just starting out so I don't have an unlimited budget, and I'm not stupid enough to want the best. At worst, I reckon you would need 70-80 metres to get the chance to take a lot more shots, at least to get to the centre square. I was thinking the 400mm 2.8 with a 1.4 converter which should take it to 640mm. John you talk about image loss with a converter, how much would you lose and why is it so?

 

Check out my website, you will see a player profile, this is the quality of shot I'd like at a distance of 80 metres or so. I can't have the background blending in.

 

As for money to do what I want to do, I'd be looking at a 400 2.8 that keeps it under 8k. But I won't be spending that sort of money unless I know I can get work, and it pays well.