fast focus lens for soccer

[sage_major]

I currently have a sigma 70-300 from the kit with the 28-70(or 90)

And It does not focus fast enough for taking photos of my daughters

soccer games. I will be renting the Canon 70-200 2.8 next week to try

it out as I would like to buy a faster focusing lens. I currently

have a 28-135 is usm which gets better photos when they are in range

but I would like a better long lens than my 70-300.

My wife has said that I can buy the Canon 70-200 2.8 but I would

like to get impressions on other comporable lens. (1600 is abit more

than I would like to pay) I would like to get a reasonablly fast

focusing lens, at least as fast as the 28-135 and somthing for low

light indoors, plays and dance stuff.

 

It looks like everyone says the 200 2.8 is a great fast lens.

 

The lens' I am interested in are

Canon 70-200 2.8 w and w/o is

Sigma 70-200 2.8

Canon 70-200 4 and the Canon 200 2.8

canon 70-300 is usm and Canon 200 2.8

any other fast lens I should be looking at a Tamron? I will be

shooting with a 20D. Any experience people have with these lens will

be apriciated as the only one I can rent is the Canon 2.8

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you like the 70-200/2.8 but find it a bit expensive, you could consider looking for one on the used market. That could save you some money, and you'd end up with a fast, excellent lens. It won't outperform the 200/2.8 optically, but you wouldn't really expect a zoom to beat a good prime. And it gives you the flexibility of a zoom. Along with much greater size, weight, and cost compared to the 200/2.8.</p>

 

<p>I don't know about the Canon 70-300's focus speed, but that's not a cheap lens, either. Canon's 75-300s (which are probably what you meant to list) are all slow to focus; skip them. The 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM focuses much more quickly; it might be worth a try. Any of the Canon 70-200s and the 200/2.8 you mention ought to be fast.</p>

 

<p>But if your wife has given her blessing to the 70-200/2.8, I'd say grab one before she changes her mind :-)</p>

 

<p>One other thing to keep in mind: the central AF point on the 20D switches into high-precision mode if you use a lens that's f/2.8 or faster; any slower, and it runs in regular-precision mode (the other 8 points are all regular-precision). So a fast lens won't just give you all the traditional benefits of a fast lens (shallower DOF, better background blur, faster shutter speeds, greater ability to work in low light), but will also give you a more effective AF system.</p>

[upe_vantonni1]

if you are shooting outside in the daylight then you don't really need to pluck down 1600$ for a 2.8. The 70-200/4 will be fine. I have it and it is as fast a focus as I can imagine. i've shot soccer with it and have a great shot of the ball in mid air passing a stunned goalie.

 

with the 2.8 you also have issues with dof. if you're shooting inside though or under the lights, then that changes everything.

 

to be fair the 70-200 2.8 is maybe canons best lens. but the 4.0 version is 2.5 times less, is far easier to hand hold, and is razor sharp.

 

 

the issue with it is distance. if 135 isn't going to get you there then 200 isn't much better what you might need is a 100-400. sigma makes a 135-400, canon has their 1,200$ version. with the 20D tele conversion you'll be able to do portraits from the sideline.

 

 

also you have to be wary. the best thing for plays and dances and kids' public stuff is not the big honkin canon lens. its the leica, voigtlander, konica rangefinder. small fast and pretty silent, especially if your shooting from your seat or the aisle. if youre the "official" photgrapher and can set up in the back then thats one thing. but one time i was giving a lecture and someone had a big honkin nikon w/ tele lens and in the quiet of a good auditorium the shutter was like a shotgun. i lost all concentration.

 

a five years old dressed as an orange might just freak out and cry with one of those things pointed at her. a bessa R2 with a 90/2 or 2.8 will do just fine in that environment.

[rick_helmke]

Take a look at the Tokina ATX 80-200 2.8. This lens is quite good in its price range. I don't know that it would be any better than the L lens, probably not, but short of an L I suspect it will be one of the best lenses available. They've been in short supply lately but several have shown up on Ebay in excellent shape for less than $500.

 

Rick H.

[Greg M]

Any lens with Canon's ring USM mechanism or something similar such as Sigma's HSM technology will be as good as it gets. The 75-300 Canons that are advertised as being USM in really use the micro USM, which is litter better than a micro motor. Only the lenses fitted with ring USM or an equivalent will give you sufficient speed for sports.

 

The 20D is a superior camera when it comes to shooting at higher ISO's. Last Friday night I was doing some shooting with a 10D and 100-400L IS lens at ISO 1600 at a high school football game and got some excellent results. I've also seen some ISO 3200 sports pics from a 20D posted on this site that are just incredible, so don't limit yourself to just the faster zooms- at those ISO ratings you can get away with f5.6 at night if the field lighting is good, and for day games there's no problem at all. The 200mm focal length may become too short for you as it did for me, meaning you'll also need to buy either a 1.4 converter or just buy the 70-300 DO or 100-400L IS zoom. The single focal length lenses like the 200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 are superior pieces of glass, but they are very limited in the purpose they serve for any other than those who need those lenses to make a living. For someone like yourself a zoom will be much more flexible and will get more use, both in sports as well as other subjects.

[bestactionshots]

For next summer, I will be shooting 20D 100-400L ISO 800-1600. Another poor sports shooter choice. :-)

 

IMO 100-400L is best price/performance lens for daylight games.

[sage_major]

if I go with eiter of the 70-200 lens' I will also get the 1.4x extender which will get me to about where I am now with my current Sigma.

 

I just looked again and I noticed a 35-350 L lens, Is this worth looking at?

I can also rent this lens and the 100-400 to test before buying.

 

Thanks

[Greg M]

The one thing I've found to be invaluable once you get to 300mm and beyond is image stabilization, something that is absent on the 35-350L. There are several who use and love that lens, but it sure can get hard to hold steady above 300mm at that weight without Image Stabilization.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>There's a review of the old 35-350 (it was replaced by the 28-300 earlier this year) on this site; there's also a preview of the 28-300, and there have been a couple of threads recently asking about the 28-300.</p>

 

<p>If your goal is to get a telephoto zoom, I think the 100-400 would be a better choice than either of the superzooms; stretching to (or beyond) a 10x zoom range imposes some compromises. Personally, I was planning on buying the 100-400 to replace my 100-300 USM, but I tried it a few times and simply did not like its handling. As well, I mostly used the 100-300 at 300, and wished it would go longer, so really I needed a 300mm lens and something longer. So I bought the 300/4L IS USM and eventually added the 1.4x. Anyway, long story short, try the 35-350, 28-300, or 100-400 (all use a similar mechanical design) and make sure you like it before buying one of these.</p>

[damian_tinsley]

Sage,

before you go mad on a 35-350, just remember this is basically being replaced by the 28-300. You might lose a little range (hardly relevant on the 20D as the 300mm is worth 480mm in old money, but you do get image stabilisation as well.

I have only just got my nice new 200 f2.8L - mainly coz I can't afford the 100-400, and also because it is light & small. I strongly suggest you rent one of those big bad boy L glass lenses and carry it around a while. The 200mm is a lot lighter than the others you mentioned and if you need to walk around the sidelines your neck will know all about it pretty soon! But the zooms certainly have the flexibility.

I posted a thread a few weeks ago about the 200 f2.8 - I noticed that no-one said anything bad about it and I think two responders said something along the lines of "I sold it and now wish I hadn't". Good testimony.

The 2.8 costs a lot less than others in the L range as well. I guess it all depends - if you were a pro needing every shot, then the zooms would be essential, but for multiple games of soccer (we call it football here), something you might consider is that eliminating the zoom hassle and getting a prime will let you concentrate on the action - sometimes you will be a little close, and get the portraits, sometimes a little far ( but hey, you can always crop those images). You won't EVER be caught out with the 'wrong' focal length worrying more about the cropping than the shot itself.

FWIW, I also have a 100-300 USM which I will be lending my Dad on his trip to New Zealand next year. I am looking forward to seeing how I 'make do' with just the 200mm focal length. But I do not have to make my living from this.

Whatever you choose, remember this: I convinced my wife I needed a motorbike for 'practical' reasons. And I got one, but I don't think I had her fooled for one minute! All the best

[larry h.]

My suggestion: Rent both a 70-200/2.8 IS lens + 2x II teleconverter and a 100-400 IS on the same day. Spend all day photographing soccer games of all ages (I don't know how old your daughter is, but remember the older she gets the bigger the field).

 

You will probably find that the 100-400 is a better outdoor daytime soccer lens because on a big field. You are going to need that 4x range and your effective 640mm focal length with your 20D to reach across or down the field. If you are on the sidelines, there will be times when 100mm is too long. Remember in this case that 70mm x 2 = 140mm is even longer. You won't have time to put on and take off the teleconverter. So for soccer on a big field, your choice is 140-400/5.6 or 100-400/5.6. (With the newer EF 2x II teleconverter, the optical quality will be virtually the same. Email me separately for details.)

 

"low light indoors, plays and dance stuff." For this, there's no comparison. The 70-200/2.8 IS is clearly superior (and more expensive, especially when you add teleconverters).

 

Choose versatility vs. cost vs. low light need. It's your choice. It's a closer battle if you used film. But considering you will get an effective 1.6x boost from your 20D, I would probably go for the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x, especially if my wife already approved that expense. But you'll probably want the 1.4x as well so you won't get so long on the near sidelines of those soccer games.

 

Hope this helps, Larry

[charlie_vigue]

On my EOS-10D I use the 28-135 IS and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX HSM. If anything the Sigma focuses faster, so no worries on that score. Other than that I agree with everyone else. To me, if you're just shooting outdoors, and considering the great high ISO performance of the new 20D the Canon 70-200 f4L might be great for you, and it's a real bargain.

 

I went with the 2.8 so I could more easily use a 1.4 TC, but the next telephoto lens I get will be the Canon 300mm f4L IS prime. Results with 1.4 TC are optically OK, but at that length you really need a monopod or IS.

[andrew_carlson]

I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens about 3 months ago and recently the 20D as well. (money grows on trees here!) I tried taking ice hockey pictures before and just couldn't come close. The lighting and conditions were nasty. I have used the same lens outdoors for portrait work and I find that 2.8 in bright sunlight can be too fast. I usually back the aperture way down to something like 8, 11, 16, or 22 depending. Also setting ISO low as well helps.

 

The 70-200 does come up short sometimes and I consider the 100-400 as others have mentioned. For Soccer and football it might be perfect for that environment, indoors for hockey it just didn't do it justice. Ice should be white not grey. I'd love to see what you end up going with as I may be in the market for the 100-400 soon.

 

One thing I didn't see noted was Servo AF - I've seen that make a big improvement in overall focus for sports and action. When I had my Digital Rebel it lacks that capability (except in sports mode - whatever!) My first time out on the ice w/my 20D, Servo AF tracked the action very nicely. One shot AF needs to be re-focused and if someone is moving towards or away from you by the time you think "check shutter, aperture, exposure, push button" they are out of focus. AI Servo AF bounces back and forth too much between one shot and servo but I haven't really messed with it.

 

A side note, the really nice USM/L/IS glass will spoil you and any time you end up using something 'lesser' you will think "oh this is a crap lens" when it probably isn't. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS has spoiled me from perfectly good "snapshot" lenses...so I sold them on ebay...

 

A

[charlie_vigue]

"I find that 2.8 in bright sunlight can be too fast"

 

Um, shutter speed adjustment. Low ISO, fast shutter.

[mark u]

Your choice of lens is a function of several different factors. Firstly, what aperture do you need? I was shooting outside recently under overcast winter skies that would have required ISO 3200 and 1/350th at f/2.8 if I had been shooting sport - really about the limit shutter speed wise to freeze action. You will probably prefer to avoid shooting at ISO 3200 on a soccer pitch, because the noise becomes quite difficult to deal with and disentangle from the blades of grass. Maybe you live in sunnier, brighter climes and can get away with a narrower aperture. IS should be superfluous when shooting sport, since you should be using fast shutter speeds (and wide apertures to isolate the action).

 

The next issue is focal length. You will need a rather longer lens if your daughter is six rather than sixteen, simply because at six she won't be very tall. Since you haven't complained that your Sigma isn't long enough, I will assume that 300mm is sufficient. If you need the combination of 300 f/2.8, then you should look at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM, but it is quite heavy and a little bit over your budget. At f/4, your best choice is once again Sigma - the 100-300 f/4 EX HSM. There really is no point in putting a TC on a 70-200 instead. If you can get away with f/5.6, the cheapest and lightest useable option is Canon's 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM, which focusses extremely fast. The Canon 70-300 DO IS lens sometimes produces images with a dreamy quality (particularly when pointed toward the sun) - not the sharp bite you look for in a sports image.

 

If you feel you can get away with a maximum focal length of 200mm (try analysing you pictures by focal length to see), then the 200mm f/2.8 Canon prime will give the highest quality results at the expense of losing the flexibility of a zoom. I see little point in paying the extra for IS if your use for the lens is going to be confined largely to sports (see above). If you feel you need the zoom and can get away with f/4 then your choice is made. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM is almost the equal of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS) both optically and for speed of focus, but is somewhat cheaper. All of the lenses I have discussed have a focus performance that's in a totally different league from the Sigma 70-300, which in the APO macro super II version is the best in its class optically (and better than the Canon 100-300), but does have a penalty in focus speed that doesn't make it the ideal choice for a sport where you can't reliably use prefocus techniques.

 

A note to Andrew: if you were getting grey ice, that has nothing to do with the lens, and everything to do with your technique - shooting ice hockey, you should set the camera in M mode, meter from the ice and increase exposure by 1.5-2 stops - or partial meter off a mid tone player's shirt and lock exposure for that.

[mark u]

Perhaps I should have added that with any of the heavier lenses it makes good sense to get a monopod to take the weight of camera and lens.

[mike t.]

Sage,

 

You want as much reach and as much speed as you can afford. Reach - because you want to fill the frame as much as possible. Speed - because you want the best AF performance your camera can give you and you want to shoot at as high a shutter speed as possible to freeze action.

 

Your crop factor gives a reach of 320mm with a 200m focal length. This is good for about 25-30 meters. In soccer, that means your half of the midfield if you're located at the halfway along the touchline and it means most of the area around the goal and its flanks if you're located at the endline. That is enough reach for most shooting, although a pro would tell you 400mm is needed.

 

A fast prime is best - the Canon 200mm 2.8 L is a great example. The Canon 200mm 1.8 L is even better. Problem with a prime is that you're a spectator with an expensive camera when the play moves close. You'll miss shots that you really want to make. So a zoom makes a lot of sense unless you carry two bodies. This is where the 70-200mm Canon L comes in. You can skip the IS and save some money because you'll not be shooting at slow shutter speeds where the IS is a great benefit.

 

Do not make the mistake of buying anything less than a 2.8. You can always stop down to expand DOF and sharpness. You may find yourself shooting indoor or in bad outdoor light and will need every bit of that 2.8. It is not a compromise worth making unless you are sure you won't be shooting in poor light or indoors. And you can't be sure of either of these conditions if you should enjoy shooting futbol.

 

Consider the excellent third-party lenses out there in order to save some money to afford things like a good monopod. The Sigma EX 70-200mm 2.8 is a great lens, for example, that compares favorably with the Canon among users and in tests. There are others, too, despite what the Canonophiliacs here often post.

 

Stay away from the multi-x factor zooms that typically run variable f4-5.6 or so. They will not focus fast enough and won't give you enough light (shutter speed) in marginal conditions or indoor. You will surely be frustrated with them after only a short period of experience.

 

If your family will support the Canon L 70-200mm 2.8 that is a great place to start. It handles beautifully with or without a monopod, has great color and sharpness, and focuses quite fast. And, it's a very saleable lens if you find you need an alternative later on after you've got some worthwhile experience.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Wow you sure got alot of responses!

<BR>I'll just add my experience with several lenses.

<BR>All the canon 75-300 versions are too slow at focusing for any sports-not a doubt about it,i've used them all.<BR>While you can get some good shots ,you will have to throw many more away.

<BR>The canon 100-300/4-5.6 with it's internal focus (true USM motor)is much better.Probably not as fast as the L lenses but certainly in the same class as the 28-135.I haven't done alot of sports with mine yet but so far it's doing well

[ted_reyes]

After shooting an average 50-100 images per game in SoCal (usually sunny)during tournaments and year round play over the last seven years, I can recomend the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS). The f4 could work just as well for sideline work but cannot AF w/ 2X. I have rented the 100-400 which I like for its reach but prefer the 70-200 2.8 because:

1. Easier to use for sideline shots of outside players and endline shots of forwards or defenders coming at the goal,

2. With 2X, I can reach the midfielders from either side or endline.

 

At times the lens does seem short but on sunny days @ 100ASA, one can crop and still obtain fantastic 8X11. I use a 10D and typically a monopod. Never found the IS feature useful when renting the 100-400 so I did not spend extra for the feature.

 

One lens I would stay away from is the 100-300USM. Not because I believe it is a poor lens but because after owning the 70-200, its images leave something to be desired. It has been sitting in my closet since I bought the 70-200.

[jamiew]

While I agree the 100-400 is the best overall soccor lens, and the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best overall lens. Some other options are the 70-200 2.8 non IS ($1,000) and if you really need to save money the 70-200 f4 is the best buy. Just consider two points... for sports you do not need IS and since you know the position your daughter plays you can position yourself so that you do not really need the 400mm reach.

[bens]

the sigma is a very good lens for soccer action. i've had one for three years and love it; do mostly basketball but have done some soccer and baseball and its a solid performer with very good optics. don't forget a tripod, it helps alot.

[mark u]

"Plays and dance stuff". I overlooked that requirement in my reply - it might give you the motivation for an IS lens, but you already have the 28-135 with IS, though the lens is a little slow at longer focal lengths. IS lenses suitable for soccer are big. Maybe you should consider a fast prime, depending on the shooting distances you can manage, e.g. 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8. The narrow depth of field would give your shots more impact.

[frank_page]

Sage,

 

You might take note that with Canon, the body also affects focus speed. The tendency is for the higher level bodies to focus faster with f/2.8 lenses. My experience was that the EOS 3 focussed a lot faster with L lenses than the older Elans.

 

Sorry, but I don't know how the focussing speed of the 20D compares to the EOS 3 (but I would like to find out because when I go digital, I don't want to loose predective auto-focus.) But my point is, if you rent the 70-200 and it is not fast enough on the D20, you might have try a higher level body - I have had no problem getting good shots of my 6 year old's soccer games with the 70-200 on an EOS 3.

 

Good luck

[matt_sallis]

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and use it with both 1.4 and 2x tc's on a 20D.

The focussing with converters is superb, without them it is phenomenally quick and bitingly accurate. Servo focus will be a dream for your needs.

The quality is top notch (I'm used to zeiss primes so I can be very critical on sharpness) very impressive and I don't think you'll regret the purchase with a 1.4 tc.

[sage_major]

Thanks for all the info. I will try out the 70-200 and see how well it works indoors. The 300 length is fine for now as my daughter is 6. It seems to me it may be better to buy the 70-200 + 1.4 now as the field will not get much bigger for 2 more years. Then later buy the 100-400 for the longer focal later. I will look at all of them when I pick up the 2.8 next week.