Soccer Pictures

[todd_taylor]

What lense or lense combinations do you recommend for taking soccer

pictures? I have a 20D with the 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4X

teleconverter. It works well, but when the action is either too

close or too far away, I lose the opportunity to take the shots. I

hate to compromise quality either.....thoughts? Thanks!

[rich_weiss]

I use a 1D MKII, 100 - 400 Canon IS at 1200 - 1600 ASA with flash on Really Right Stuff extension arm to eliminate red eye for evening pics - 400 - 800 ASA daylight without flash. The 20D has a slightly larger crop factor.

[yakim_peled1]

Any lens with a wider range will lead to compromise quality but you probably know that. The only option I see is to use several bodies with different lenses on each. This is a very expensive solution and so far I have only seen pros using it as they don't pay for their gear.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[todd_taylor]

Rich,

 

Do you like the push/pull of the 100-400mm? I thought it would be a bit difficult to get used to. Also, does it take better pictures at 400mm than a 2X teleconverter on my 70-200 f2.8?

 

Thanks!

[phyrpowr]

I can't answer to the 70-200 comparison, but I just got the 100-400 and love the push-pull zoom, versus the zoom ring, for action shots

 

Somebody is going to chime in about it being a "dust vacuum", but the people on this .net who ACTUALLY HAVE AND USE ONE don't seem to think it a problem

[jcolwell]

I normally use the EF 300/4L IS USM on the 20D and have an EF 80-200/2.8L on an Elan 7. I will sometimes put the 1.4X on the 300, but usually not if I'm on or near the sidelines. I also usually have the EF 17-40/4L or EF 28-80/2.8-4L in my back pocket for nearby throw-ins and sideline action (also for nearby line-outs in rugby).

[marknagel]

Todd, I was looking at the 70-200 w/2x vs 100-400 a while ago and all the comparisons I saw clearly showed the 100-400 had sharper images. If I find a link I'll post one.

 

Mark

[marknagel]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

 

Found one

 

Mark

[marknagel]

Here's one I did a while ago.

 

Mark

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=21902484

[digitmstr]

If it's an adult game with a regular size field you have two choices:

 

1) either move around or

 

2) get two bodies with a super tele and your zoom.

 

The zoom you have should be fine for most action in the half of the field in which you are or, better yet, if you stay on the side line to the L/R and/or behind the goalie. To catch action all the way to the other half you'd need at least a 300 + 1.4 TC.

 

In your case I would just move around rather than to get another lens. Why? Because you'd have to change lenses and that would defeat the purpose! The 100-400 is ok but slow.

 

If you can get another body you could get the 300 f/2.8 or f/4 and use the prime with the 1.4 extender for longer shots and the zoom for closer action. Either way you either change lenses (which IMO defeats your main intent which is NOT to lose shots) or get another body. The only other zoom alternative is the 100-400...

[Greg M]

Not too long ago I met a friend at his daughters soccer match. He had his Canon D60 and 75-300 IS and I had my 10D and 100-400 IS. We shot with our own lenses and then swapped lenses for a while. It was a day game with overcast skies, perfect weather for good shooting and no deep shadows.

 

There were a couple of things both of us noticed in using both sets of equipment. It really does pay to have the added grip when switching to vertical shots (the D60 didn't have one, my 10D did), the ring USM of the 100-400 was quite a bit better in terms of being able to keep up with the action (the 75-300 just creeps along in comparison), and the 400mm reach was a big difference maker in shooting across the field.

 

The 100-400, while not a super fast lens, is plenty good when combined with the ability to shoot at high ISO's of up to 1600 and maintain good image quality. I use mine at night Major League Baseball games all the time at ISO 1600 and it gives me shutter speeds plenty fast enough to capture any action I want. For daylight soccer matches the lens speed is not an issue.<div></div>

[rich_weiss]

I really got used to push/pull for sports, and it is really a compact lens when pushed all the way in. Here is a shot (not full resolution) shot from the stands in a poorly lit stadium with the 100 - 400 canon 1DMKII, 1600 ASA

http://www.pghhotshots.com/footballprvshampton10-1-04/pages/JR5P0034.htm

and another shot from the stands to the end zone

http://www.pghhotshots.com/footballprvshampton10-1-04/pages/JR5P0004.htm. They both blew up nicely to 8 x 10

[rich_weiss]

sorry the 2nd link did not work, try this

 

http://www.pghhotshots.com/footballprvshampton10-1-04/pages/JR5P0004.htm

[nigel_keene]

I used a 70-200 f2.8IS for most of last season and was very pleased with the results, I took up a position alongside the penalty area so that it gave me a better chance of some midfield stuff and then cropped to get the pic I wanted. The 70-200 limits your options a bit but on a fast camera like my 1D mark2 I got all the important stuff!<div></div>

[dpgarber]

I've got a Digital Rebel (form factor 1.6) and I started with the 55-200mm. The bottom end

is great if you're close to the field and want to capture a corner kick from behind the kicker

with the other players in the background clustered around the goal. The top end, however, is

not good enough to reach diagonally across the field. I switched to the 75-300mm and can

now take acceptable shots across the field, but 75 is just a bit too much for very close action.

If you have $2.2k, you can spring for the 28-300mm. I won't spend that much more than I

already have, so I use the 75-300mm and frantically backpedal when the action gets too

close. The shots aren't as good, but I don't get hit with the ball as much.

[larry h.]

Strictly in terms of focal length range, probably the best lens is the Sigma 50-500mm zoom. I know *nothing* about its quality or AF speed. I think it is supposed to be a big honker.

 

Better quality will be the Canon 100-400 IS, although 100mm x 1.6 is too long for close shots and even 400mm x 1.6 will not reach all the way across (much less down) the field.

 

Check out my pix (URL below) of my son's U11 game(s). He is the one in the arm brace. Note that the field is a little smaller than a pro field. Email me if you have questions about the equipment and focal length for any shots.

 

http://www.boozle.net/iafc/231004bw/index.htm