Sports Lens

[bbarbiere]

What would your recommendations be (and why) for best outdoor sports lens for

under $1,000? Under $1,500?

[mike t.]

Very hard to answer without knowing what you shoot. How about a little more information, Bob? Which sports, typical field size, typical lighting, etc. And what body will you be using?

 

Lacking info, I'd say the Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS or the Canon 200/2.8 + 1.4x TC for under $1K. Around $1,500 I'd probably look for a used Sigma 120-300/2.8.

 

Why? Generally you want f2.8 speed and at least 200mm of reach. The lenses I mention are all proven performers.

[geoffs1]

In the under %1500 range, I'd include the 100-400mmL IS. It's slower than the f/2.8 lenses, but it gives you more reach (if you need that). If you have enough light to be shooting 1/500 at f/8 (or a bit wider open) with ISO 200-400 and need something longer than 300mm then it's an option to consider.

[bbarbiere]

Gotcha. I'm using the rebel XTi and shooting football, baseball, golf. Lighting will be morning, afternoons, early evening, and evening under the lights. I currently use the Canon 70-200 L, 4.0 and no tripod/monopod. I'm clearly an amateur photograher and think the lack of IS may be hurting.

[bob_osullivan]

Not in sports it isn't. IS does nothing for you in action sports, as it does nothing to help freeze motion of the subject. Sure you might be able to get some players on the bench not moving with IS in low light, but for game action it adds no value at all.

 

The F4 speed of your current 70-200 is probably what's holding you back. I also have this lens and am considering the 70-200 2.8 non-IS for the same reasons and also the 100-400 (which only comes with IS).

 

The other alternative, not yet mentioned, that I'm considering is fast primes. I already have several 1.8 primes up to 85mm. I could go for a couple more, 135 and 200 and a 1.4 or 2X converter.

 

In the end I believe I'll end up selling or trading my 70-200 F4 up to a 2.8 non IS version and get a 1.4 converter though.

 

What I have done, and what I recomend you do, is shoot some more with what you have. Carefully study the images and exif data. Get a sense for what aperture, speed and ISO you are using in those different lighting conditions. Then you can decide from there. BTW, with my XTI and 30 D I get very good low noise results going up to 1600 and even 3200 ISO in a pinch, so try pushing that envelope too.

[geoffs1]

Bob O'Sullivan, "The other alternative, not yet mentioned, that I'm considering is fast primes."

 

Unfortunately, all of the fast primes I know of that are 300mm and above fall into the "pricey" category (and most into the "very, very, pricey" range).

 

The only on I know "fast'ish" prime I know of that's anywhere near the OP's price-range is the Canon 300mm f/4 IS (ca. $1150).

[dave_nelson___atlanta__ga]

<p>I second the recommendation of the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS and 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS lenses. My experience is that the 70-200 is to short for football and baseball which is what drove me to the 100-400. I also bought both the 1.4x and 2x tele-converters but found that they degraded the image quality to much for my taste.</p>

<p>The 70-200 2.8 L IS is the sharpest lens I have ever used and the focus is amazingly fast, it really spoiled all non "L" glass for me. The 100-400 is also an amazing lens although it needs more light which I usually make up for by shooting at a higher ISO.</p>

<p align="center">Here is a daytime photo taken with the 100-400<br>ISO 400, 400mm, f9, 1/500<br><a href="http://davenelson.smugmug.com/gallery/3156412#173364969" target="_blank"><img src="http://davenelson.smugmug.com/photos/173364969-S.jpg" border="2" style="border: 2px solid blue;"></a></p>

<p align="center">And here is a night game photo taken with the 70-200<br>ISO 3200, 200mm, f2.8, 1/200<br><a href="http://davenelson.smugmug.com/gallery/2540664#133537557" target="_blank"><img src="http://davenelson.smugmug.com/photos/133537557-M.jpg" border="2" style="border: 2px solid blue;"></a></p>

[doug_saucier]

I use my 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8 primes with either the 1.4 or the 2 TC's. This work better on the 200 than 135 IMO anyway. The 200 and a 1.4 or 2 TC is less than a grand and good images to boot. FYI - this is on a 30D.

[zackojones]

Bob: I use the 200mm f/2.8L for football and softball and my 50mm for indoor volleyball. I will be adding the 100 f/2 soon. The 70-200 f/2.8L is a great lens if you just want one lens instead of 3 like I will be using.

 

Also, there's a little known sports forum here at PN. Just click on "Forums" above and scroll down to sports. Come join us.

[whwhitejr]

Bob, your 70-200f4 is fine in daylight but you need f2.8 or better with the rebel body at night. Some fields have fair lighting but most are terrible. I would not shoot with out a monopod but you can get by without IS. I use the monopod to hold me up as well mostly with the 5D which is a lot less noisy than my 30D. I shoot high school football (check out my pictures onP.N.

 

Now with the 1D mIII you could shoot at 3200ISO or even 6400ISO then your f4 lens would be good.:) Good luck, Bill

[keith_lubow]

A pre-IS 300mm f/4 would be very versatile and very reasonably priced. (These will all be used lenses.) Even the new IS model is under your budget. You said daytime shooting, so f/4 should be fine. Nice and compact, too.

 

Keith

[dave_holland]

I love my 70-200 2.8, but I think it's a little over your price range. As a compromise you have the 70-200 f4 and the fixed 200 2.8. I don't think I would go longer in your case, especially with an APS sensor.

 

So, it amounts to the relative value of zoom vs aperture. For my dough, aperture wins and so I would closely look at the fixed 200 2.8. But I would also consider holding out for another year, to scan the used market for that 70-200 2.8.

 

Dave