F/2.8 or F/4 for sports?

[a._willis]

<p>Hello,<br>

I have a 400D and primarily use one lens - the Canon EF 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.<br>

I take photos at sporting events and am looking to upgrade my lens. Most of my photos are taken at hockey games, inside an arena where lighting is an issue, as well as fast-moving subjects.<br>

I am debating between the 70-200mm f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS. The IS version of the f/2.8 is out of my price range. Weight of the lens, etc isn't really an issue, I only care about which will produce the sharpest images.<br>

Thanks for any suggestions.</p>

<p> </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Hockey? f2.8 = less motion blur</p>

[rddelliott]

<p>The 2.8 non IS is the right choice especially if the lighting is iffy. Remember, you will have to keep your shutter speeds up to stop the fast paced action and you may be at 2.8 most of the time. I do not think the f/4 will cut it without going to very high ISO.</p>

[robert_bone]

<p>Will 70-200mm be the right lens? How far do you sit from the action and how tight of a shot do you want?<br>

You might be better off with a less expensive 300 zoom or 400mm zoom. As far as stopping the action, 1/2000 or faster will be required.<br>

If you crop 50% of the photo with the super telephotos you could get better shots with more details.<br>

Bob</p>

[Brad_]

And not just lighting, but better subject isolation as well with the larger aperture and shallower depth of field.

[nathan_meador]

<p>I'd go with the 2.8, best option for indoor/night sports, f4 would be too slow. I'd go with the Canon if you have the money, if not the Sigma is a good option.</p>

<p><strong>You might be better off with a less expensive 300 zoom or 400mm zoom. As far as stopping the action, 1/2000 or faster will be required.<br /></strong>Robert, 1/2000 is fine for daylight shots, but impossible at night/indoors, and is overkill for typical high school/college sports, 1/800 is sufficient and 1/500 will work if you have to go that slow. The less expensive zooms will not cut it if they are slower than f2.8 except in bright sunlight.</p>

[a._willis]

<p>Thanks for the info everyone.</p>

[chris_adams11]

<p>f/2.8 for sure. the last thing you want is to not have enough light and not be able to get the shot.</p>

[paul_mackenzie]

<p>2.8 is essential. I've shot indoor football for several years in a low-light environment, and the 2.8 makes it SO much better. The IS helps as well, but the higher shutter speed is what'll make the shot.</p>

<p>The first year I used the 70-300 4-5.6 Canon zoom. Far more blur than anything else.</p>

<p>You won't go wrong with the 2.8 L...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For your specific situation, aperture will do more good than IS.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>I use a Tokina 50-135 f2.8 and just traded for the 70-200 f2.8L IS for wrestling and track. I also use a 580EX for the indoor stuff.<br>

The f2.8 is essential for fast focus in dim light. I've also used the 70-200 f4 L (non-IS) which was pretty good, you can get away with that if your finances are like mine (I finance my upgrades through trading up after a few years), but if you lok at all the serious sports photographers, they all use the 70-200 f28. They all can't be wrong. ;-)<br>

Good luck.<br>

Ed</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I shoot lots of kids Hockey and use a full frame camera (5DII or EOS 1V). I actually mainly justified the 5DII for hockey as with an F2.8 lens and 400ISO film it was marginal freezing motion. I usually shoot from the bench (no glass) and find that a 70-200 is all you need - even on full frame. I have tried a 1.4x converter and also the 300 F2.8 I use for ski racing. The 70-200 is the best length unless you want to shoot head and shoulders or are shooting from the seating. You must get F2.8 as the AF is faster with F2.8 lenses and you will need the speed. In some areanas even at 1600 ISo with F2.8 I am struggling at 1/250 as a shutter speed. You do not need IS as you tend to need at least 1/400 but you may want it for other reasons. You have to use only the center Af point (unless you buy a 1 series body) and will need to switch between single shot and AF servo modes. Indoor hockey is quite challenging for AF systems. A flash will not have enough range and i suspect that you will not be allowed to use one as it distracts the kids (the 10-12 GN stuff on point and shoot is not an issue - but is no use). Here in Western Canada some of the arenas are very dark - my kid once played a tournament in an arena that I measured at LV 6-7! I am surprised they can see the puck. You will also need to take care with white balance - I use an Expodisc as many of the arenas are unusually lit and have strange colour casts.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Between the two lenses you are considering the F/2.8 is the better choice for Ice Hockey.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do not shoot Ice Hockey, but I shoot a lot of Indoor Swimming - there is a similarity in venue lighting and SS required (at the Starting Blocks) – if you are considering a supplementary lens, the 85F/1.8 will be friend at poorly lit venues.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Following Philip's comments re WB - even if you custom WB before you shoot - you may find strange variations. This is because some venues will have three phase lighting and the colour changes and the higher shutter speed (than the electricity cycle rate) picks up the different spectrums - mentioned such you don't think your camera is wonky.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[dave_holland]

<p>I have shot tons of hockey over the years, sometimes with strobes, sometimes bare, with all kinds of lenses. No question, the 70-200 2.8 will be your workhorse.</p>

<p>Dave</p>