new camera and lens, particularly for hockey, gymnastics and soccer

[tom_ribaudo]

<p>This is all for my kids activities (and my fun of course). Kids playing soccer so outdoors, gymnastics and hockey indoors. I just want better pictures and the ability to do more with the camera. At the same time I have three kids doing sports so most of my money goes there :-)<br>

Going to take the plunge and get away from a point and shoot. Not a huge budget, probably $1200-$1500. so right now I'm thinking of either the Canon 550 (T2i) or Nikon 3100 for a camera body. 1st is this a wise choice? given my budget I don't see a lot of options when paired with a decent zoom lense. I haven't seen these bodies mentioned much here, the Canon in particular seems to be a lot of bang for the buck (very similar to the 7D), would a used higher end older model be a better choice? What are the advantages of the higher end cameras I may be missing?<br>

2nd and more importantly is the lens or lenses to go with it. I'm looking at the Tamron lenses, particularly Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC in place of the kit lens, mainly because its a faster lens and would give me a lot more flexibility shooting sports indoors. Another possibility is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 or Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 DII VC (although I wonder if this will be fast enough, it certainly would give me more options). I've also considered the Canon Prime 50mm 1.8 lens to go with something else (perhaps the 18-270) but not sure what. The idea of some type of zoom certainly appeals. What are the advantages/disadvantages of the 18 vs 28mm?<br>

With regard to the the Tamron lens, Tamron also makes the 17-50 without the Vibration Control that seems to get better reviews than the newer lens. Does anyone have any 1st hand experience with this? It also seems like the reviewers are over the place with regard to that so who knows. <br>

Another thing I'm curious about is how are the Tamron and Sigma lenses (quality wise) in comparison to the lower end kit lenses that come with the cameras like the Canon and Nikon mentioned above?</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Tom</p>

<h1> </h1>

[William Michael]

<p>Your guiding criteria should be:<br /><strong>Soccer: </strong>(I assume during daylight) If you can move along the sideline you'll need something in the compass of 70mm to 200mm reach. You can get away with an F/4 or at a pinch F5.6 lens. A lens with the facility to use an x1.4 tele converter and keep auto focus would be good.</p>

<p><strong>Hockey / Gymnastics:</strong> (I assume Ice Hockey - if Field Hockey the same applies as for Soccer).<br /><strong>Gymnastics</strong>: You will need a fast lens and how fast depends upon the lighting.<br />School, Gyms (Gymnastics) are notorious for poor and UNEVEN lighting. <br />It might be very likely that you will need a Prime Lens such as 50/1.8; 85/1.8 or 100/2.<br />Picking you camera Vantage Point (and being able to move if there are various apparatus), gives you great leverage - for example to be able to shoot with only one prime lens such as an 85/1.8.</p>

<p><strong>Ice Hockey:</strong> I have never covered Ice Hockey - I defer to those who have.<br />But I expect that a zoom (if f/2.8 is fast enough) would be more convenient than a Prime - considering the speed of the game and the fact that it would be UNLIKELY you would be able to move.<br />I expect getting close to the glass would be beneficial.<br />My guess is, if you are close to the glass a 24 to 80 zoom would be suitable on an APS-C camera – but again F/2.8 might be too slow even at ISO3200 IF the rink is poorly lit.</p>

<p><strong>Camera:</strong> I would first be guided by the best High ISO/ quality image - you should consider you might be using ISO3200 and ISO6400 for Gymnastics in School Gyms, even when using an F/2 lens.<br />Dependent upon the skill level and age of the children the Tv (Shutter Speed) required to freeze the action will necessitate these parameters being available to you.</p>

<p>The slower the zoom lens you have for Soccer - the higher the ISO you will require also and it is not beyond possibility that you will shoot ISO3200 outside if you are limited to an F/5.6 lens if the day is overcast or you have an early morning or late afternoon game and there is grandstand shadow on the field.</p>

<p>If your children compete at regular venues an idea of the lighting (i.e. the EV for the indoor venues) would greatly assist your choice - so too would be knowing where your good vantage point might be and if you the ability to move, should you need to select Prime Lens - as the shooting distance will determine the FL you require.</p>

<p>As budget is a concern – you might be in a position where you need to compromise, in this case it is my view that you do your homework and find out what light you will encounter and NOT buy a slow (aperture) zoom lens in the belief it will be OK – if you are to encounter dark environs and do need to compromise, you would be better to buy two FAST Prime lenses (i.e. good value for money lenses like a fast 50 and a fast 135 or 200) – and be happy with sitting yourself in a good spot (inside) and waiting for the shot to come to you – outside on the soccer field you can have a bit of exercise running with a 200 or a 135.<br />It is unlikely that you are buying this camera ONLY for the kids’ sports – so I suggest you look at the little extra and consider buying the Kit Lens (e.g.18 to 55) for your other Photographic interests.<br />HOWEVER, the purchase of this Kit Lens would be unnecessary IF you determine the indoor EV (Light Value) will allow you to use an F/2.8 zoom lens for the Ice Hockey and the Gymnastics at ISO 3200 or ISO6400.</p>

<p>So it comes down to how much light you will have . . .<br />As a guide, you should be thinking the slowest Tv (shutter speeds) you can expect to use are:<br />Soccer / Field Hockey: Kids 5 to 10 = 1/400s; 10 to 14 = 1/640s; then 1/1000s<br />Ice Hockey: (my guess) a bit faster those Soccer indicatives – (because you are closer to the action)<br />Gymnastics: Kids 5 to 10 = 1/320s; 10 to 14 = 1/500s; then 1/800s</p>

<p>Commenting on the lens' use for the SPORTS you describe IS (or VR) will be of little value to you.</p>

<p>I re-iterate that for Field Sports and Gymnastics the ability to gain sideline / floor access and be able to MOVE will leverage both the capacity to get more shots and also require less expensive lenses so to do.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[shoppix]

<p>The Tamron 17-50 is a very nice lens. I just question how much sports use you will get out of it. Perhaps behind goal in hockey rink, behind basket in basketball..although 17 is too wide, you would generally be shooting at 35mm. <br>

a 70-200 f2.8 is the first pro zoom lens to consider. You need the f2.8, no question, to shoot inside. the lower cost 70-300 not fast enough, aperture wise. I've read that the Tamron 70-200 does not focus as fast as the Sigma 70-200. Sigma has two versions to choose from - about $800 and $1600. Nikon with VR I about $1700(possibly being discontinued) and new VRII $2300.<br>

for soccer & field hockey the 70-200 limits you on the long end, where as a 300 f4 limits you on the short end...and far end of field is still a long way off. I've been using my 300 f4 for kids & HS soccer this year more than the 70-200. A prime is very nice, very nice! I bought mine used from KEH.<br>

I'd take the few buck$ you'll save by not getting a kit lens and putting it toward more PRO models of lenses. <br>

For gymnastics...?? I guess I often use the 70-200, but it gets heavy. and it's a big lens to follow the action with, at least in the HS gym I usually shoot in. It's small. The Sigma 50-150 would be ideal. I'm down on the floor shooting, pretty close to the apparatus. Sometimes I'll use the 85 f1.8 but I miss the zoom action in gymnastics. Although, a 135 f2 would be very nice to have and just 'zoom with my feet' more!<br>

For camera bodies...newer models typically have better control of noise. Wouldn't concern yourself too much about megapixels. they are all very similar/close until you can spend 3-5,000 buck$!<br>

A shooting burst rate of 5 fps or higher is better. but...as you get accustomed to the action of each sport you learn when to shoot so that 'bursting' become, or should become, less frequent. It might take you until near end of each season to get the good shots. It often takes me a game or two to back in the swing with changing from one sport to the next as the year goes on. <br>

Gotta get fast at switching between portrait and landscape orientation. Many games/sports I'll shoot mostly 'portrait'. I see some galleries of other shooters with mostly landscape shots. Often they get hard to crop to a normal print size, with good composition. <br>

Need to move around as much as you can or are allowed. Shoot standing, sitting and kneeling. Keep an eye on the backgrounds. At my local HS gym, shooting basketball, one end has US flag and School banner up on the wall which I can get in photos of foul shots. I often spend entire game at on end- the one with the good BG. You get both teams laying up at the basket as well as defenders doing their thing. <br>

Remember, you don't have to get everyone photographed in a great shot at each game. Just try to get those shots spread out over the season. Of course, there will likely be a few more of your son than the other players!</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>You want a body that works well for sports. Take a good look at a used 1DMkII or MkIIn. The n model has a bigger screen on the back, image quality is identical. Used prices vary from 700 to 1100 range. The AF for sports is excellent. Many pro shooters are still using the MKII bodies for hockey arenas and fast moving sports for one good reason: they work. Auto focus is fast and accurate. Exposure is good. Image quality is good.<br>

They are a pro body, not a prosumer body. Built like a brick, bombproof and they just keep working well. Then you will have a bit more to spend for some fast glass to use for those poorly lit venues you are going to face.</p>

[michael_purvey]

<p>Very timely question since I just signed up. I just got done this weekend shooting a Silver Sticks hockey tourny. The venue this time was well lit (a month ago they had a few lights out). I was shooting a D300 with a 70-200 F2.8 VR1 and got very decent pictures at ISO3200-F2.8-F3.5-1/800 for reference. I ended up with between 15-20K shots.<br>

I think that if you pick up a D3100 for around $650 and put a Sigma or Tammy 70-200 F2.8 in front of it you'll get very respectable images and stay around your price range. The 17-50 you mentioned is much too short for anything except for action right around the goal and there you need the quickest focusing rig you can get..in other words, not really your best bang for the buck. The D3100 has very respectable performance at iso3200 (which you'll find is almost required for a quick game like hockey).<br>

You can get away with shutter speeds of 1/400 (barely) for the smallest children as they don't skate or shoot all that quickly but by the time they're teens you'll really notice the difference in sharpness between 1/800 and 1/400.<br>

I shot a lot of quick bursts of 3-5 images but I had good position being the event photographer (often in the penalty box-a risky place to be so keep your wits about you). Practice your timing and the slower burst of the D3100 won't be much limitation and your images will be very nice indeed.<br>

Nikon's D-lighting is a god-send since kids faces are shadowed by their helmets and the d-lighting brightens them up nicely without blowing highlights.<br>

USE A LENS HOOD...always...I've had a puck slapped up that solidly hit the front edge of my lens hood. Resist the temptation to lean out over the ice (if you're in the box) and get shots of the puck/kids skating straight towards you along the edge. You'll risk getting nailed by a player coming up from behind or getting a slap-shot blasted into your face. If you have to shoot through the glass, put the lens hood right up against the glass if you possibly can, a rubber hood isn't a bad investment for that application. Otherwise the glare off the glass will kill your contrast.</p>