Can't decide between 70-200mm Zoom or 300mm Telephoto for soccer shots

[troy_bakken]

I have read a bunch of postings that deal with soccer photography

and can't seem to come to grips with the best choice of lenses for

shooting soccer games. It also may be that one is not enough. I am

considering Canon's 70-200mm 2.8L or the 300mm F/4.0L IS. Any

suggestions?

[grizzlymarmot]

The key is sidline access. You want to be able to walk up and down the sideline if you want good shots. Sometimes this takes a bit of pre-arranging depending on the league.

If you have sideline access the 70-200 is perfect. At 200mm you can get good shots with 1 player and the ball when they are in the quadrant closest to you. (You can't be on both sides of the field at once.) The 70 comes in handy for a lot of group shots especially at the end when players congratulate each other also if you want to get a picture of the shot on goal with the shooter and the goalie. As most shots are daytime and you need 400 speed film the 70-200 4.0 lens is certainly fine. A little extra DOF doesn't hurt with the action.

[paul_purcell]

Both have good reputations. For soccer I have a 400 on a tripod, and a 100-300L around my neck. When the players get too close for the 400, I step back and pull up the 100-300L. Just makes it easier to cover more of the game, but both "long prime" and "moderate zoom" get good shots.

 

If you can get sideline access, avoid the half of the sideline that has the line judge. They always seem to get right in the way at the most inopportune time. They stop at midfield though, so are easy enough to deal with. (Or work along the goal line.)

[greg_mason]

i have shot approximately 20 rolls of soccer film a year for the last four years of my children. the extra length of a 100-300 zoom is essential. if you can get sideline access either side of the goal works well.

[tony_gorell1]

Troy,

 

I've been doing soccer photography for the past 6-7 years, the past 3 professionally. I use two cameras to cover the general on-field action - an 80-200mm f2.8 for close action near the sidelines and in the goal-mouth; and a 300mm f2.8 with either a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter. This usually provides the required magnification and quality. 300mm by itself is often too short. However, if you wait until the players are closer, its certainly usable.

Access to the ends of the field is crucial if you want head-on shots of the players running towards you. However, soccer is often very unpredictable. Knowledge, anticipation, a bit of luck, and practice are essential. Good Luck.

[joe_guzzi]

Soccer fields can vary greatly in both length and width, there is not one official size like good old American football. I'm able to roam the touchlines (sidelines) with a 70-300, 300mm gives me an arc that extends to the middle of all the fields I've seen. To me the ideal soccer lens would be a zoom that starts somewhere around 70/80mm, extends to 400mm, and is light enough to handhold without a monopod. At 300mm an aperture of 5.6 is too small and Depth of Field is very often greater than I would like.

[craig_gillette]

I use a consumer 75-300 to shoot my kid's games. The whole range of both lenses is useful. I'd suggest the zoom first, simply because of the flexibility and the 200 does allow isolating individuals. The 300 gives you that reach for the goal shots, etc. Good advice about the ARs quadrant! If the AR is doing his/her job, they are in the way or "capturing" your autofocus at just the wrong time :)!

[jamie_crist1]

I have used the 70-200 2.8 shooting my sons U-8 and U-12 soccer games mostly from the sidelines. I was very happy with the color, contrast, speed and sharpness of the lens, but felt it was a too short most of the time. If I go back and look through my shots, they are almost always at 200mm f/4 and above. Even at 200mm, I always had to do a pretty fair amount of cropping to get the shot I want. So I just purchased the 300mm f/4 IS L the other day and have yet to try it out. I considered the 400mm, but f/5.6 and no IS was the deal-breaker.<div></div>