Lense for football

[Weggy]

Hi all :help:

I've been asked to cover a charity match at a Premiership club in the summer, and am after some advice as to which lenses would be the most useful to me.

I'm preparing to buy a Bigma (50-500) for my own wildlife shots, so any opinions if this will do a job?

I've often been at league games and watched the pro's with what I presume are Canon 600mm's.... No way I can afford one of those right now, but I understand they can be hired from varous sources.... maybe this would be the best option?

I'm keen to make a good job of this, as it obviously adds to my portfolio and could well open some doors if done properly.... :woot:

[Adamski]

Most of the press guys I've spoken to at Anfield are using the Canon 400mm f2.8 lens. The Bigma will probably be too slow to Footy as its f4-f6.3.

Either a 70-200mm f2.8 or a 120-300mm f.8 will be more suitable for footy.

Ta,

Adam.

[Weggy]

Most of the press guys I've spoken to at Anfield are using the Canon 400mm f2.8 lens. The Bigma will probably be too slow to Footy as its f4-f6.3.

Either a 70-200mm f2.8 or a 120-300mm f.8 will be more suitable for footy.

Ta,

Adam.

Thanks Adam

My only concern is that 200 or 300mm wont be a sufficient enough zoom, but then if the guys at Anfield are using them...!

[Adamski]

Thanks Adam

My only concern is that 200 or 300mm wont be a sufficient enough zoom, but then if the guys at Anfield are using them...!

Weggy, the guys at Anfield are using the 400mm f2.8. Using the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 with 1.4X converter on it will give you a 168-420mm f4 zoom. That should be plenty for you. Ask Joe T how it handles as he's got one.

:thumbs:

[EOS_JD]

The Bigma is slow and not suited to football but if it's a nice bright day you might manage it. The f2.8 lenses are very expensive (but also excellent).

When shooting with a 70-200 and a 1.4x most of your shots will be from corners or around the area you are standing.

[Iain MacIntosh]

Hi, I've shot with the 50-500...its just way to slow for footie.
If you are on a budget try the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and get 1.4x as well. Don't get the sigma 2x as it gives soft images, the 1.4 is far better.
I've shot with this combination, with the 1.4x on you'l have 420 at f4 but the AF is def slower with the 1.4x on, although no where near as slow as the 50-500.
Its a good combination to start.

cheers
Iain

[Weggy]

Hi, I've shot with the 50-500...its just way to slow for footie.
If you are on a budget try the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and get 1.4x as well. Don't get the sigma 2x as it gives soft images, the 1.4 is far better.
I've shot with this combination, with the 1.4x on you'l have 420 at f4 but the AF is def slower with the 1.4x on, although no where near as slow as the 50-500.
Its a good combination to start.

cheers
Iain

You correctly say I'm on a budget, and then you recommend a £1700 lense!!! A few too many early Saturday night shandies?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dazzajl]

Since you have plenty of time to practice I'd not get too hung up on having the best or fastest lenses. Sure the Pro's will all have huge f2.8L and f4L monsters but when you shoot this stuff day in and day out, the extra hit rate you get kinda justifies a £4k + spend.

People tend to forget these days that sports snappers were doing just fine before canon turned the world upsidedown with the EOS 1.

The "bigma" will do just fine if you can get it focused somewhere before the action arrives. I'm not saying that you'll match the hit rate of someone with a 600mm f4L but if you practice the skills you'll need you will do far better than many would credit.

[Iain MacIntosh]

Buy 2nd hand, I do. You can get a good deal on the 120-300 non DG model. Check http://www.mifsuds.com/ they usually have a good selection of 2nd hand kit.

cheers
Iain

[EOS_JD]

Or ask Kerso (PM him here) for a price.

[reddeathdrinker]

Or consider hiring a lens...

[Weggy]

Or consider hiring a lens...

I've been thinking about hiring something, and buying a Bigma for my wildlife stuff, as I suspect the football thing will be a one off.

Can anyone recommend somewhere that does lens hire please?

[scoff]

why not get a 100-400L IS, it will do your footty match, and cover your wildlife requirements, with the Image stabilising function it should be suitable.
It is better than the sigma, I've used both.

[CarlOgden]

Rent the 400 f2.8 lens from Calumet. Ok, you have to give them your credit card and any damage and they attack it.

But on a limited budget, that's your best option.

Having owned the 100-400, unless the light is really good, it won't be too good.

HTH,
Carl.

[Weggy]

Thanks for the opinions.... how much are either of those lenses likely to set me back?

[Steveo_Hants]

Weggy, I do alot (almost every week) of football photography and I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I wouldn't consider anything less then f2.8 as if you get anything other then bright sunshine you just can't get fast enough shutter speeds to freeze the action.

[Weggy]

Thanks Steveo.

I understand the 'f' reasoning, I just don't get how 200mm is enough to get quality photos of action happening at the other end of the pitch to where you are.... or is that where my thinking is going wrong?

[scoff]

Having used a 200mm for football IT is not long enough for the long distance stuff.
But there are always 2 halves!! :)

[mrgubby]

You need a long lens for football but the choice of lens is governed by budget , available light levels , quality required and keep rate.

I've done many (kids) daytime football matches with my cheapo Tamron 28-300 / 300D combo and got results good enough for people to want prints.

But it all goes down to the more money you spend the less lucky you have to be :)

[Iain MacIntosh]

Hi, 200 is no where near big enough, to get most of the action you'll have a lot of runing about to do!
If its a one day only job, just goto Calumet and hire a 300 or 400 f2.8 they do weekend rates. Get your bigma and use the hired lens for the game. 70-200 f2.8 is good for a 2nd body when using a larger lens.

cheers
Iain

[Steveo_Hants]

Thanks Steveo.

I understand the 'f' reasoning, I just don't get how 200mm is enough to get quality photos of action happening at the other end of the pitch to where you are.... or is that where my thinking is going wrong?

You are not going to get a photo of every single piece of action that takes place in 90 mins!

THESE (http://fleetfcfan.suddenlaunch.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1171805606) are my shots from the weekend using my 70-200. If you are on a budget then this is the way to go if you think you'll do more of this type of photography in the future. Don't sacrafice aperture for focal length.

[Weggy]

Good shots Steveo. Are they cropped as well, or just as is?

[Rich_Page]

Hey Weggy,

I used to shoot Football and Rugby and covered many of the top teams, In an ideal world you would need at least 2 dig bodies and a 300mm and 500mm with maybe 70 -200 in the bag. Light is/was always an issue shooting from light into shade and back again. A good fast lens is paramount. If you are going to shoot some nature I would advise against 50-500. A fixed lens is the way forward here I would carry a 1.5 or a 2x converter but be aware you will loose a couple of stops. Think aperture, the most important factor in lens choice.

Hope this makes sence !

Cheers Rich,

http://www.richard-page.com

[Steveo_Hants]

Good shots Steveo. Are they cropped as well, or just as is?

Most of those were cropped slightly yes, but nothing major.

[Weggy]

Thanks for all the comments.

So, even a Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM wouldnt be any good? It looks ideal for my wildlife stuff, especially as it's compatible with both the extenders.....

[CarlOgden]

But the issue here is f-stop, lower than f4 would be better for isolating the players etc. However, the 100-400 is slow for sports, yes you can use it and I have but you have to compromise. What if the light is bad? This lens would let you down!

Bite the bullet and hire a lens as stated above!!!! It'll save you in the long run.

HTH,
Carl.

[Rich_Page]

Go On hire a good pro lens you will soon see why ! I would advise against shooting football lower than f4, (so a good quality lens is very important here) this way the players will stand out from the noisy / busy background, most papers and sports agencies all prefer this, they don't want to see the face of little jonny over shoulder of some footballer taking a shot at goal.
And remember your horizon keep it horizontal !

Hope you get what you want for the portfolio, however a tear sheet would be more impressive.

Rich
http://www.richard-page.com

[Weggy]

All good stuff. Thanks. Looks like I'll be going down the hire route for this then, and see where it all takes me....

What's a 'tear sheet' ?

[Rich_Page]

Tearsheet;
Definition: A tear sheet is the page or pages of a magazine or newspaper on which the Photographer/writer's work is published.

Alternate Spellings: tearsheet

Rich
http://www.richard-page.com

[Weggy]

LOL. Think I'm a long way off that happening!

[sonny]

speed is of the essence