Sports lens advice

B

Blundred77

Messages
417
Name
Andrew Blundred
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I was wondering what you peeps recommend for football and rugby coverage.

I have done some photography (charity sports events) with my 75-300 f4-5.6 lens and the results have been ok but I was wondering what you guys would use. If it helps I am using canon bodies.

Cheers.
 
Well I suppose it depends how much money you have to spend. If money is no object, I don't think you will go far wrong with a Canon 400mm f2.8 IS L, but one of those will set you back £6300...
 
One of our customers has on several occasions hired a Canon 28-300L for rugby. Her argument is that it allows her to shoot lineouts happening right near her and action on the other side of the pitch, all without changing lenses. Yes, the 10x zoom means there must be some compromise to image quality (though nowhere near as much as any other superzoom), but it means she always gets the shot.
 
I think the 400 f2.8 might be a little long for football/rugby unless you want to take all your shots at the other end of the pitch. In general terms, I think a 70-200 of some sort would be a good bet, f2.8 if you can afford it or f4 if you are looking at a cheaper option. I doubt whether IS would be needed at the shutter speeds you would be using so there is also a saving to be had there.

That said, if you are shooting in decent light (Never guaranteed, I appreciate) then the 28-300 option that Stewart mentions is a good one. I shot a Polo match a couple of years ago with a Tamron 18-250 with success. Also, the Sigma 70-300 APO is a cracking lens and would also serve you well.

So, as you can see, there are plenty of options to consider based on budget and shooting conditions. Hope this helps you.
 
Al lot will depend on what you want to pay for the lens...
I think that the 70-200 would leave you short on many occasions..
As a zoom, Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a good choice - you get plenty of room to play with as you get f.2.8 and the zoom helps you cover more of the field.

As a prime - Canon or Sigma 300mm f2.8 (depending on funds)

Another zoom, the Canon 100-400 - you don't get the 2.8 f-stop on that one - but get a good range to zoom and from what I've heard, the image quality seems quite good on that.

Just few more to chew on...
 
I would have said you could'nt go wrong with the canon 100-400 is, ive just brought one ;), good range, contrast, and super sharp....(y)
 
fabs said:
I think the 400 f2.8 might be a little long for football/rugby unless you want to take all your shots at the other end of the pitch.
Click to expand...

The 400 2.8 is the standard lens for rugby and football photographers but is usually combined with a second body with a shorter lens attached, usually a 70-200 2.8 for when the action moves in close. :)

When I first started out I used one body with a 300 2.8 which was a reasonable compromise.
 
Most pros on a canon would have a 400 2.8L as there preffered lens for football and rugby. I am happy with the lesser 300

If you want the best then its one of those two.. everyhting else is a compromise in one way or another.
 
StewartR said:
One of our customers has on several occasions hired a Canon 28-300L for rugby. Her argument is that it allows her to shoot lineouts happening right near her and action on the other side of the pitch, all without changing lenses. Yes, the 10x zoom means there must be some compromise to image quality (though nowhere near as much as any other superzoom), but it means she always gets the shot.
Click to expand...

Might be a half decent lens on a sunny afternoon.. but to state she always gets the shot is bad advice as I would guess she would get hardly any shots at a night match..
 
KIPAX said:
Most pros on a canon would have a 400 2.8L as there preffered lens for football and rugby. I am happy with the lesser 300

If you want the best then its one of those two.. everyhting else is a compromise in one way or another.
Click to expand...

THe 300mm is just fine - I know there are times when I also wish for the extra reach of 400mm. But - unfortunately there is few thousand £'s between me and getting a 400mm.
 
StewartR said:
One of our customers has on several occasions hired a Canon 28-300L for rugby. Her argument is that it allows her to shoot lineouts happening right near her and action on the other side of the pitch, all without changing lenses. Yes, the 10x zoom means there must be some compromise to image quality (though nowhere near as much as any other superzoom), but it means she always gets the shot.
Click to expand...
KIPAX said:
Might be a half decent lens on a sunny afternoon.. but to state she always gets the shot is bad advice as I would guess she would get hardly any shots at a night match..
Click to expand...
Good point, KIPAX. The person I referred to isn't a pro, and only shoots rugby occasionally; I don't expect she shoots night matches.
 
Personally i use 400 f/2.8 and 135f/2. Got rid of the 70-200f/2.8 as it didnt perform well under the floodlights where i do the bulk of my football.
The 70-200mm may be a good option for you but it depends on the quality of lighting if your shooting nightime

the sigma 300mm and Canonn 300mm are both good options

Hope this helps

Andy
 
Good point Kipax makes about the 400, sometimes i find it can be a little long but just means i have to think more about positioning. Usually right next to the guy from Action images as he has the prime spot
 
Again thanks for the advice. Right now I would love a 400 2.8 but thats way out of my price bracket but I can push to a 70-200 2.8.

I have been looking around and have found a few very well priced canon, 2 without IS and 1 with which is obviously a bit more expensive also seen a couple of Sigma, 1 of which is on sale on here. Does anyone have any ideas on what would ben the better buy.

I have read on another forum that the canon is better for professional use as it handles floodlit pitches far better than the sigma and that it is more weather sealed too.
 
You dont need IS for football/rugby etc

Canon lens will always be better than the sigma equivelant.

As for one working better under floodlights... sounds like an old wives tale to me :)
 
I cant find the post about lighting conditions and the differences between canon and sigma but this post commented on the build..

Not only is it sharper wide open but it has a better contrast than the Sigma. Also, for outdoor sports the Canon wins hands down as it is weather sealed.

In simple terms, the Canon is built for daily abuse by pros and the Sigma isn't. The Canon depreciates far less which is important to a pro as all equipment has to pay for itself.

Yes, the Sigma is cheap and gives decent quality for the price, but it just does not cut it on the sidelines of a soccer pitch in pouring rain or close up and personal trackside when it is hot and dusty.
 
Pretty much as i said .. canon will always be better than sigma IMHO.. however I dont agree that sigma has no use.. I started out with a canon 10d and sigma 70-200 and it worked well for a long time... I had a rain cover for it just like I have for the canon :)
 
400mm is too long for football and rugby. I use a 80-200 and a 300 on Nikon bodies (D3) - sometimes also a 17-55 on a D2Hs for line outs and closer shots.
 
awp said:
400mm is too long for football and rugby. I use a 80-200 and a 300 on Nikon bodies (D3) - sometimes also a 17-55 on a D2Hs for line outs and closer shots.
Click to expand...

400mm is the standard length for professional football and rugby. At any premiership rubgy/football game 9 out of 10 togs will have a 400 in combo with a shorter lens on a second body. I and my colleagues will often use a 1.4 or 1.7 tc in combination with the 400 for manager reaction etc :)

Not saying you can't work with a 300 just saying that a 400 isn't too long.
 
Yep 400 does seem to be the lens of choice. Even moreso at rugby.

I would say a 400 is too long at a lot of non league grounds.. but at premiership, championship and most league then its 400.. If possible I use the 1.4 on my 300 at big grounds.. I am ahppy wiht the 300 but will deffo be getting a 400 before next seasons cricket starts :)
 
Well its defo a 70-200 2.8 then and will just have to dream about a 400 for the time being, especially as a new body is on the shopping list which is either going to be a 5d or a 5d mkII.

Thanks for the help guys!!!
 
Blundred77 said:
especially as a new body is on the shopping list which is either going to be a 5d or a 5d mkII.
!
Click to expand...

A 5d is far from a sports camera .. i would have presumed if your asking for advice on a sports lens that when buying the body you would spend that amount of money on a sports camera... doesnt make sense..
 
Well this thread has certainly answered alot of my questions. My next lens choice for me will probably be canon 70-200 f2.8. Decided after talking to kipax on facebook, and now this thread has made my mind up. Best get saving........
 
Like all the rest above I use a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS L and also the 400mm f/2.8 IS L and a good mono pod! :)
 
I use a Canon 70-200 f4L for my son's rugby with some good results. Its light enough to manage without a tripod and copes with fairly poor light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top