ideal lenses for football

R

Reggy

Messages
59
Name
Gareth Jones
Edit My Images
No
Following on from my other thread regarding shooting lower non league football i would like to know what lenses you think are ideal for shooting football matches, the 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 unfortunately out of my price range but i could sell some other lenses i don't use often or at all to support a purchase to get me in the right direction for both daytime and nighttime games.

i was looking at a 70-200 L is II 2.8 lens as a possibility or even the sigma 120-300 2.8 bad choices? will i be falling short of range? or just keep with the kit i have (100-400 4.5-5.6L, 70-200 F4 )and avoid evening matches altogether
 
how about the 70-200 2.8 is Mk1?
Don't discount it in favour of the more expensive MkII

It depends on how much you'd like to spend / invest
 
What's your body?

If it's a crop then the 70-200 will be reasonable as long as you're as close as possible to the pitch.

The sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS is a very good lens

If you do go for the Canon, I'd strongly suggest scrimping and getting the mk2 version.

Mike
 
its a 6d body i currently have, so the extra reach on the 120-300 would be nice but i have thought about getting a 7d or 7d mk ii (probably the 7d as funds will allow)
 
I think the best way of going about things is to answer a few questions.

1) What level of sport are you shooting and who for? If it's kids football thats usually played in decent light (as decent as light gets in this country!), on a small pitch then the requirements are different to you wanting to shoot evening non-league games in winter or under floodlight.

2) Whats your intended output source?

3) Whats your budget?

4) Whats your experience?

It's a big investment and not something where you can pick up a camera one week, then make your living at it the next. Have you got any examples of your work to give an idea of your ability?

Mike
 
Thanks for taking some time to educate me pooley and btw some cracking images on your website!

1) Adult non league football daytime and evening matches along with local rugby club who play at my local park (through my off season - i play cricket weekly which ends next week as the season is finished)

2) presumably you mean publishing? to start with nothing, i intend to go practice and get better before i do much of anything with the images with that said i shall be giving the club some for programme use.. then as time goes on i intend to try for accreditation as per kipax posts - please note i don't expect to make money from this although i do plan on making a little to recompense myself via image sales if at all possible.

3) so far have about £800 but i have a 100-400 mkii L and 70-200 F4 L i can shift to add to the funds

4) i have been shooting all types of subjects for many years, I'm no beginner at photography but I'm no expert either but i do know my way around a camera.
 
Thanks for that Gareth

I can see a lot of people recommending the 7d2, and for good reason, it's designed as an 'action' camera. It's major failing as opposed to the 6d is the low light ability - the 6d will knock spots off it in this department, so if you intend to shoot throughout the winter - and certainly at evening games - I'd be suggesting the 6d on that front.

If you're shooting amateur sport then you should be able to get right up to the sidelines, and pick your moments. If you're not under pressure to produce results, which it sounds like your only pressure at the moment is from yourself, then you should be able to get a lot of work done with the 70-200.

The mk2 100-400 is a fantastic lens, but the aperture is slow for action in poor light. I'd hate to suggest getting rid of it, but you do want to get as fast an aperture as you can.

My suggestion here would be to take your £800, sell your 70-200 f4 and get a used 70-200 f2.8 ii. Fantastic lens, won't lose too much in value if you decide sports not for you, and has the nice f2.8. If you're shooting in bright conditions, look at utilising your 100-400 for a variety of shots, ten concentrate on closer shots with the 70-200 as the conditions worsen.

I'd keep the 6d for now. The better ISO I've already mentioned, and whilst it's true that the 7d2's AF system is more versatile, and the frame rate is faster, the centre point should bet nice and accurate, and if you can learn to time your shots well, you'll find you often don't need the fast frame rate. Put it this way, when I first started shooting sport, my company gave me a Nikon fm2 - 3.2 fps and woe betide if I used too much film - I had to learn to time my stuff, and it really helped as I progressed.

Hope that helps a bit.

Mike
 
Thanks for your input mike, really helpful and insightful.

ill start putting some ads up for the 70-200 f4 and go from there for the 2.8 version, although is there much difference between the 2.8 mk i and mk ii models?
 
Are you on a crop body? The 300mm f/4 is still a viable lens.
 
You may find it a little short then, but it's a cheaper alternative to the 2.8 version and a good start.
 
until i can sort myself out with some good low light lenses ill have to stick with daytime games although I'm not sure how i will fare as the light starts getting worse the later the year goes on, my 70-200 f4 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 will just have to do until that point.
 
I just don't think you'll find it that bad, if you're full frame, those bright wintery days make for some cracking shots.
 
just looking at what you have the 70-200f4 is only 1 stop different to a f2.8. the 6d is good in low light so i don't see a real problem to be honest give it try you may just save a lot of money
 
wave01 said:
just looking at what you have the 70-200f4 is only 1 stop different to a f2.8. the 6d is good in low light so i don't see a real problem to be honest give it try you may just save a lot of money
Click to expand...

Was thinking about reach, as a 1.4x is undesirable on top of an f/4 lens.
 
For a long time I used the Sigma 120-300mm - brilliant lens, and really great for footy!
Fair enough it was a crop body I used it with - but I would happily recommend that to anyone!

It does also depend whether you prefer prime lenses - or zooms?? Talking to lot of togs around the games - many prefer zooms as their image quality is same/close to the prime lenses.
And with a zoom you'll be able to catch more action than with a prime.

Personally I am lucky enough at the moment to be able to use the Canon 200-400mm (with 1.4x) - and it is the second best lens Canon have made (after the 200mm f1.8 - which hasn't yet been surpassed).

My recommendation would go for Sigma 120-300 f2.8 .. if the budget stretches to it... 70-200mm is just too short on the reach.
 
Reggy said:
would that be the sports version?
Click to expand...

What I used was just the 'normal' old version - which at the time worked brilliantly.
I haven't had a chance to try the 120-300 Sport version - but I think that is what most would say is your best choice for what you aim to do with it.
Although as with anything - I am sure the non-sport of older versions still do a good job ... but if you find something cheap and older.. I would recommend to give it a test in person, before buying.
 
My husband and I use 7D with 70-200mm 2.8L mk1 and mk2 for field hockey. Seems to be a good combination for us. Must say that mk2 does produce slightly better images
 
When I started out at footie I used the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I think its a good choice. The 300 end is handy. You may find the 70-200 a little short, but whatever you choose I would say get a 2.8. In the lower leagues you will need to capture as much light as possible in those winter months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top