Lens' for football/other sports photography?

J

jordancurtis

Messages
21
Name
Jordan
Edit My Images
No
I've been looking at getting into sports photography but my 24-70mm 2.8f Nikon lens is a little too short in zoom.

The 70-200mm 2.8f Nikon lens has caught my eye but at £1.7K it's a little steep. Do you reckon you the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8f which is £650 worth getting or should I save a little more and get the Nikon lens?

Thank you.
 
jordancurtis said:
I've been looking at getting into sports photography but my 24-70mm 2.8f Nikon lens is a little too short in zoom.

The 70-200mm 2.8f Nikon lens has caught my eye but at £1.7K it's a little steep. Do you reckon you the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8f which is £650 worth getting or should I save a little more and get the Nikon lens?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

For Football most of the pros have 2 bodies and a 400mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8.

I use the Sigma 70-200 and i've never had a problem, it's a great lens for a lot less cash. Unfortunately, there's no escaping the need to buy a very long lens! Unless of course you're only photographing kids on a smaller pitch.
 
That 400mm 2.8f is pricey! Just had a look. Although I'm starting to sway towards that 70-200mm 2.8f by Sigma - do you have any shots you could post on here so I could take a look how they look?

Thanks a lot bud.
 
jordancurtis said:
I've been looking at getting into sports photography but my 24-70mm 2.8f Nikon lens is a little too short in zoom.

The 70-200mm 2.8f Nikon lens has caught my eye but at £1.7K it's a little steep. Do you reckon you the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8f which is £650 worth getting or should I save a little more and get the Nikon lens?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
It depends how close you can get to the action, at 70-200mm would be a start, but other lenses would be required, especially if you do indoor sports, where fast primes are a must 135mm, 100mm, 85mm. But a long fast prime would need to be a major consideration, 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8.
 
The 70-200 will be too short for any action that isn't right in front of you. You'll end up cropping and cropping and getting poor image quality as a result. You could always put an extender on it to get 280mm (better) or there's a Nikon 1.7x extender I think which would get you more reach, but at a loss of aperture and therefore shutter speed. OK if you are outdoors in the daylight but no good under lights.

Have a look here for a 2nd hand 300 2.8 at £1590. You'll not lose much if any money on it at that price.
 
pete.rush said:
It depends how close you can get to the action, at 70-200mm would be a start, but other lenses would be required, especially if you do indoor sports, where fast primes are a must 135mm, 100mm, 85mm. But a long fast prime would need to be a major consideration, 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

Well I'd most probably be working on a football training ground or something very similar - outside too. I best looking!
 
I use a Sigma 300mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. The 70-200 like with James, has never let me down. I have only used the Canon version once or twice so can't compare in any great deal but like I said, it works fine and gets the shots. If you had to get one lens, I'd say save up and get a 300mm. It will give you more length and depending on what you are shooting and what body you are using, the shorter lens might not always be needed (although it gives you freedom).
 
If its local footy or something where you can stand pitchside I'd really suggest the 70-200.

70mm on a D700 will be fine for action right in close (its too much on my D300).

200mm won't get you to the other end of the pitch without some cropping afterwards, but to be honest most football photos are cropped to hell by the media when they use them - you rarely see a 3:2 ratio football photo.

A f2.8 zoom IMHO is far more important than length in this game. Its not like motorsport, you aren't lining up for something happening on a corner that keeps happening lap after lap. Pitch based action goes all over the place.

The 200-400 might be a better length on a D700, but its too long at 200mm for close in to the touchline and only f4... and huge... and expensive!!!

A 100-400 f2.8 would be the beast for this gig, but nobody makes one!
 
I sometimes use a 1.4 teleconverter for the first half making the 70-200mm into a 98-280mm and then revert back to 70-200mm for the second half of football. That way I get the best of variation, sure I could buy the 100-300mm but then I wouldn't have the option of f/2.8.
Could also get the sigma 120-300mm but to be honest the 70-200mm is perfect and does the job excellently with flexibility of a teleconverter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top