New

That depends.
 
For me these days Canon 200-400mm (with the 1.4 extender built-in).
Rarely do I need to swap to the 70-200mm, even for the goal mouth action.
 
personally @Aidan1996 I think it's budget and the longest lens with the widest aperture you can currently afford? Which could mean considering third party lens's but "assuming" you are a Nikon or Canon user these lens's are made by Nikon or Canon for that very reason.

@GooGaBu Your Canon 200-400 lens i'm intrigued ... Does using this lens mean your positioning moves you right, right into the corner to get a better angle of the play?
@Tobers Camera swapping. You must have that technique down to a T (y)
 
@GooGaBu Your Canon 200-400 lens i'm intrigued ... Does using this lens mean your positioning moves you right, right into the corner to get a better angle of the play?
[/QUOTE]


Guess it depends - right at the corner at times, but sometimes closer to the goal as well.
With a full frame camera - the 200mm isn't too bad even a bit closer to the goal (and then I do have the remote behind the goal, as well as the 70-200mm 'just in case').
So covering all angles really....
 
I use both my 120-300mm Sigma and my 70-200mm Canon. I sometimes use my 28-200 depending on the conditions. The first two are f2.8 so cope well with the floodlit games and darker afternoon games
 
I've used a 70-200 and 200-400 for a year or so now after having a 300 and getting the 200-400 is the best choice I've made for football. Performs.fantastically well
 
For me, majority of shots are going to come from a combination of the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 400mm f2.8. That tends to be the preferred way to capture general action at various distances as well as celebration shots.

Normally I'll also carry a 8-15mm f/4 fisheye, 16-35mm f2.8 and a 24-70mm f2.8. None of these will see excessive use throughout a match but I'll almost certainly use either the fisheye or the 16-35 to take a few stadium shots before the match.

I may also put the 16-35 on a third camera (set up remotely) behind the goal or at my feet as sometimes an opportunity presents itself where the players are close enough that I can go wide to capture a lot of the stadium in the background. It's rare but when it comes off it tends to look good and it's different to majority of my other shots.

I've never been a fan of the idea that you can capture a sport with just the one lens. Different focal lengths offer the chance to be a bit more creative with perspective and come up with unique looking images. For anyone starting out though I'd probably point at the 70-200mm f2.8 as the best place to start. It's not too highly priced and is a very versatile piece of kit.
 
It depends from your preffence. I do cary 2 lens and 80-400 and 24-120\4 for team shots on d800 body. And then during game I use 400mm for reach. But occasionally if I know that quality of lighiting will be poor I do cary 70-200\2.8 instead of 80-400 but that limits my reach in middle of field.
Hope that helps.
 
Can't believe that no one has said the canon 300 f2.8 unless people are just mentioning what they use rather than answering the question
 
That's because it's generally considered to be too short unless you are using it on a cropper.
 
sportpicguy said:
Can't believe that no one has said the canon 300 f2.8 unless people are just mentioning what they use rather than answering the question
Click to expand...


too short for full length of pitch and too long for near end of pitch... It can be used but you need to sit in the right place which isnt always possible... OP did ask for best lens..300 is a fantastic lens but presuming one camera then certainly not the best
 
sportpicguy said:
Can't believe that no one has said the canon 300 f2.8 unless people are just mentioning what they use rather than answering the question
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
too short for full length of pitch and too long for near end of pitch... It can be used but you need to sit in the right place which isnt always possible... OP did ask for best lens..300 is a fantastic lens but presuming one camera then certainly not the best
Click to expand...

There was a time when only few of us had 400mm lenses.. but guess that was when the sports togs cameras where cropped bodies...
300mm was the way to go for a long while, as I remember....
And why wouldn't it be these days as well, if you use a 1.6 crop body??
 
GooGaBu said:
There was a time when only few of us had 400mm lenses.. but guess that was when the sports togs cameras where cropped bodies...
300mm was the way to go for a long while, as I remember....
And why wouldn't it be these days as well, if you use a 1.6 crop body??
Click to expand...

I had a 300 loved it.. BUT on a two camera setup.. given the OP question I am presuming one camera ? :)
 
When you look at the footie on TV there's still a lot of guys shooting with 300mm I wonder when it became "too short" since full frame?? I'm guessing with less pros using them if that's the way it's going they will become cheaper, good side to everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top