Home Forums Gear Photography Lens for sports photos?

Looking for a new lens to capture some photos of my son playing football on friday nights. I know the next 4 years will go by pretty quick, so I hope to catch some action shots. I have a Canon EOS 60D and need more reach than my 135mm will give. I don't have the cash for a "L" series lens from Canon, so I'm looking at the cheaper Canon's, Tamron and Sigma. Any suggestions?

Someone on a different thread was asking a similar question and I recommended they take a look at the Tamron SP 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC USD lens. It is designed for full frame but will work fine on your 60D. It has a great VC(vibration compensation) system and is pretty lightweight. With your camera you could easily bump up the ISO a little to make up the stop or two of light. The great part is at Camera Land they have the lens listed at $449 and there is currently a $100 rebate on the lens through the end of the month. $349 end price on a great lens is in my opinion the best way to go. Here is a link to Camera Land's page on the Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD lens. Give Joel a call up there and let him know you are a member of the Campfire forum.

Another option with more reach for about $950 would be the Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 It has image stabilization, would be heavier, and is about 1/2 stop slower that the 70-300. Lighting at HS fields is generally poor, so get as close to the action as you can.

I've got the older 170-500 and it is a nice lens. Draw back for me would be the short side, 170mm. Quite a bit if your're to close the the subject. Just looked up the D60 in a catalog and it's got plenty of resolution to crop a photo. More than my D5000 and I can crop a lot with it. I think I'd go the 70-300 route also. For shooting dog's I use a 55-300 Nikon. Don't need the 55mm much and probably wouldn't need the 70mm much either but about 135mm works out well. Problem with less is that when the dog get to where I could actually use a wider lens they are going so fast I can't catch up Any way.

I'm going to get one of those Tamron lens one of these days. Had a 75-150 a whole lot of years ago and it was super. Now they don't focus on my D5000 so for now Tamron is out. I do have a Sigma 70-300 and it does alright but, well, I wouldn't buy another. feels cheap.

Thanks for the advice. Any drawbacks to using this lens on my Canon since the lens was designed for a full frame camera?

No, actually there are some advantages. You pick up the additional amount of lens via the crop factor of 1.6x, plus you are using more of the "sweet spot" of the lens.

I'm going to be the off man out here. Having been a sports shooter for a long time, I'm going to say save a few extra bucks and get something with at least f/2.8. Anything less will be a adventure in frustration. I thought I could get by with the Canon 70-200 f/4L. While the reach "field-side" was good enough, even the F/4 was limiting come sunset. I've used the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC and have been very impressed. The focusing speed is a little slower than my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it's also $1000 cheaper for 95% of the results. Another option is the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II (Man, they like long names). I've read good things about that lens as well but if I'm going third party lens, I've always been a Tamron fan. Don't be afraid to ask to shoot from the end zone of the sidelines. I've never been told no...
Field side you can really get some good shots with the 70-200:

The Tamron lens is amazing and of course tack sharp. Due to their coatings the contrast is always terrific and the colors are vibrant and true.

I shoot a fair amount of sports. If you're shooting outdoors in good light, you'd probably be happy with a F4-5.6. But if you're going to be shooting in the evenings, or under artificial light, you're going to find yourself wanting a F2.8 at some point even with the great high ISO performance of the newer processors.

Indoors don't even think about anything smaller than 2.8.

I would completely agree with the f2.8 in low light and indoors. I think he was qualifying his search to non L series glass due to budgeting.

On needing an F2.8 lens, would that depend on what ISO he'd chose and what WB?

Thanks for all the suggestions. Now I'm really torn! The lighting at the local HS field is not very good. I'm going to play around with the ISO and my current lens and see what happens.

My answer is yes and no. As a general rule you want to go with the lowest ISO possible for the best image quality. A bigger aperture let's you do that. The higher you go on ISO, the more grain you'll see. However, many of the processors today will let you shoot at iso's i'd have never dreamed possible 10 years ago. It comes down to how big you're going to use the images, and how picky you or your customers will be.

I have a friend that shoots a Nikon ???-300 variable aperture at iso 1600-3200 to keep his shutter up at 1/2000 or so and f6.3. He then post processes the crap out of them. They look fine as long as you're not making posters out of the images.

WB doesn't enter into my equation for aperture. How is it a factor for you?

WB has nothing to do with it unless I'm missing something?
As for f/2.8? As any sports photographer and they'll agree, night time sport or indoor sports, you'll want a 2.8. Yes, can can bump up your ISO. When I had an F/4 lens, I cranked up the ISO all the way up on my 40D, opened the lens all the way to f/4 and tried shooting indoor volleyball...it's was a waste of time. Even with my f/2.8, it's rough.

Indoor volleyball is rough! You could always try the 200mm F2.0 prime!

Arguably Canon's best lens ever but then again, WAAY out of my price range..:)

It does get expensive doesn't it! I've got a friend that shoots a medium reach 1.8 lens wide open on a full frame body then crops the shots way down and is still left with salable shots. Oops did I just let out a secret?

...oops...just checked in with my friend...he's shooting a 85 f1.2!!! Even with that big an aperture, it's not uncommon that he's at ISO6400 or more.

On thing he mentioned (since white balance was mentioned as a tangent)...was that a single WB was difficult to pin down because the cycling of mercury vapor or fluorescent lights give you varying WB that can only be corrected in PP.

I shoot a lot of high school soccer -- and the lights are usually pathetic -- if you hope to capture any usable images - anything that won't let you shoot at f2,8 won't work for you.

I'll repeat that - you need a lens that will let you shoot at f2.8.

Not only does it not let in enough light for good exposures, they focus so slowly you won't be able to follow the action.

If you have a pro body (I shoot a Nikon D3S) that allows to shoot at very, very high ISO levels you can shoot at f4 - barely.

I've been shooting my D3S using my Nikon 200-400 f4 and finally decided I needed more light so I've just ordered one of the new Sigma 120-300mm f2,8 Sport Zooms.

With respect to WB - the more the WB is off, the less happy you will be as the combination of under-exposed images + a poor WB will render most images unusable.

Shooting sports at night or inside a poorly lit gym is difficult and without fast lenses is damn near impossible.

One last thought - someone mentioned a 200mm f2 --- a great lens but a disaster for sports because the depth of field is much to shallow.

VA Hunter, it looks like a lot of recommendations to spend all your money! In regards to your original statement. I think you are right in using your existing lens until your budget may allow something more. I am not sure what the current f-stop is on your existing lens but your decision to shoot at a higher ISO is obviously a starting point. What you may do is look at getting one of the WB caps that will allow you to calibrate your WB in the camera and minimize some work later if the lighting is mixed or the camera has a hard time reading it. I did a little research on the 60D in case it might help a little, and the tests show it gets really good test results up to ISO 800 and doesn't get to "unacceptable" until ISO 6400. I think you should be able to get away with ISO 1600 with good results maybe ISO 3200 with a little frustration.
Good luck, post some of the shots if you can. If there are any other questions that can be answered don't hesitate to ask. Good luck!

I would have said the same until my sports photographer friend showed me images he had shot with his 85mm 1.2 of indoor volleyball. Can you imagine how razor thin his field must be? Same friend shoots outdoor nighttime soccer with a 200mm f1.8 (the predecessor of the f2.0) and he pulls out good images where I would have put away my camera long ago.

Yes, he is working with a very thin depth of field, but he's somehow figured it out.

One the subject of WB...I shoot an expodisc or gray card for a custom WB, but outdoors, lighting and conditions change. If I really want to save an image, Lightroom can often rescue the day...but WB has nothing to do with exposure.

Despite our talk about what works "best" the good folk at Cameraland are doing an admirable job keeping things in perspective.

So I thought about it a bit and came up with this suggestion;
Try shooting your 60D and existing lens at high ISO's to see what you get.

Then rent a couple of lenses from these online rental services. Rent one that you're considering buying and see if it makes the difference you had hoped for. Also rent a lens with a 2.8 aperture and see if the fuss is all that.

Good luck and I hope you capture your son's senior season in good fashion!

I checked some of the photos I took last year using my Nikon D3S and the Nikon 70-200mm f2/8 VR II - I always use a monopod so the VR II feature was turned off.

Shooting at f2.8 under crappy stadium lights, I was shooting a f2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/1000 or 1/1250 - depending on which end of the field I was shooting - ISO was 8000.

On a field with really good lights I could drop the ISO down to 6400 while keeping the aperture at f2.8 and the shutter speed 1/1000 or 1/1250.

If we extrapolate and use a lens that has a minimum aperture of f5.6 (2 full stops slower than f2.8)so to get the same exposure as above you would need an ISO of 8000x2x2 or an ISO of 32,000 (which should generate a lot of noise) or you could drop the shutter speed down to 1/250 and not be able to stop the action -- or -- you could shoot at ISO 16,000 at 1/500 - still get a lot of noise but should be able, with good technique, be able to stop most of the action.

This assumes you shoot at the max aperture of your lens but unfortunately most consumer zoom lenses need to be stopped down at least a full-stop to get sharper images - shooting at f8 now means an ISO of 64,000

And remember, with the VR feature enabled your focusing speed is slowed down - noticeably.

Chris F, I had not even thought about the rental aspect. That is a great idea. It is definitely a great way to see exactly how much of a difference a lens makes. It may make a decent improvement to go from a f5.6 to a f2.8 lens until you see that the additional clarity is going to run you $5000. Very good point. Also try and see if Tamron is having any events near where you live. They often offer the ability to go out and test drive a lens for a couple hours. Keep an eye out for camera club conventions or workshops they offer.
It is easy when looking at what is best vs. what will work best with limitations of budgeting. I get to enjoy the benefits of belonging to "Pro" service groups and when I have the need for a 800mm f5.6 or a 400mm f2.8 a simple phone call puts it at my door, but I am not having to put out the expense of owning it. It is easy to forget that not everyone is wanting "professional magazine quality" results, they just want to get better images than they are getting with what they have or can afford.

Maybe we should start a thread and call it "What's in my dream bag"!

This is a link to a Canon Forum - specifically the Sports section and in this they discuss just about what you're looking to do -- and they include the Tamron lens everyone seems to love. Suggest you read the thread before you buy the lens specifically for shooting sports in low light,

Here's the link

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1329587

Thanks for all the suggestions and help. I can tell my photography skills and knowledge are much lower than many of the posters in this thread....but I'm learning. Went to my sons junior varsity game tonight just to see what I could do with the 28-135 "kit" lens. My pictures were taken from the stands near the 50 yard line.

Kickoff was overcast at 6:05 PM. I used the "TV" shutter priority mode. The first picture was taken in the first quarter but I don't remember the settings. The second picture was taken in the 4th quarter about 8pm or so(stadium as dark as it gets). I set the ISO to 6400 and my shutter speed was 1/160(I think).

The good news is my son is just a freshman, so I have a little more time to get things figured out! My son's team won tonight, so that makes it even better. The other added benefit is this...my son is the center and I have been able to go back through the photos and verify if he was firing off the line and staying low.

VAhunter, Congratulations to your son's team! It looks like you did very well with the photos! It really looks like the noise is not that bad at all. One thing to look for is if when you are in Tv mode if the number representing the aperture flashes that means it is a little dark but it will still work, it may just under expose it a little. If you feel "daring" you can shoot in Av and just set it to the lowest aperture and then it will always select the highest shutter speed possible. Either way will work but something to try if you want to get "crazy" one night.
Your son looks like he is keeping his shoulders parallel and square to the line and getting the ball back to the quarterback nicely. Good job on his part as well! Keep up the great work and keep posting the photos. Let's hope for an undefeated season as well!

Thanks for the tip. I did notice on several occasions that the number representing the aperture was indeed flashing. That is when I bumped the ISO to 6400 and the number would no longer blink. I have a couple friends coaching some little league games this weekend that I can get some practice at. I will give the AV mode a try and see how it turns out.

I look forward to seeing some photos!

Nice first effort. If your goal is to try to chronicle your son's time on the field, you might finnagle your way onto the sidelines to shoot. If your goal is to enjoy the game from the stands as a parent...carry on. Hard to do both well though.

I searched my archive for stadium shots. Problem is I don't do football and I don't do stadiums. I did find one where I was playing with your 60D's great grand daddy from the stands though (30D).

ISO800 (I think I kept it low because the grain really started at 1600). AV (shutter ended up at 400 - I would have liked higher though). 70-200 2.8 Mark I shot at 200mm f2.8.


crop to see more detail.


p.s. I don' know if it's possible, but try to get your shutter speed up to minimize motion blur. You can see from my shots that even at 1/400 there's some noticeable blur.

p.p.s. A Nikon shooter crusing POTN?!! Nikon shooters posting on POTN??

ChrisF, I am asking because I don't know for sure but that lens you used it does have IS? Was it the original IS version of that lens? I am not suggesting you upgrade or anything, the shot you posted is very well done. I am just curious because of all the advancements in IS, VR, and VC it would be interesting to see how much of a difference the newer systems make.
You got a lot of detail without a lot of noise out of that 30D!

That lens doesn't have IS. That picture is 6 years old, and it is still one of my workhorses. I have lenses with IS and I end up turning it off most of the time for shooting sports. i don't do much sniping from the stands. My pans are pretty active, so even in vertical only mode, I end up fighting with the IS.

I'll look for some more recent images with this lens (probably different body though) in more typical lighting for my type of shooting. Those football images were to help the OP see what a 2.8 might offer for what he does.

Thanks Chris for the information. Even though I use a VC lens on a monopod often I will leave the VC on when panning. Some of these newer lenses with that feature do a pretty good job. I was curious because it was hard to tell with the crop and the lower resolution photo (I am guessing lower res for the web), it looked like a little movement in the stuff on the grass as well as the players. I have found that often in stuff I shot 3-5 years ago the VC, IS, or VR had a lot of trouble with pans. Thanks again.

Click on the upper photo. Then click on the magnifying glass on the lower right. Click the magnifying glass a second time and what is a good sized image should load. You can pixel peep on the warts and all. I'm seeing too much noise in the turf to say blur (unless they're using red blades mixed into their turf!)

The lower photo is cropped down, so you won't be able to open up a larger image.

Thanks. I think what I am seeing is a combination of the noise and some chromatic abberations, but just mainly around the bits of paper on the turf. That definitely helps viewing it though. It was only around the confetti or whatever it is, and that is going zoomed way in. It may even be a little bit of JPEG artifacts but zoomed out farther it looks a little like movement. Again, thanks for the information.

I'll say it again, this is not my style of shooting. I just dragged the camera out to see what it was like.

With all the technical blah-blah-blah, I thought the OP might like to see something reasonably close to what he had shot, but with f2.8 instead. Or a picture is worth a thousand words. I hope it was illustrative and allows him to make the best decision for his need and his budget.

Thanks for all the help. I would like to try one of the f2.8 lenses and may rent one and see what it does. The good thing is I'm pretty happy with my photos from the other night. So, I will probably save my pennies and try to have a better lens by this time next year.

When my son was a junior I rented a really nice f2.8 lense for the playoffs. I bought one for his senior year and sold it for almost what I paid for it once he was done playing. If shooting night games you will not be happy with anything less.

I found I could live with a shutter speed of 1/500 but that was the absolute slowest to get a decent picture. Not great but decent. Speeds closer to 1/1000 are preferred. If you use a lense 4-5.6 it's hard to get a decent shutter speed in night games even under good lights. It will also depend on what ISO you are happy with. My camera was decent at 6400 but much better at 3200 so that is what I used most of the time. I accepted a little blur for less grain. Everything is a trade off and I didn't have the money to invest in a pro body just to take pictures for football season.

One thing that worked well for me was to shoot more early in the season when you still have a little natural light. Late in the season gets dark well before kickoff and some stadiums are poorly lit for photos.

Plan to shoot from the sidelines and not the stands if you want great photos. The facial expressions you get up close are well worth the effort.

Also realize it will be hard to watch the game and take photos of your son at the same time. I watched him through the lense and paid little attention to the rest of the game.

I got a lot of great action shots of my son, but this is my favorite. It just reminds me of the beast and leader he became. #51




Unfortunately, our season ended here.



Get the good lens and take pictures while you can. They will be gone soon and you won't be wishing you had lesser quality pictures.

Good advice! I you can swing the purchase price now, do so.

Premium lenses retain their resale value better than run-of-the-mill optics.

If you go on the 'Net and buy a used premium lens, in a few years you will likely be able to sell it for the same price you paid for it -- but you will have some really superior pictures forever.

John

I was able to sell my f2.8 lens for 90% of what I paid for it new. I sold it in 2 days. Should have asked more.

I have found a couple "lightly" used Tamron 70-200's for Canon but they don't have the vibration compensation. Will this make a big difference?

For sports, it makes no difference at all...for motionless subjects it's helpful.

VAhunter, those are great lenses. As Jason states for sports it makes no difference, but you would typically being using it on a monopod, thus the VC would be turned off. The lens has a tripod collar to balance the weight better and you would want to attach the monopod to the mount on the collar not the body.

Tangent Warning:
Anyone got experience with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8? I'm not the biggest fan of third party lense, but on paper it sounds like it fills a gap for me nicely. I will probably take my own advice and rent one to test drive first. But any first hand experiences are appreciated. I'm mostly concerned about IQ, Speed and durability. CameraLandTamronPhotAdv do you think Doug would make me a deal on a Canon model?
Chris.

You are aware there are two versions of this lens - both versions are supposed to share the same optical quality but the more recent one called the "Sport: model is reported to have a much better build quality + Sigma is supposed to have improved their quality control.

The newer version also allows you to customize many features such as programming it for more accurate or for quicker focusing - but you need to buy the Sigma module to do the work,
The latest version is selling in the mid-#3500 range,

As soon as the holidays are over I'm going to order one with the adjustment module and 1.4 tele-converter

Here is a link to a review of the most recent "Sport" model - and as you're a Canon shooter you won't have the problem of the lens rotating opposite that of a Nikon,

http://photographylife.com/reviews/..._campaign=sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm

Yes, I've figured out that the "new" has "OS" and the ability to plug in and tune the AF profile. I've also seen that the "old" is about a grand cheaper, but availability is poor now depending on brand (B&H has Nikon but not Canon and Amazon has Canon but not Nikon).
What has me spooked is that Lens Rentals says this the lens that spend the most time at Sigma for repairs.

p.s. Thanks for the link to the review. I've read several, but this one seems to be the most comprehensive.

ChrisF, I would give Doug a call. I have no experience with that particular lens but I am sure if they have one he will have some knowledge of it.

CameraLandTamronPhotAdv
Please post your name. I'm loath to taking advice from an anonymous vendor rep that I can't track down at his company. Joel does it as does Doug.

That's like asking Batman to take off his mask! LOL. I actually don't work for Camera Land or Tamron. I am a customer of Camera Land and a professional who has been using Tamron lenses for more than 20+ years. I did send you a PM too, hopefully you got it.