Football (soccer) lens

[pengyifei]

Guys,

I'm thinking about which lens I should get to shoot the matches of my amateur football team. I have the 5D Mark III and I would like to get the 70-200 2.8 II, but is it long enough? I mean if I stand behind the goal and only shoot the action in front of the goal it should be ok. But if I shoot other pictures from the sidelines it could be a bit short. On my old 600D I used the cheap 75-300 without IS and USM. Close pics were ok but far pics were not really usable. But the focal length on crop of 120-480 was very neat to have. So I'm thinking if the 70-200 2.8 II + 2X III could do the trick or if I should better opt for the 100-400? I will not wait for a new version because of many years of rumors for it to materialize and I do believe that the resale value of the existing version will not drop too much immediately.
The downsides of the 100-400 are obviously that it has 30mm less on the lower end and that it is not weather sealed as the 70-200 2.8 II and I would love to use it during some rainy matches too.

So what do you guys think I should do?

Cheers

Seb

[neuroanatomist]

The IQ of the 100-400mm is slightly better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII - the difference is there if you look, but you have to look really hard.  I have both, but if you already have the 70-200 II, the 2xIII is a good way to go. 

[pengyifei]

I neither have the 70-200 2.8 II nor the 100-400, so I guess the question is if the 100-400 would get more use around the family etc or if I purely buy it for football. I would believe that i would have more uses for the 70-200 2.8 with taking pics of the family

[pengyifei]

Thanks Neuro to reply to my post. You have both 70-200 2.8 II and 100-400. Which one do you use more often with the family?

[neuroanatomist]

The 70-200 II is great for portraits and general family use, IMO. It's my second most-used lens (after the 24-105L). I primarily use the 100-400 for birds/wildlife.

[bdunbar79]

FWIW, if you had a 300 lens, you could shoot far down the field but just by backing up a bit, you could also get shots in the front of the goal as well.  I've shot entire soccer games with just a 300 and all I did was move around a lot.  If you are limited in where you can go, and not shooting in low light, then my personal opinion is the 100-400 lens.

[enice128]

Guys,

I'm thinking about which lens I should get to shoot the matches of my amateur football team. I have the 5D Mark III and I would like to get the 70-200 2.8 II, but is it long enough? I mean if I stand behind the goal and only shoot the action in front of the goal it should be ok. But if I shoot other pictures from the sidelines it could be a bit short. On my old 600D I used the cheap 75-300 without IS and USM. Close pics were ok but far pics were not really usable. But the focal length on crop of 120-480 was very neat to have. So I'm thinking if the 70-200 2.8 II + 2X III could do the trick or if I should better opt for the 100-400? I will not wait for a new version because of many years of rumors for it to materialize and I do believe that the resale value of the existing version will not drop too much immediately.
The downsides of the 100-400 are obviously that it has 30mm less on the lower end and that it is not weather sealed as the 70-200 2.8 II and I would love to use it during some rainy matches too.

So what do you guys think I should do?

Cheers

Seb

I went thru this similar decision months ago. But i shoot on a crop, at that time w a 7D but now on a 1D Mark IV which is still a crop but a 1.3 instead of a 1.6. I purchased the 70-200 2.8L II & just love it! Its THE perfect beginner sports lens even though its not that cheap! For sports u need at least 2.8 & this lens is FAST! The only prob i see is that u shoot on a full frame so u will be limited on reach....but w the 5D III youll be able to crop ur images which i believe have better results on that body than using an extender. As far as extenders r concerned, i did so much research before i got my 1.4x II. The 2x i heard pretty consistently has such slow autofocus when attached to a 7D which is such a great sports body & the image quality was downgraded. This deterred me from going w the 2x even though i wanted the xtra reach but decided on the 1.4x II. I feel that ur 5D even w an extender will be great for indoor sports (amazing high ISO capabilities) or for sports on a shorter field. Ive been advised of this & i have a crop so imagine ur full frame setup! I would love to get the 300 2.8 II but version I was like $5,000 so i could only imagine the price tag of the vII! Well this is just my personal input & im sure there will be disputers which is fine but just trying to help u out!

[bdunbar79]

For price I wouldn't argue for either the version I (about $5000) or version II ($7200?) for the 300 f/2.8L.  Unless you're going to be doing soccer and football, or a few field sports, for money, it's probably not worth it.

[JaxPhotographer]

I used to shoot a lot of soccer matches and used the 70-200L f/2.8 IS v1. When roaming the entirety of the sidelines I would use the 2x extender particularly with daytime matches as there was no significant impact to my ISO challenged 10D. For night matches I generally shot without the extender and limited my shooting to action closer to the perimeter of the field. With the 5DIII, you will have a lot more flexibility on your ISO range with and without the extender.

Looking at your current lenses, the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II would be a natural fit to add to the long end and would get a greater deal of use outside of the soccer matches than the 100-400 IMO. Below is an old shot with the 70-200 w/2x on my old 10D body. On your 5DIII w/V2 lense and v3 ext it would be notably sharper.

[Oldjohnston]

I take lots of soccer photos and live in Seattle where gloomy weather makes the 70-200 2.8 really handy - even in day games.  (And, the 5D iii is a huge step up from my old 7D for night games.)  Plus, the ability to have shallow DOF is handy to blur the sani-cans that always seem to be in the backgrond at soccer tournamnets.  Still, the lens I use most for soccer when it's bright is the 70-300L.  It's on sale for $1,100 right now so it's about half the 70-200 2.8 mkii.  I find it's just as sharp as the 2.8, it's smaller and lighter (making it a good travel lens) and it has more reach. 

Having said that, I don't think the extra reach is that big a deal.  I, too, have found that by far my best photos are taken fairly near to the players so having the 300 doesn't get me that many additional great shots.  I think it's more important to position yourself near the players you want to shoot (behind the other team's end line for forwards and mids and about the 30 yard line for defenders and goalies).  So, if you've got the money, the 2.8 mk ii is great, but the 70-300 is a lens you'll get a lot of use out of.

[pengyifei]

Thanks everyone for the advises! I guess I will get the 70-200 2.8 II first because it will be the most versatile and get more use in general and not only for football. And maybe the 1.4X III or 2X III.

Of course I would love to have a 300 or 400 2.8 II too but the 300 is around 43K Chinese RMB here in Shanghai. I can't spend that much money on a hobby right now. Maybe one day in a couple of months if I have some leftover money :-)

[TexPhoto]

The 70-200 f2.8 II is a fantastic sports lens, and is the way to go if you can afford it, and will only have 1 camera.  It's also a great lens in general for almost any type of photography.

Soccer involves similar distances to American football, but play tends to move over the field much faster.  There is no one lens that will cover it all, and no one place to stand to cover it all.

I shoot sports professionally (maybe semiprofessionally) including soccer and football, and I use a 400mm f2.8 IS, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, on 2 separate bodies. For shooting the actual game play, I will alternate between the 2.  When the game stops, I will trade the 400 for something wide and shoot the player / fans / stadium with that and the 70-200.

I would not recommend the 100-400 because it does not focus as fast, or as well.  In my opinion is a great wildlife lens, not a sports lens) Also in a night game, the f2.8 is critical. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II works great with Canon extenders, I'd go that way for more reach.  And possibly add a 7D to your kit if you want to add a 2nd body.

All that said, don't feel like you have to buy V II or this lens, or the 300/400 2.8 (when you are ready for that)  Version I of these lenses or even the non-IS versions are great lenses assuming you can get a used one in decent shape.  I bought my 400 used for $4500, and the $8500 saved vs a new vII goes  long way toward other equipment.  It's nice to have the latest and greatest, but it's better to show off your awsome photos than your new shinny lens.


C28F0143 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


REX_5990 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

[bdunbar79]

Agreed.  I use the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8.  But money is a problem obviously with those, lol!  So on crop body, 70-200 is more than sufficient.