Hi, I just upgraded from the 7D to 7D II, and I am looking at the lenses I want to upgrade next. My most challenging subjects are sports. I use the shorty 40 and nifty 50 for basketball, f/2 100 for volleyball and love my Tamronosaurus Rex 150-600 for football (all small school high school). At least one of the schools I cover has the reputation as the worst lit gym in the state. The Tamron does everything I need for football but I would like to improve my kit for the other sports. I have a personal budget of $500-$1,000 per year for new lenses. I would like to get f/2.8 zooms, covering 24-70 and 70-200 over the next few years. My question is, should I sock my money away and get the Canon L lenses over 4 years or are the Sigma-Tamron-Tokina options good enough for half the price. My top criteria would be auto-focus performance in AI servo mode.
Seeking advice
- Thread starter justawriter
- Start date
Hi justawriter!justawriter said:
Your statement above directly leads you to the Canon original lenses, but...
I would rent or lend or try out at a workshop (if possible) the desired lenses and personally compare, if they're fitting your needs.
As you can read through the internet some have AF issues with 3rd party lenses some don't.
Some even have AF issues with Canon lenses.
Don't just trust the fora and internet and try out yourself.
Upvote
0
I'm not going to comment on which brand to buy but I'll give the advise my mentor gave me:
Future proof your gear: Buy the right then first off as having something in your bag you're not entirely happy with will not satisfy you.
Future proof your gear: Buy the right then first off as having something in your bag you're not entirely happy with will not satisfy you.
Upvote
0
With a tight budget, you can not spend in L lenses, but there are "almost L" lenses. Canon 35mm F2 IS deserves a red ring, and overcomes the image quality of the old 35L.
In the department 50mm, the choices are more difficult. All options Canon has slow for sports focus, and I chose the Sigma 50Art. Now there is a Tamron 45mm F1.8VC I still have not tested.
I love my Canon 100mm F2, and there is nothing better than that below US $ 1,000.
Zoom F2.8 will require a few years of its budget, unless it decides to buy the old version of 24-70L or 70-200L (without Image Stabilizer).
About "the worst lit gym in the state", you should know that no lens on this planet can capture the light that does not exist. You could make an investment in a pair of high-power LED illuminators mounted on tripods light. Each LED illuminator 200 watts will create an equivalent lighting the lamp halogen 1000 watts.
In the department 50mm, the choices are more difficult. All options Canon has slow for sports focus, and I chose the Sigma 50Art. Now there is a Tamron 45mm F1.8VC I still have not tested.
I love my Canon 100mm F2, and there is nothing better than that below US $ 1,000.
Zoom F2.8 will require a few years of its budget, unless it decides to buy the old version of 24-70L or 70-200L (without Image Stabilizer).
About "the worst lit gym in the state", you should know that no lens on this planet can capture the light that does not exist. You could make an investment in a pair of high-power LED illuminators mounted on tripods light. Each LED illuminator 200 watts will create an equivalent lighting the lamp halogen 1000 watts.
Upvote
0
Hi justawriter,
I can't tell for sure if you are doing sports photography as a business ("one of the schools I cover") or for fun ("I have a personal budget"), but the "personal" budget tips it into the hobby category.
Regardless, I think the advice about buying what you really want is spot on. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for buying something now and getting something else later, and especially for persons with a limited budget, that's a bad practice as it is just a waste of money. That said, renting them out and testing the lenses is a great idea as maybe you'll discover that what you really want is a non-Canon lens or two. Or if this is a hobby, and you want Canon lenses, you just wait a year or two and save up your money. Only you can tell what is "good enough" or "best" for you.
My other thought is to examine the revenue side of this issue and ask whether you've considered how you might increase that lens budget of yours. if this is a hobby, can you turn it into making some money? Many parents would love to buy professional quality photos of their kids in sports. A friend of mine did that for awhile and made quite a bit of money. If it already is a business, can you expand it or branch into other products? Or could you get some other type of seasonal part time job during the upcoming holidays? Maybe you'd have to skip a few games, but you could get the lenses you want faster. Again, only you can decide whether that kind of tradeoff would work for you. Or maybe, you are already maxed out on the time you devote to photography and you'll decide you just need to wait and there's nothing wrong with that.
Good luck and let us know what you decide.
Vivid
I can't tell for sure if you are doing sports photography as a business ("one of the schools I cover") or for fun ("I have a personal budget"), but the "personal" budget tips it into the hobby category.
Regardless, I think the advice about buying what you really want is spot on. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for buying something now and getting something else later, and especially for persons with a limited budget, that's a bad practice as it is just a waste of money. That said, renting them out and testing the lenses is a great idea as maybe you'll discover that what you really want is a non-Canon lens or two. Or if this is a hobby, and you want Canon lenses, you just wait a year or two and save up your money. Only you can tell what is "good enough" or "best" for you.
My other thought is to examine the revenue side of this issue and ask whether you've considered how you might increase that lens budget of yours. if this is a hobby, can you turn it into making some money? Many parents would love to buy professional quality photos of their kids in sports. A friend of mine did that for awhile and made quite a bit of money. If it already is a business, can you expand it or branch into other products? Or could you get some other type of seasonal part time job during the upcoming holidays? Maybe you'd have to skip a few games, but you could get the lenses you want faster. Again, only you can decide whether that kind of tradeoff would work for you. Or maybe, you are already maxed out on the time you devote to photography and you'll decide you just need to wait and there's nothing wrong with that.
Good luck and let us know what you decide.
Vivid
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Looking at the two lenses you are interested in, I would recommend this:
Save up for the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS. It is one of Canon's best lenses and will last you for years. Watch for it to become available at Canon's refurbished store, where it currently sells for $1,679 or watch for a Canon Price Watch street price special, which has been running $1,750 new, USA warranty. Set up a notification with Canon Price Watch http://www.canonpricewatch.com/ to get notified as soon as it comes in stock at the Canon refurbished store if that's the way you want to go.
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 has not received very good reviews and the Tamron isn't that much cheaper than the Canon.
If you are sticking with the 7DII (which by the way, I use almost exclusively for sports) I would not recommend the 24-70. At the shorter end, you really need a lens designed for crop sensor cameras. Look at the 17-55mm f2.8 Canon EF-S. It will cover a 28-88mm equivalent range on a 7DII, which is about the same as the 24-70, plus it has IS. If you need to go wider, go for the Tokina 11-20mm f 2.8., which will cover a full frame equivalent range of 18-30 mm. Watch for a 15% off sale at the Canon Refurbished Store for the 17-55mm 2.8 Canon.
Now, you won't need IS for sports, but you don't shoot sports exclusively and the IS is good for almost anything else. Plus, there are plenty of sports shots where you don't necessary need to stop fast action (coaches talking to the team, a player on the bench, crowd reaction, etc. etc.). Buy for the future, not for today and that means having IS when you need it.
Save up for the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS. It is one of Canon's best lenses and will last you for years. Watch for it to become available at Canon's refurbished store, where it currently sells for $1,679 or watch for a Canon Price Watch street price special, which has been running $1,750 new, USA warranty. Set up a notification with Canon Price Watch http://www.canonpricewatch.com/ to get notified as soon as it comes in stock at the Canon refurbished store if that's the way you want to go.
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 has not received very good reviews and the Tamron isn't that much cheaper than the Canon.
If you are sticking with the 7DII (which by the way, I use almost exclusively for sports) I would not recommend the 24-70. At the shorter end, you really need a lens designed for crop sensor cameras. Look at the 17-55mm f2.8 Canon EF-S. It will cover a 28-88mm equivalent range on a 7DII, which is about the same as the 24-70, plus it has IS. If you need to go wider, go for the Tokina 11-20mm f 2.8., which will cover a full frame equivalent range of 18-30 mm. Watch for a 15% off sale at the Canon Refurbished Store for the 17-55mm 2.8 Canon.
Now, you won't need IS for sports, but you don't shoot sports exclusively and the IS is good for almost anything else. Plus, there are plenty of sports shots where you don't necessary need to stop fast action (coaches talking to the team, a player on the bench, crowd reaction, etc. etc.). Buy for the future, not for today and that means having IS when you need it.
Upvote
0
I guess it kind of depends on where you are able to position yourself. I shot quite a bit of basketball back in the film days, but I had a spot along the baseline. From there the 85 f1.8 was terrific, so on a crop body with the ability to go above ISO400 it gives you the flexibility to use the 17-55 f2.8 as your primary lens. For basketball, longer focal lengths like 135 or 200 were occasionally useful when the ball was at the far end of the court, so while I love my 70-200 f2.8 L lens it is kind of long if you are under the basket, particularly on a crop body. If, on the other hand, you have to shoot from farther away, like the first row of the spectator section, it might be a good fit.
Upvote
0
I shoot a lot of basketball and volleyball in school gyms. Most are poorly lit with 30 year-old lighting systems. I had good success with a 60D/17-55 f2.8 and a 7D/70-200 f2.8 II. ISO would typically be 3200-6400 and shutter speeds at 500 and up. However, I routinely needed to clean up the noise in Lightroom.
I then upgraded to two 5D3's, one with the 70-200 and one with the 24-70 f2.8 II. ISO is most often at 6400 with minimal Lightroom clean up. Shutter speeds are typically 1/640-1/1000. For basketball, I am often able to shoot from under the net and with volleyball, most often at the side of the net. On occasion, I'll grab wide shots with the 24-70, but 90+% of my work is with the 70-200. This is a great range for a full-frame body at indoor sports (if you can shoot court side). I don't need to switch to the short zoom as often as I did with crop. I also don't miss the reach of crop.
I would strongly recommend the 70-200 f2.8L IS II soon and consider an upgrade to full frame when you can. The 5D3 works well, but the 1Dx prices are falling and it is a dream camera for sports. My preference would be the 5D3 over the 7D2 for the cleaner images at 6400. But, the 7D2 does offer a flicker feature which would be nice in some gyms with older lighting.
For crop bodies, the 17-55 can't be beat. When matched with the 7D, I was very impressed with it's focus speed. For shooting volleyball from the side of a net, the 7D with the 17-55 was my main combo. I'd grab a second body with the 70-200 for shots of a serve, then go back to the short zoom. I had to quickly find the player ready to hit the ball, aim, and shoot. Focus lock succes rate was very high. I'm sure the 7D2 would improve on this.
Today, however, I shoot a full frame body with the 70-200 from the side of the net. With this combo, I have no need to switch to a second body. For both basketball and volleyball, I often carry one body (now the 1Dx) with the 70-200 and grab the 40 pancake for team shots after the game.
I then upgraded to two 5D3's, one with the 70-200 and one with the 24-70 f2.8 II. ISO is most often at 6400 with minimal Lightroom clean up. Shutter speeds are typically 1/640-1/1000. For basketball, I am often able to shoot from under the net and with volleyball, most often at the side of the net. On occasion, I'll grab wide shots with the 24-70, but 90+% of my work is with the 70-200. This is a great range for a full-frame body at indoor sports (if you can shoot court side). I don't need to switch to the short zoom as often as I did with crop. I also don't miss the reach of crop.
I would strongly recommend the 70-200 f2.8L IS II soon and consider an upgrade to full frame when you can. The 5D3 works well, but the 1Dx prices are falling and it is a dream camera for sports. My preference would be the 5D3 over the 7D2 for the cleaner images at 6400. But, the 7D2 does offer a flicker feature which would be nice in some gyms with older lighting.
For crop bodies, the 17-55 can't be beat. When matched with the 7D, I was very impressed with it's focus speed. For shooting volleyball from the side of a net, the 7D with the 17-55 was my main combo. I'd grab a second body with the 70-200 for shots of a serve, then go back to the short zoom. I had to quickly find the player ready to hit the ball, aim, and shoot. Focus lock succes rate was very high. I'm sure the 7D2 would improve on this.
Today, however, I shoot a full frame body with the 70-200 from the side of the net. With this combo, I have no need to switch to a second body. For both basketball and volleyball, I often carry one body (now the 1Dx) with the 70-200 and grab the 40 pancake for team shots after the game.
Upvote
0
Thanks, this pretty much confirmed my suspicions that there isn't a whole lot of love out there for the fast third party zoom lenses. I'll just keep feeding the piggy bank until I grab the elusive red ring. For those who were asking, I am the editor of two weekly papers in a chain of 11. I use my own equipment because the company's cameras were lower end when they bought them back in 2007. However, I've been doing this for 20 years and I'm still having fun most days. It gives me an excuse to spend money on my gear and justify it as professional development. Then I can go out and take pictures of birds and bugs for fun with a clear conscience.
Here's one of my favorite sports shots ...
which wasn't taken with a great lens (Tamron 18-270, may it rest in pieces after being dropped once too many times) so I know I don't NEED the best lens for my job, but still ...
Here's one of my favorite sports shots ...
which wasn't taken with a great lens (Tamron 18-270, may it rest in pieces after being dropped once too many times) so I know I don't NEED the best lens for my job, but still ...
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
ajfotofilmagem said:With a tight budget, you can not spend in L lenses, but there are "almost L" lenses. Canon 35mm F2 IS deserves a red ring, and overcomes the image quality of the old 35L.
In the department 50mm, the choices are more difficult. All options Canon has slow for sports focus, and I chose the Sigma 50Art. Now there is a Tamron 45mm F1.8VC I still have not tested.
I love my Canon 100mm F2, and there is nothing better than that below US $ 1,000.
Zoom F2.8 will require a few years of its budget, unless it decides to buy the old version of 24-70L or 70-200L (without Image Stabilizer).
About "the worst lit gym in the state", you should know that no lens on this planet can capture the light that does not exist. You could make an investment in a pair of high-power LED illuminators mounted on tripods light. Each LED illuminator 200 watts will create an equivalent lighting the lamp halogen 1000 watts.
I often shoot clients for academic sports (kids soccer, baseball, basketball)... Nothing will get you booted from a event faster than high power strobes lights near the basket or goal unfortunately.
Upvote
0
Not strobes lights. Are continuous LED lights, brightness equivalent to that of a halogen lamp 1000 watts.Pookie said:I often shoot clients for academic sports (kids soccer, baseball, basketball)... Nothing will get you booted from a event faster than high power strobes lights near the basket or goal unfortunately.ajfotofilmagem said:About "the worst lit gym in the state", you should know that no lens on this planet can capture the light that does not exist. You could make an investment in a pair of high-power LED illuminators mounted on tripods light. Each LED illuminator 200 watts will create an equivalent lighting the lamp halogen 1000 watts.
Upvote
0
One more question, does the group have any opinions on the merits of f/4 L zooms vs f/2.8 zooms for shooting sports?
(Of course you have opinions, I'm asking what they are. I'm an editor, grammar should matter.)
(Of course you have opinions, I'm asking what they are. I'm an editor, grammar should matter.)
Upvote
0
justawriter said:
1 stop difference I use the 70-200is 4.0 for a lot of indoor events works well iso range 400-3200 on a 70D. depends on the printing you want to do also the 10-22ef-s 3.5-4.5 these pair well with each outer in crop plus if I need extra reach I can put a 1.4 tele mk 3 on the 70-200 and still have a 5.6 lens its all about to get the job done.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
ajfotofilmagem said:Not strobes lights. Are continuous LED lights, brightness equivalent to that of a halogen lamp 1000 watts.Pookie said:I often shoot clients for academic sports (kids soccer, baseball, basketball)... Nothing will get you booted from a event faster than high power strobes lights near the basket or goal unfortunately.ajfotofilmagem said:About "the worst lit gym in the state", you should know that no lens on this planet can capture the light that does not exist. You could make an investment in a pair of high-power LED illuminators mounted on tripods light. Each LED illuminator 200 watts will create an equivalent lighting the lamp halogen 1000 watts.
Still would get you booted anywhere here in the Bay Area school district. I've seen it happen more than once. Also saw a guy get his press pass yanked from Laguna Seca for using continuous lights in the paddock. Not even racing and still got yanked, the claim was made you can cause issues with drivers eyes. I thought it was total bs but doesn't help when your getting carted off the premises. Just saying... it may work in your neck of the woods but def not where I go.
Upvote
0
justawriter said:
This is the kicker right here. AF performance of 3rd party lenses can be hit or miss. Some folks have great luck, others not so much. If you need to get the shot, then I would stick with Canon. I shoot sports on a crop with my 70-200 F2.8 Mk II and 85 1.8, which is the little brother to your 100 f2. Both are extremely fast focusing and do great in low light. If you need faster, consider the 135 F2 L or renting the 200 F2 L. I realize the cost on the 200 is considerable, but on a crop, having that extra stop is very handy in poorly lit environments.
Upvote
0
To continue the debate on adding extra light to high school sports, there is a way: Ask permission. And here's how to do it if the answer is yes:
http://strobist.blogspot.ca/2006/04/on-assignment-prep-basketball.html
As for Laguna Seca bouncing a shooter for bringing continuous light, as a former sports reporter/photographer for a small Canadian newspaper (40 years ago) I'm astonished. I would never have thought to ask. But perhaps it was a no-no in the fine print of the press pass
Jay in Toronto
http://strobist.blogspot.ca/2006/04/on-assignment-prep-basketball.html
As for Laguna Seca bouncing a shooter for bringing continuous light, as a former sports reporter/photographer for a small Canadian newspaper (40 years ago) I'm astonished. I would never have thought to ask. But perhaps it was a no-no in the fine print of the press pass
Jay in Toronto
Upvote
0
