Which setup would you have?

[thgmuffin]

This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.

Shooting on a 6D!

Tamron 70-300 VC and Canon 135mm F2
OR
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

I feel like the 70-300 would give a lot of flexibility in terms of focal length for outdoor sports.

 

[Dylan777]

This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.

Shooting on a 6D!

Tamron 70-300 VC and Canon 135mm F2
OR
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

I feel like the 70-300 would give a lot of flexibility in terms of focal length for outdoor sports.

Sorry to say this, but the BIG mistake here is shooting sport with 6D ???

I know 135L works very well on 5D III - AI servo, 4 or 8 points expansion mode, case 2.

 

[mwh1964]

I would go with the canon 70-300 L. If more indoor than out then 70-200 f2.8 or the 135 f2 you suggested. But also it depends on which sport, distance to subject and so one.

 

[thgmuffin]

This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.

Shooting on a 6D!

Tamron 70-300 VC and Canon 135mm F2
OR
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

I feel like the 70-300 would give a lot of flexibility in terms of focal length for outdoor sports.

Sorry to say this, but the BIG mistake here is shooting sport with 6D ???

I know 135L works very well on 5D III - AI servo, 4 or 8 points expansion mode, case 2.

Well, it's doing a lot better than my T2i!

 

[Zv]

The Tamron 70-300 VC is kinda garbage after 200mm so you might as well go for the 70-300L which I hear great things about. I'd then couple it with a 135L for indoor sports. Maybe invest in a monopod for the 135L too.

 

[bholliman]

Sorry to say this, but the BIG mistake here is shooting sport with 6D ???

I've shot junior high wresting, baseball, volleyball and football with my 6D and it does OK. The keeper rate isn't as high as it would be with a 5D3 or 1DX, but its good enough. The quality of the in-focus shots is great.

As for as lens choice, 200mm is fine for the indoor sports, but I've found you need 300 or 400mm for football. The Canon 70-300L is a terrific choice for outdoor sports, but it isn't a fast lens, so you will need to crank up the ISO indoors - the 6D is a great high ISO camera, but lower is always better.

I use my 135 f2 and 70-200 2.8 II for indoor sports and 70-200 with 1.4x or 2.0x III teleconverter for outdoor sports with very good results. I owned a 7D until recently that I was using for sports due to its better AF system, but found I preferred the 6D due to its better image quality and clean shots at ISO 1600 and up - something the 7D can't do. Overall, my keeper rate was a little lower with the 6D, but the quality of the shots with the 6D was so much better I sold the 7D and don't miss it.

 

[thgmuffin]

So would you have two light lenses or one heavy lens? :-\

 

[CarlTN]

So would you have two light lenses or one heavy lens? :-\

A zoom is preferable if the action is ever coming toward or going away from you. On the sidelines, sometimes a prime lens is ok.

As for the AF of the 6D, I have written a lot on this already. With my own 135 f/2, I agree the AF speed is a bit slower than it should be (not as fast as with my 70-200 f/4). The reason seems to be, the AF sensor just isn't sophisticated enough to take advantage of a lens faster than f/4. All AF points other than the center point, can vary in their accuracy with my 135 f/2, and thus are unreliable...especially in servo mode. And the problem is, if you leave all points active, the camera always seems to want to find focus with any other point, instead of the better center point. With f/4 lenses, especially with the 70-200 f/4, this does not seem to be an issue at all.

This is obviously a "crippling" that was designed into the 6D, to keep 5D3 owners happy about paying $1200+ more, and to keep the parts cost of the 6D at rock bottom. If the 6D had a derivative of the 7D's AF sensor/system...5D3 owners would be a bit less happy...because the 6D's files are cleaner within a very usable ISO range, than are the 5D3's files...specifically the luminance noise.

My own experience in bright daylight with things like passing cars, is the servo AF on the 6D is generally much more accurate and faster, for objects coming toward the camera...than for objects receding quickly from the camera.

For indoor sports or other low light events where the targets stay close to the same distance from the camera, you can pretty much get accurate and adequately fast focus with most any fast aperture lens, and the 6D...especially if you only use center point in servo mode...or in single shot mode for that matter (with multiple half press to keep engaging and tweaking the focus).

 

[jdramirez]

Do you still have the t2i? If so, I'd maybe consider a 2 body set up... on for reach and one for close up shots... maybe the 135L on the 6D and maybe a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 convertor on the t2i... that would give you an effective focal length of 672mm... which leaves huge gap between the two lenses... so maybe 200mm f/2.8L (I don't remember if it is compatable with the 1.4 convertor)... but if it is, then you have 448mm.

This is a hard question... because I don't like any of my answers.

Maybe the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM plus a 1.4 convertor for outdoor sports... and then the same lens for indoor. For indoor, you can use f/4... but it is really hard to get the shutter speeds you might desire, even with a high iso.

I'll give it a look again when it is 3a.m. and I can't sleep and maybe I will come up with something better.

 

[CarlTN]

Do you still have the t2i? If so, I'd maybe consider a 2 body set up... on for reach and one for close up shots... maybe the 135L on the 6D and maybe a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 convertor on the t2i... that would give you an effective focal length of 672mm... which leaves huge gap between the two lenses... so maybe 200mm f/2.8L (I don't remember if it is compatable with the 1.4 convertor)... but if it is, then you have 448mm.

This is a hard question... because I don't like any of my answers.

Maybe the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM plus a 1.4 convertor for outdoor sports... and then the same lens for indoor. For indoor, you can use f/4... but it is really hard to get the shutter speeds you might desire, even with a high iso.

I'll give it a look again when it is 3a.m. and I can't sleep and maybe I will come up with something better.

Good advice. And event photography really does scream out for a second body anyway.

 

[jdramirez]

however you decide, I don't think you need image stabilization. for sports you want a minimum of 1/500 of a second & I generally like to shoot at 1/1000 or faster to freeze the action.

at those shutter speeds, is doesn't do a Heck of a lot... so get a monopod, save on the lens, but don't skimp on the image quality.

 

[thgmuffin]

I still have my T2i!

Generally I will be shooting in our school's football stadium.

IMG_7289 by THGBrian, on Flickr

IMG_7234 by THGBrian, on Flickr

IMG_7188-2 by THGBrian, on Flickr

First two were shot with my friend's 70-200 mark ii and the last was shot with my 24-105. Anyway, I hope the pictures show how much the lighting varies at different times of the day. I'm not sure if I could get away with my T2i at 1/500. Plus, I wouldn't really want to carry that much gear around too....

Any recommendations?

 

[dgatwood]

Another vote for biting the bullet and getting a 70-300L. Its IS is absolutely amazing, IMO, and when you're shooting out at 300mm, you're going to be relying on that IS pretty heavily.

 

[jdramirez]

I still have my T2i!

Generally I will be shooting in our school's football stadium.

IMG_7289 by THGBrian, on Flickr

IMG_7234 by THGBrian, on Flickr

IMG_7188-2 by THGBrian, on Flickr

First two were shot with my friend's 70-200 mark ii and the last was shot with my 24-105. Anyway, I hope the pictures show how much the lighting varies at different times of the day. I'm not sure if I could get away with my T2i at 1/500. Plus, I wouldn't really want to carry that much gear around too....

Any recommendations?

I shoot some football and I would suggest not shooting from the stands or above the action. It resembles a point and shoot camera and doesn't take advantage of the shallow depth of field you have when shooting at f/2.8 and 200mm. So take your shots from ground level... take a knee because it is a slightly more interesting angle than standing, dont' lay down because if a ball or player comes your way, you won't be able to get out of the way.

Try and predict the future. Shooting the receiver jumping away from the camera is significantly less interesting than seeing the receiver jump towards the camera and you can see his eyes focusing on the ball. If you are stuck in one place... I understand... but if you are allowed to roam the sidelines... I like to spend time ahead of the action so I can see it coming my way.

Also... and I do this too to my dismay... if the action is happening on the other side of the ball, maybe you don't take that shot... because it is so far... and you would have to crop so much, but because of the distance, the depth of field is greater, so it doesn't POP!

As for the 70-300L... at an aperture of 5.6 at 300, you are losing 4x the amount of light that you might have at 200mm at f/2.8. And that's a lot when you are shooting night games.

and I still contend, that IS isn't important when you are trying to get 1/500 of a second shutter speeds or preferably 1/2000.

and I thought I said this earlier... but crop more. Isolate your subject... making them the only subject. The goal post and the bystanders... I would cut them out. and the group photo in the huddle... crop into the image and adjust your alignment a little... the blurring will be intensified and bring out the players a big more.

If you don't want a 2 body setup... I understand.

Are you allowed to use flash? Maybe a high speed sync using a 580 exii or a 600 rt? At a distance... there is a little less glare.

I still vote for the 70-200mm f2.8L USM (non-is) and a monopod. Night games are such a beech to shoot at f/4... even with the 6D...

 

[thgmuffin]

What about the Tamron 70-200 VC?

 

[jdramirez]

What about the Tamron 70-200 VC?

never used it... can't say.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Go for the 135mm f2L.

A few reasons why:

You have 20Mp at your disposal. You can crop a hell of a lot and still get images usable for most purposes, provided said images are sharp etc.

F2 gives your af a huge helping hand. Massive helping hand. Regardless of your shooting aperture.

Zooms distract. I got better pics with my 200 f2.8L than I get with my 70-200 f2.8L. You spend less time doubting your choice, and more time tracking and giving AiServo the best chance of the shot.

Seriously, 135mm f2L. Grrrrreat lens. I would prefer a shot from a 135mm cropped than a shot from a 70-300 taken at f5.6 full size (f5.6 being the max aperture at the 300mm end, with attendant negative effect on AF)

It's also handy to have f2.0 as a shooting option, no matter how high ISO your camera has. It's 3 extra shutter stops over a 300mm at f5.6, all other things being equal. For sports that is good.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.

Shooting on a 6D!

Tamron 70-300 VC and Canon 135mm F2
OR
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

I feel like the 70-300 would give a lot of flexibility in terms of focal length for outdoor sports.

As others have mentioned, I also would not recommend shooting sports with the 6D due to it's slower fps and 9 AF points. If budget is a factor then I recommend looking at the 7D or a used 1D mk3 or 4. But if you're sole camera is the 6D then it's a moot point.

As for the lens, I suggest the 70-200 f2.8 VC because you'll need it for indoor sports. If the focal length isn't far enough, then you could possibly get a 1.4 teleconverter that would stop the lens down to f/4.

 

[lux]

wierd post to be reading; I have a 2ti and a 6D and take pictures of kids and family for the most part including sports such as indoor basketball and soccer and outdoor soccer. I have tried all sorts of combinations. First I should say that if you just use the center point the 6D is not bad for focusing and is better than the 2ti and light years better than my xti. The 6D's other advantage is the ability to stop action since you can increase the iso...as high as 12000 and have pictures that are pretty good. I have a 70-200 mark II and this is great for indoor action. I assume the tamron would be as well. the 2.8 though is pretty important since lighting can be terrible.

As for outdoor sports I have used the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender and I've used the 100-400. The latter is probably a little better for soccer because of the difference in range...especially with larger fields but there could be a debate (I rented a 300 2.8 I for a weekend...wow that was awesome). the 100-400 is worthless from evening on...especially if it's overcast because you just can't stop action. Then you have to decide 70-200 or nothing.

Therefore, if I can only get one lens I would get the 70-200 since it will allow you the ability to do the most and it is also a great lens for taking pictures of kids at events etc.

 

[thgmuffin]

Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...

I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!