Your choice for amateur Sportslens

[candyman]

I think you should rent the 70-300 first and see if it works with what you shoot. Or come to Florida this winter and try both of my lenses.

That's a good advice and a wonderful offer. Thanks!

 

[candyman]

As CR said, a 70-200mm f/2.8L non is would be a big improvement, a equivalent of 320mm max on your 7D, and with a 1.4 TC, about 448 mm equivalent at f/4. You could squeak by at $1500 with a used MK II TC if you don't already have one.

That will allow you to get the high shutter speeds you need, which should be about 1/800 sec - 1/2000 sec. Even so, you may have to crank up the ISO.

The next step up is a 300mm f/2.8, and the price is very high.

I think I will try to rent a 70-200 f2.8 non-is with extender to see how it works.

 

[candyman]

Many thanks to all of you for spending some time on my questions.

It is truly not easy.
I need good reach over the field. Meaning get close to the otherside field action and being able to shoot close from where I am sitting.
I want quality and sharp photos.

I love to go for :
- Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + Canon 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS
I just don't have the budget (it would require an additional camera too so I can switch during the game)

If I go only for a 300, that would not give me the opportunity to shoot close from where I am sitting

A 70-200mm f2.8 with extender would give me some possibilities to shoot close (though that would be 98mm) and some reach to the otherside of the field. Though it may be just a little bit further as my current lens. The aperture would be f4. I understood that it should be the maximum for good AF

The 70-300 L has more reach but at the end only F5.6. I guess that will spoil it?

What can you tell me about the use of the 70-200 f2.8 for other purposes (situations with lower shutter speed) - being a lens without IS? If it can handle this pretty well, then I believe it is a good investment.

 

[wickidwombat]

you're shooting sport everything is moving so is is going to be largely irrelevent anyway, if you need the zoom then go the 70-20 f2.8 and get a TC if you need a cheaper one i have the kenko DGX its awesome and works with ALL lenses

 

[Edwin Herdman]

How close is "close?" 1 meter is much closer than you would probably want to get to most sports. At 300mm, the Sigma 120-300mm's close focus distance is "only" 2.5 meters, but that's still quite close (and it gets closer with teleconverters or an extender).

 

[92101media]

I think if I were you, I'd probably get the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Lens.

That would allow you to grab shots at anywhere from portrait to telephoto lengths (especially on a 1.6x crop factor body, like the Canon 7D you have) without having to change lenses, or even without having to switch cameras in a 2 body setup scenario, important in a fast changing environment like sports

Then to use it, I'd:
- shoot in full manual mode
- set the aperture on the camera to 5.6, so the aperture doesn't change as you zoom the lens in & out
- set the shutter speed to whatever works to freeze the action
- then adjust ISO accordingly to get correct exposure
- set white balance manually to match conditions
- shoot away, just zooming to whatever focal length you want, without having to change any other settings

These days modern cameras, like the Canon 7D, do a reasonable job at minimizing noise & grain if ISO is kept to a modest level.

A simple exposure calculator I found on line (http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx) indicates that even for subjects in deep shade, at f=5.6, shutter speed = 1/1000 sec, your ISO would probably only have to be 3200. That's still within reasonable limits for a camera with modern noise reduction, like the Canon 7D. And remember those settings are for deep shade. If it's sunnier out, or you can get away with shooting slower than 1/1000 sec, then you can adjust your ISO down accordingly to keep the amount of noise in the pictures to a minimum.

Also, you may be interested that there are reports that the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter (approx. US$ 250) works fine on Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. That would effectively turn the 70-300mm into a 98-420mm (i.e. close to a 100-400mm in focal length), at the cost of one stop of light i.e. your 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would effectively become a 98-420mm f/5.6-8. Now, I am sure some will be quick to point out that an enthusiast body like the 7D is only guaranteed to autofocus for lens apertures at f/5.6 and wider (i.e. only at the wider end when the 1.4x TC is attached. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the 7D is able to autofocus at the long end, even when a 1.4x Kenko TC is attached (i.e. when lens aperture = f/8), though the AF can be slow & hunt a bit, especially in lower light conditions, when that is the case. The resulting 1.6x (crop) * 1.4x (TC) * (70mm - 300mm) [lens] can net you some serious telephoto ability under the right circumstances. Probably wouldn't be suitable for fast moving objects, like sports and/or under lower available light conditions, but it's something to ponder.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Hmm, too bad the 1500 euro limit is in place. Better spend it fast though...I am worried for you guys.

If you could possibly stretch it, here in the US the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is $3100 USD or so.

It is weathersealed (though the front element will fog up rapidly, and takes forever to defog if this happens) and has been (in my non-sports experience) a fantastic contender. Very sharp although the Photozone.de guy knocked points off his review with a full frame camera for corner sharpness. It also reportedly doesn't "really" give a 300mm angle of view at its longest setting (though it's still pretty long in my book).

OS is great, f/2.8 is great, the weight isn't great (6.5 pounds, nearly 3 kilograms!), AF is great and so are the images it takes.

 

[handsomerob]

A simple exposure calculator I found on line (http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx) indicates that even for subjects in deep shade, at f=5.6, shutter speed = 1/1000 sec, your ISO would probably only have to be 3200. That's still within reasonable limits for a camera with modern noise reduction, like the Canon 7D. And remember those settings are for deep shade. If it's sunnier out, or you can get away with shooting slower than 1/1000 sec, then you can adjust your ISO down accordingly to keep the amount of noise in the pictures to a minimum.

I personally try to avoid ISO 3200 on my 7D if I can.

Also, you may be interested that there are reports that the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter (approx. US$ 250) works fine on Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. That would effectively turn the 70-300mm into a 98-420mm (i.e. close to a 100-400mm in focal length), at the cost of one stop of light i.e. your 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would effectively become a 98-420mm f/5.6-8. Now, I am sure some will be quick to point out that an enthusiast body like the 7D is only guaranteed to autofocus for lens apertures at f/5.6 and wider (i.e. only at the wider end when the 1.4x TC is attached. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the 7D is able to autofocus at the long end, even when a 1.4x Kenko TC is attached (i.e. when lens aperture = f/8), though the AF can be slow & hunt a bit, especially in lower light conditions, when that is the case. The resulting 1.6x (crop) * 1.4x (TC) * (70mm - 300mm) [lens] can net you some serious telephoto ability under the right circumstances. Probably wouldn't be suitable for fast moving objects, like sports and/or under lower available light conditions, but it's something to ponder.

as you pointed out yourself, f/8 for sports is a no go... 8)

@ candyman :
Since you want the flexibility of a zoom, if you have lots of cloudy days I would go for the fastest aperture, so the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. You can choose to add an extender or simply, crop your images. 7D has enough resolution to help you with that.

 

[92101media]

I personally try to avoid ISO 3200 on my 7D if I can.

I agree that 3200 is less desirable than a lower ISO. However, that ISO was calculated using parameters that I think tend towards what would likely be the worst case scenario. If it's sunnier, or the OP doesn't require shutter speeds as fast as 1/1000 sec, then ISO could be lowered accordingly. My point was to illustrate that depending on the OP's requirements, the 70-300mm may still be a possible candidate.

Also, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is a very versatile lens, suitable for many other scenarios. And, being one of Canon's latest lenses (I believe less than a year old), it has the benefit of the latest features e.g. the latest generation IS. Yes, the IS isn't going to help the OP when shooting moving subjects, however while people often buy a particular lens to address some particular need, they sometimes have other potential uses in mind. What those other uses are sometimes play a role in the decision process too.

as you pointed out yourself, f/8 for sports is a no go... 8)

Agreed, the paragraph about the Kenko TC was more a note about other possible uses/applications for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, if the OP did decide to go that route.

Since you want the flexibility of a zoom, if you have lots of cloudy days I would go for the fastest aperture, so the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. You can choose to add an extender or simply, crop your images. 7D has enough resolution to help you with that.

I agree, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS would be another viable candidate, but may be a little less versatile than the 70-300, in that you can only have 70-200 _or_ 98-280 (with 1.4x TC attached), not 70-300 at the same time. Well, I guess if you stick with 70-200 & just crop the image then you do, but then you have less pixels/resolution in the equivalent cropped area. How that turns out vs. using a TC (going through an extra piece of glass, along with the resulting extra stop of light loss), your guess is as good as mine. Under good light, the TC may be better; under lower light, the cropping may be better.

 

[briansquibb]

Go Manual as said earlier but:

Use Auto ISO which is what I use for birding. Works a treat.

 

[candyman]

In understand that the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS is not fully weather sealed but partially. I read at DP:

"Unlike its IS sibling, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is not fully weather-sealed - Extra caution will need to be taken in wet conditions. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is, however, a partially weather sealed lens. A lens mount gasket is not present, but the switches, focusing ring and zoom ring have moderate dust and moisture resistance. A front filter should be used for sealing purposes."

Since I have to deal with wet weather conditions during soccer games - and I may take the lens with me on my yearly dessert trips (dust) in Israel - maybe the 70-200mm is after all not the right choice.....

Wow, if money is no issue, you have the perfect fit with some of the lenses available. If money matters, there is always something with the lens that does not fit your requirements. So always consessions.....they know how to do that at Canon.

I don't know....I really have to think about my purchase and may postpone buying the lens. Saving more money (for a full weather sealed 70-200 f2.8.

 

[7enderbender]

I am in the process of upgrading my current telelens (max reach 270mm) to a L-lens of Canon. Reason: better quality (optical & weathersealed)
I see - within my budget (max 1500 euro) - 3 options:

- canon 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM
- canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM + extender 1.4 III (giving me 280mm & A5.6)
- canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM

I am using the Canon 7D camera.
I shoot soccergames photos mostly outside. The weather is typical Dutch: sunny, foggy, rain etc - you never know here....
The soccerfield length is NOT yet the full length since the players are playing minor league. But I found that 270mm is just too short

The combo 70-200mm + 1.4 extender (thus 280mm) is the minimum distance I need.

Would anyone be so kind and share experiences (focus speed, apeture, sharpness etc) of using the Canon 7D and one (or more) of mentioned lenses in regards to sports (mainly soccer, amercian football, rugby etc)

It may help me to decide

Thanks!

(pardon my English, it is not my native language)

Does it need to be a white zoom lens? For my son's soccer games this season my EF200 2.8LII turned out to be great. This is on full frame though, so I'm not sure how it would fare on a 7D. And if you can stretch the budget a bit and are willing to go hunting for used lenses you may be able to get the 200 and add the 135L. That would always be my preference over the big, heavy and expensive zooms. Fast, light and super sharp. And much more reasonably priced.

 

[briansquibb]

The 200 f/2.8 is a very nice lens..

 

[pwp]

Candyman, there are plenty of posts here that are urging you towards f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses or various combinations using 1.4x & 2x converters. These do fall into your nominated budget, and with careful use, moderate expectations and good strong light you'll come home with some keepers.

There is a very good reason that sports shooters use lenses that are f/2.8 or brighter. It's not so they look cool. They're under both creative and commercially driven pressure to come back with sharp, well composed shots. It's a fairly simple matter. F/2.8 or faster simply delivers better AF, better AF and better AF.

If a f/4.5-f/5.6 lens performed like a f/2.8 300is or f/2.8 400is you had better believe that most sports shooters would happily save themselves several thousand dollars at lens update time.

If sports action photography is where you really want to develop your skills, do try to make the stretch to fast glass. One poster mentioned the new Sigma f/2.8 120-300 OS. That's a great suggestion.

Paul Wright

 

[briansquibb]

Candyman, there are plenty of posts here that are urging you towards f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses or various combinations using 1.4x & 2x converters. These do fall into your nominated budget, and with careful use, moderate expectations and good strong light you'll come home with some keepers.

There is a very good reason that sports shooters use lenses that are f/2.8 or brighter. It's not so they look cool. They're under both creative and commercially driven pressure to come back with sharp, well composed shots. It's a fairly simple matter. F/2.8 or better simply delivers better AF, better AF and better AF.

If a f/4.5-f/5.6 lens performed like a f/2.8 300is or f/2.8 400is you had better believe that most sports shooters would happily save themselves several thousand dollars at lens update time.

If sports action photography is where you really want to develop your skills, do try to make the stretch to fast glass. One poster mentioned the new Sigma f/2.8 120-300 OS. That's a great suggestion.

Paul Wright

Dont forget that sports are often taken in low light so f/2.8 will give the opportunity to shoot one stop down on iso or use a faster shutter speed.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (non-II version) seems to be a good deal as well. It does seem to have some sharpness issues barely visible, maybe, even at web resolution, but that doesn't mean you can't take photos that turn out great at print size. Any problems with it are going to be visible only to the most picky of viewers.

 

[Flake]

Sports outdoors in variable weather conditions such as Holland are going to need a minimum of f/2.8 - or a decision to just walk away in poor visibility. I don't know what you want these images for, but for most users 18MP is plenty to be able to crop your images, might then get away with a 200mm lens. The Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 has been suggested, and this is the only affordable way to reach this focal length, it's also the only zoom lens of this type available.

You will need a monopod or a tripod as 90 minutes plus will really tell on you hand holding. As for shutter speeds - experiment! there's no rule stop action is not the only solution, and the ball can travel much faster than the players so if you get it right you can have stop action on the player but not the ball, or some movement in both, or pan so the background gives a sense of movement.

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Have you considered the Sigma 70-200 Æ’2.8 OS version? Stabilization at the rough cost of what the non IS 2.8 Canon, or the Æ’4L IS USM goes for.

Gary W.