Need Advice - Canon Lens

[ancestry]

I am looking to buy a better/higher quality lens for my Canon T3i. I shoot a lot of sports photography for my kids and their team mates -- primarily hockey and football.

The football games are often late at night and later in the season they take place in the dark. There are lights on the field but on the high school fields they don't illuminate things much for photography.

The hockey arenas vary greatly on the level of lighting in them and sometimes I have to shoot through the glass or through netting -- it depends on the ice arena.

With both sports how close I can get to the action varies greatly depending on the game. With hockey sometimes it is a trade off -- I can shoot close up through the glass and its puck scuff marks or I can go further away/up and shoot over the glass -- again it depends on the arena.

Anyways - this past year I've survived using the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. While I managed to get some decent pictures from time to time I was often frustrated with this lens. Sometimes I wished I had a greater zoom range other time I wish I had a lens with a lower f stop especially when using the full zoom.

That said I'm debating between three lens -- not sure if I should go with the lower f-stop and give up the zoom range or go for the large zoom range and give up the lower f-stop.

--EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - this lens doesn't have as much of a zoom that I would like but the low f stop is very appealing. It also cost more than I was wanting to spend and am not sure I can invest that much.

--EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM - I'm intrigued by the extra zoom range with this lens but the f stop is that same with the one I have now which has been really hard to get photos at some of the night football games. It is more in the price range I'm willing to spend.

--EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM - This is the precursor to the first lens I listed above and while it gets good reviews the IS II gets better reviews.

I can't seem to make a decision on what is best. This will probably be my only "expensive" (i.e over $1,000) lens for quite some time so I want to be sure to get what I want. I really didn't want to go too much over $1,500 or so. I could probably do a little bit more or if you all think I should do the first lens then I will have to delay purchasing it for a little bit.

Thoughts? Idea?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You are taking pictures of people moving. Image stabilization won't help you that much. I'd save the cost difference and get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 without IS. If cost is a big issue, you might consider the Sigma or Tamron equivalent. You really want that f/2.8 aperture. I wouldn't compromise on that.

You can't easily improve on the 70-200 f/2.8. If you go longer, like the 300 f/2.8, you're talking about a HUGE increase in price. The same is true if you go faster with the 200 f/2. You could get a shorter fast prime like the 135mm f/2, but you really want the zoom for sports.

In addition to the 70-200 f/2.8, I would add a monopod. That will make it easier to shoot for a long game. It will also do more to improve your stability than IS would.

 

[photo_chick]

The slower 100-400 won't help you out any more in low light than what you have. In fact, what you have probably lets you get away with a slower shutter speed because it weighs less. But speed isn't everything. It is L series glass and that will help you in other ways.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the non IS version of that lens, are the standard here. It is what most people go for. Another option is the 70-200 f/4 IS (or even the non-IS for less than $700). It doesn't give you much more speed wise, but it is little lighter than the f/2.8 so that helps cut down on camera shake a bit. And the sharper, clearer images that you'll get from L series glass will help when you have to bump up the ISO in dark venues. A third option is a collection of primes that will generally be faster, sharper lenses but you have to change more often.

My advice... rent a lens or two. You're talking about spending a nice chunk of cash here. Test drive them before you buy. Make sure it will give you what you want.

 

[bob100]

I am looking to buy a better/higher quality lens for my Canon T3i. I shoot a lot of sports photography for my kids and their team mates -- primarily hockey and football.

The football games are often late at night and later in the season they take place in the dark. There are lights on the field but on the high school fields they don't illuminate things much for photography.

The hockey arenas vary greatly on the level of lighting in them and sometimes I have to shoot through the glass or through netting -- it depends on the ice arena.

With both sports how close I can get to the action varies greatly depending on the game. With hockey sometimes it is a trade off -- I can shoot close up through the glass and its puck scuff marks or I can go further away/up and shoot over the glass -- again it depends on the arena.

Anyways - this past year I've survived using the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. While I managed to get some decent pictures from time to time I was often frustrated with this lens. Sometimes I wished I had a greater zoom range other time I wish I had a lens with a lower f stop especially when using the full zoom.

That said I'm debating between three lens -- not sure if I should go with the lower f-stop and give up the zoom range or go for the large zoom range and give up the lower f-stop.

--EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - this lens doesn't have as much of a zoom that I would like but the low f stop is very appealing. It also cost more than I was wanting to spend and am not sure I can invest that much.

--EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM - I'm intrigued by the extra zoom range with this lens but the f stop is that same with the one I have now which has been really hard to get photos at some of the night football games. It is more in the price range I'm willing to spend.

--EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM - This is the precursor to the first lens I listed above and while it gets good reviews the IS II gets better reviews.

I can't seem to make a decision on what is best. This will probably be my only "expensive" (i.e over $1,000) lens for quite some time so I want to be sure to get what I want. I really didn't want to go too much over $1,500 or so. I could probably do a little bit more or if you all think I should do the first lens then I will have to delay purchasing it for a little bit.

Thoughts? Idea?
Thanks in advance.

like others have said, the 100-400 is a great lens but for night and indoors you will need the f2.8 or larger aperture so if you can only have one lens for all sports consider the 70-200 2.8 versions and use it with an extender /teleconverter. Also look at the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8 zooms. And the Sigma 50-150 2.8 zoom. Or maybe keep the 55-250IS and get a couple of primes for night and indoors like the 100mm, 200mm 2.8, etc.

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree with renting of one these first. I was pretty sure I wanted to buy one of the 70-200 2.8's with IS. Then I rented one for my son's high school graduation. I got some nice photos, but it convnced me that it was more lens than I personally wanted to carry around very often. And it was more money than I wanted to have sitting on my shelf most of the time. That might not be your issue, but you could find another issue you hadn't considered.

 

[SplashMo]

I really like the 85mm f1.8 lens.

 

[meanpc]

I really like the 85mm f1.8 lens.

I can second the 85mm/1.8 suggestion, but it might not be the right focal length for you. Have you thought about the 200mm/2.8 prime? It's only $800 and the IQ would beat the 70-200L. The downside with primes of course is...no zoom. The upside is cheaper price, better performance and lighter weight. You'd still want to use a monopod though.

 

[photo_chick]

I can second the 85mm/1.8 suggestion, but it might not be the right focal length for you. Have you thought about the 200mm/2.8 prime? It's only $800 and the IQ would beat the 70-200L. The downside with primes of course is...no zoom. The upside is cheaper price, better performance and lighter weight. You'd still want to use a monopod though.

The 200mm f/2.8 L is a great suggestion. It's a good solution if you want to spend less and are good with using a prime that long.

 

[DizzyV6P]

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is also another option. At $1299 on Amazon, the price can't be beat for the quality and speed of the lens. Before I sold my entire Canon kit for the Olympus E-M5, the new Sigma was at the top of my "to buy" list.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The "go to" lens in most sports photographers bag is the 70-200 f2.8. IMHO it is the most versatile lens for sports. Depending on your access, it can be a little short for football, but the images can always be cropped. When I'm shooting, it's always on one of my two cameras. The zoom gives you the option of shooting long and also shorter, if need be, without having to change lenses and maintaining a f.2.8 (again if needed). Depending on your budget the three options are the Canon, Sigma and Tamron. My manufacturer (Pentax) does not make it, so I have the non-stabilized (I have in-body stabilization) Sigma. As others have said, when shooting sports you usually are shooting higher shutter speeds so stabilization may not be necessary. I shoot a lot of motorsports while panning and because of the lower shutter speeds I "feel" it does give me a slight advantage. I have no scientific evidence to support that, though! I have found a little trick to carrying the heavier lenses. I use the BR strap attached to the tripod collar. That balances the camera equally front to back allowing me to carry it all day without fatigue. When I carry two cameras that is very important at an all day shoot.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

I second the vote for renting (or borrowing) the lenses in question.

I think the 70-200 2.8 is going to be your best bet though.

 

[Frantasmic]

The 200mm f/2.8 L is a great suggestion. It's a good solution if you want to spend less and are good with using a prime that long.

I agree. It is only about $650-$750. You can find these used or Refurbed by Canon at Adorama all the time.

If you are concerned with the reach, you could get a 1.4 extender and have a 280mm f4.0 for under a thousand dollars.

Or look at the 300mm f4.0 by itself. I'd rent both of these and see what works best for you.

 

[ancestry]

Thanks everyone! I'm going to try renting some of the suggested lenses and will make my decision after I've tried them out.

Not sure why I didn't think of renting......

 

[scoot241]

I'd suggest the 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS. I have the f/4.0 and love it but sometimes wish I could get down to 2.8 but it wasn't in the budget at the time. A used copy in good condition may even cost less than $1000.

Sigma and Tamron also make 70-200 f/2.8 lenses but they suffer from slow autofocus, and with sports photography you probably want the autofocus to be as fast as possible.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I'd suggest the 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS. I have the f/4.0 and love it but sometimes wish I could get down to 2.8 but it wasn't in the budget at the time. A used copy in good condition may even cost less than $1000.

Sigma and Tamron also make 70-200 f/2.8 lenses but they suffer from slow autofocus, and with sports photography you probably want the autofocus to be as fast as possible.

Normally I wouldn't counter a member's statement, but I use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II Macro HSM for motorsports almost every weekend during the season. The Hyper-Sonic Motor (HSM) paired with my Pentax K5 is silent and very fast focusing. With the HSM, the majority of the time, its the camera not the lens that is the cause of slow focus. With my camera I need a little contrast for it to auto-focus and that is easily attained by slightly changing focus point or by simply flicking a lever to manual focus. This is especially true with black on black race cars. I just switch to a door number or other contasting color and I have focus. The Tamron may be slower because it doesn't have the HSM or whatever the manufacturer calls it for their lenses. That's only an assumption on my part because I haven't use the Tamron.