What lense do you prefer for...

[my3sons77]

Shooting sports.

For the last 2 weekends I have rented the Tamron 150-600 and I LOVE it. I've been shooting youth league football games for my 8 yr old. The pictures are coming out GREAT but I'd love to know what y'all like too. I'll be getting something soon so that I can shoot my oldest boys high school football games, my oldest son is in the rodeo and my youngest son does t-ball. I keep my camera busy lol

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Its been my experience that each sport will have specific requirements. Shooting T-ball in the daytime is different than shooting a football game at night on a poorly lit field (and most are poorly lit). You didn't mention what camera body you are using. For some sports full frame works best and others a camera with a crop or a crop function might work better. Also your access has an effect on what you need. There is no easy answer. What I need to shoot a NASCAR race is different than what you need to shoot a Friday night HS football game. I use different lenses to shoot drag racing than I do to shoot a local short track and again access is another factor. If you are shooting from a grandstand, your requirements are going to be different than someone shooting on the field. Sports shooting can be difficult because you are controlling very little of the shooting environment. If you can be more specific about your shooting and what you are trying to do then you will get better recommendations. Saying all that there is one universal lens that most photographers have in their bag and that is a 70-200 f2.8. Most of the major brands manufacture this lens and there are some third party versions, specifically Tamron and Sigma.

 

[my3sons77]

You're right. I'm using a Canon 60D. For the youth games, it is during the day and I am on the side of the field. For the HS games I will be in the stands, unless I can get access inside the gates to be on the track. I'm not looking for an easy answer, I was just wondering what some of you all like to use. I know that one lense will not work for all activities but it will work great for most.

 

[bob100]

Shooting sports.

For the last 2 weekends I have rented the Tamron 150-600 and I LOVE it. I've been shooting youth league football games for my 8 yr old. The pictures are coming out GREAT but I'd love to know what y'all like too. I'll be getting something soon so that I can shoot my oldest boys high school football games, my oldest son is in the rodeo and my youngest son does t-ball. I keep my camera busy lol

for youth football and other day time field sports like lacrosse and soccer I use the 100-400 (original V1 version)
I can get over 200 "face + ball" action pics at a typical lacrosse game


(on a 60D)

 

[my3sons77]

Great shot.

Here are a couple that I got with the Tamron. The boys play on the high school fields so the extra zoom was nice.

 

[elmoandzoey]

My boys play handball which is solely indoors. I always have to shoot from the bleechers. I have a Canon 70-300 IS USM for the 60D. The reach is nice and autofocus is quite fast - so it was a total winner when my older one was doing track and field outdoors. But since they are both doing solely indoor sports now, lighting is always an issue. I am trying to replace it with a 70-200 f2.8 even though I am losing on the long end.

 

[bob100]

Great shot.

Here are a couple that I got with the Tamron. The boys play on the high school fields so the extra zoom was nice.

yes, extra zoom is certainly good.
a 70-200 2.8 lens might be better for night or indoor events but the Tamron 150-600 can work for day time sports

 

[mom2rtk]

My boys play handball which is solely indoors. I always have to shoot from the bleechers. I have a Canon 70-300 IS USM for the 60D. The reach is nice and autofocus is quite fast - so it was a total winner when my older one was doing track and field outdoors. But since they are both doing solely indoor sports now, lighting is always an issue. I am trying to replace it with a 70-200 f2.8 even though I am losing on the long end.

I'm having the same frustration with volleyball. Lighting is horrible in those gymnasiums. Combine bleacher seating, terrible lighting and a fast moving ball...... and it gets really challenging.

I imagine the handball moves really fast, so even worse than volleyball.

Maybe a long prime of some sort?

I'll be curious to try volleyball again in the fall with the 6D. I'm hoping the ability to use much higher ISO will help, but I'm not sure if it will be enough. We'll see.

 

[elmoandzoey]

The ball moves a lot faster in handball (as do the players) than in volleyball. I usually crank up ISO to 6400 and even then 70-300 performs rather poorly because of its aperture. I just don't get the fast shutter speed I need to freeze the action. I really do need a 2.8 in the settings the boys play in. There is pretty much no downtime at all, everyone and everything is moving nonstop.

I don't think a prime would do as I tend to zoom a lot, depending on where the action is in the gymnasium. I am hoping to find a good deal on either an old Canon 70-200 2.8 I IS or a new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. Sadly I don't have anything to trade in for it like I did with the Fisheye for the Sigma 30 1.4.

 

[mom2rtk]

Yeah, I can't even imagine trying to stop the action in handball. Tennis was frustrating, but it was outdoors so a whole different ballgame. But that dang chain like fence really complicated things.

I'm sure the 2.8 lens will be a great addition to your collection, giving options down the road no matter what body you have.

My problem is that I just don't want to carry that lens. So I have resisted so far. I need the model that comes with a Sherpa.

 

[bob100]

The ball moves a lot faster in handball (as do the players) than in volleyball. I usually crank up ISO to 6400 and even then 70-300 performs rather poorly because of its aperture. I just don't get the fast shutter speed I need to freeze the action. I really do need a 2.8 in the settings the boys play in. There is pretty much no downtime at all, everyone and everything is moving nonstop.

I don't think a prime would do as I tend to zoom a lot, depending on where the action is in the gymnasium. I am hoping to find a good deal on either an old Canon 70-200 2.8 I IS or a new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. Sadly I don't have anything to trade in for it like I did with the Fisheye for the Sigma 30 1.4.

I don't know about handball but if it's a gym like basketball you might want to look at the 85mm 1.8, sharp and cheap ($250 used) and if the action is a slightly further away just crop it

 

[elmoandzoey]

I'll already miss the range between 200 and 300 when going to the 2.8 lens so going even further down to 85 won't be an option. We're always just too far away from where the action is.

 

[bob100]

I'll already miss the range between 200 and 300 when going to the 2.8 lens so going even further down to 85 won't be an option. We're always just too far away from where the action is.

then you may have to get a 70-200 2.8 zoom

 

[my3sons77]

Tried out a different lens this past weekend. Now, I'm torn.

Here are a couple shots I got with the Canon 70-200mm

 

[mom2rtk]

^^^^ Gorgeous shots!

 

[my3sons77]

^^^^ Gorgeous shots!

Thank you

 

[havoc315]

I'm in the minority, but I like shooting a prime for sports. When I shot Sony, I used an old Minolta 200/2.8 prime. Sharper than any 2.8 zoom, and half the weight.
Eventually, I'm going to get the new Nikon 300/4. While not cheap, it's actually cheaper than the 80-400, less weight, and better image quality.
Canon has their 300/4 which is slightly less weight than the 70-200/2.8, and they have a fairly light-weight 200/2.8 (my understanding is that it is an older design and the IQ of the newest 70-200/2.8 is slightly better, but much more expensive and much heavier).

When shooting sports, I want to be zoomed in most of the time anyway.... I miss very very few shots by not being unable to zoom out. (I may switch lenses at some point and take a handful of wide shots of the whole event). Can always add a teleconverter for even more reach. And with the IQ of today's cameras+lenses, there is quite a bit of latitude to crop even more.

 

[bob100]

Tried out a different lens this past weekend. Now, I'm torn.

Here are a couple shots I got with the Canon 70-200mm

>

you don't have to be "torn" !

for night sports and other events the 70-200 2.8 zooms are going to be more versatile. If my kids were still in school (and it's been a few years) I would get a used 70-200 2.8 zoom for the versatility. But if you're going to be at the long end of the focal range the Tamron 150-600 could be useful especially for wildlife and birds.


one from last weekend
60D
100-400 (original V1)

 

[my3sons77]

I'm torn because right now we can only afford one or the other. Just trying to figure out which one I will go with. I really love the Canon but, goodness, it's expensive. The Tamron is nice and a decent price but it's harder to get the shots closer to me when I'm on the field.

Like you said, the 70-200 is much more versatile

 

[jec6613]

I'll already miss the range between 200 and 300 when going to the 2.8 lens so going even further down to 85 won't be an option. We're always just too far away from where the action is.

The proper answer here is a 200 f/2 prime, and a 1.4x TC when you need extra reach. That lens is designed almost entirely for indoor sports.

For shorter, either a 135 f/2 or a 70-200 f/2.8, but if you're sticking with the crop body you're starting at a deficit of about 1 stop of ISO performance to begin with. Using a 70-300 and changing to a FF Body will net you better ISO performance - plus, the 60D is a bit old at this point, so probably more than 1 stop.