Help with camera equipment for sports

Hi all

I currently have use the canon 300D with a 70-200mm f/5.6(I think).

I am looking at upgrading in the new year to the 40D and am really confused about the type of lens to get? What is the difference between L lens and other lens?

I have been thinking of getting the 300mm f/2.8 L lens as I find that most of my photo's seem too far away? Do you think this is a worthwhile investment?

I shoot mainly Aussie rules football and cricket.


Thanks

Kellie

Kellie Harriss said:

What is the difference between L lens and other lens?

Click to expand...

The L series is the best money can buy in an EOS lens.

An L series zoom is equal to a non L prime in most cases.

Kellie Harriss said:

I have been thinking of getting the 300mm f/2.8 L lens as I find that most of my photo's seem too far away? Do you think this is a worthwhile investment?

Click to expand...

The 300 f2.8 L IS and non IS are the sharpest long lenses corner to corner that Canon makes.

A 300 f2.8 might be over kill depending on what size you print at.

A 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS might be a better choice for fast changing action. (and at a third the cost)


What size and type of output do you use? (print size and media)

Hi Kellie,

The lens choice depends on a number of factors not the least is finance. If you are talking about a 40D and not a 1DIII then that implies that you might be concerned a lot about price.

A good bargain is the 70-200 f 4.0 L IS, about $1,000. However, with a x1.6 factor of the 40D you may be out of your range for close shots. So what are you using now?

Asher

Kellie, Asher brings up an excellent point, finance.

First, let's look at what your end result with this will be. If, for example, you are selling images editorially or have your own business selling prints, then that comes into play more so than if you do this strictly as hobby.

Next, is the point of the upgrade to make more money? Simply spending on better equipment doesn't mean you'll always get better shots. It simply means that under duress of circumstance (horrible lighting, fast paced action, distant field of play, etc) you would fare better with the high end equipment. And if those circumstances are few and far between (say you shoot 10 outdoor daylight games to 1 nighttime horrible game), the payoff probably won't be huge.

Come up with a budget, and some goals. This will give us better information to qualify our ideas for what you should get.

For example, a hobbyist who plans to make no real money return, but want's to take some decent images on a strict budget would get a far different suggestion from a sports photographer who's moving up in the editorial world and looks at perhaps a PJ job in the industry.

Give us some basic info as to your goals and budget , and I'm sure we can all come up with a nice plan for you.

Max

Thanks Will.
I print shots from 4x6 to 16x20. Mostly photographic although lately have been providing shots for the club to use on their promotional letters, sponsorship pack covers etc.


Thanks Asher and Max.
I starting taking pics at football because my partner was coach and I didn't want to get too bored every week. I have since come to really enjoy it and see sports photgraphy as something I would like to get more involved in. I would eventually love to do this at least as a part time job. Although I have a LONG wayy to go.

I have sold a few 16x20 and 20x30 sports collages to the parents. Mainly because they refuse to take them for nothing - which is lovely support for me!! And while I appreciate it I would feel much better about improving first.

Aussie Rules Football is a lot faster - continously - than American Football and I find that a lot of the action is right across the opposite side of the ground. But to shoot from that side of the ground means I end up having to shoot into the sun!!

I have also found that the Canon 300D ( I think this is the Rebel??) is a little slow focusing and also the continuous shooting is woeful - although it does make me concentrate more on picking the right moment!!

As for finances I am probably looking up to about $5000.00AUD maybe a little more - I'm saving like crazy!!!

Thanks so much for your help...I just feel really out of my depth and don't want to make the wrong choices with my equipment. Hopefully I can post some pics soon as some constructive criticism would probably make the world of difference.


Kellie

Hi Kellie,

First you need a large lens hood to cut down some of the glare. The better lenses will further cut down flare because of the special lens coatings.

To me, this is great time to secure a used 1DIIN which will focus on the heartbeat of a ladybug! That's what you need in sports. Then one good lens. I'd say the 70-200 f 4.0 IS would be perfect.

For close up work and the most massive group pictures, nothing will match the Mamiya 7 fillm camera with resolution of 90 ln pair per mm! If you just do that for groups, get the film developed and scanned to look at on your computer and then pay for the 1 or 2 perfect team pictures to b e scanned in a good lab and you will be able to print 20x24 and simply amaze them.

Once they start to see your large perfect group shots you will be overflowing in orders!

Asher

Welcome Kellie! If you're finding your 70-200 too short (and it is for the most part other than as a secondary lens), then replacing it with another 70-200 certainly won't cure many problems for you! ;-)

The 300 f/2.8 is absolutely superb, unbeatable in fact, and a good length on the 40D's 1.6x crop. It also works astonishingly well with the 1.4x extender. I found it a little short for soccer on the 1-series' 1.25x crop and went to the 400 f/2.8, but on the 1.6x it would be just right.

As a general proposition, f/2.8 lenses are highly desirable for field sports (as compared to slower f/4 or worse yet f/5.6 lenses) in part because they give you more shutter speed at a given ISO but more importantly because they give you much shallower depth of field, blurring your backgrounds nicely and allowing your subjects to "pop" more.


A very reasonable alternative at a more readily achievable price is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It won't be quite as sharp or focus quite as fast as the Canon prime, but it will take you a long way.

The 40D would be an excellent choice, but so would a good used 1D Mark II which can probably be had for not a whole lot more. Personally I would go with the latter, but you won't go far wrong either way.

I don't understand the issue regarding having to shoot into the sun. Are you constrained from shooting from the other side of the field, with the sun behind you?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Thank Nill.

The only constraint regarding shooting from the other side of the field is that our ovals run North-South. Up til now I have only taken shots once from the eastern side and ended up with the most awfully shadowed shots. Since then I have kept to the western side of the oval.

I hadn't thought about second hand - I will look into that.

I love your shot by the way!! Look forward to checking out your photo's on your website over the weekend.

Thanks so much for your advice.


Kellie

I'll echo what Nil has said and suggest a 1DmarkIIn & a 120-300mm Sigma w/ a 1.4 TC it not a Canon 300mm but, it a great place to start on a buget.
mike carter

thanks guys. I guess I will now look into a second hand camera.

Cheers

Kellie

70-200 will be too short !!

Hi Kellie,

I completely agree with Nill on this point. The 70-200 will definitely be too short for cricket and Aussie rules. As you know I have the 300 2.8 which is a superb lens, but am finding it too short as well. This is only because I have the MkII N which is a 1.3 crop sensor. I have to use the 1.4X TC in order to get the correct focal length, but with a 1.6 crop sensor as you have, the focal length should be ideal. I have just posted some cricket photos where I used the 300 +1.4X.

I may have found a 400 2.8, so could be ready to sell the 300 soon.

Regards,
Barry.

For sports, a great combination is a 70-200 2.8 IS and a long tele. I use a the 70-200 2.8 on one body and a 400 2.8 on a second body with a monopod. I would say the most important first lens is the 70-200 2.8. This likely my most used lens over quite few years and it would never be sold. 2.8 is critical for sports IMO for the bokeh and less than great light, which is a standard shooting condition. The 300 is a little more versitile than the 400...and you can haldhold the 300 when required. The 300 is very sharp.

The Sigma Nill mentions is a great lens to try as well. I've been thinking about that one for a long time and if I could only have one lens to try and cover so many different needs, that might be the one.

other lenses...

I'm not sure if I would trust any lenses, other than Canon L series. I have had very negative experiences with other lenses, especially with dust getting inside them some how, even with the top line lenses.... being out in the open all the time, I definitely need the weather proofing of the L series. IQ was never as good either.

But that is just my opinion....

Regards,
Barry.

Barry Johnston said:

I'm not sure if I would trust any lenses, other than Canon L series. I have had very negative experiences with other lenses, especially with dust getting inside them some how, even with the top line lenses.... being out in the open all the time, I definitely need the weather proofing of the L series. IQ was never as good either.

But that is just my opinion....

Regards,
Barry.

Click to expand...

Well that does not sound good, dirt in the lens! Maybe have to rethink my last comment.

dirt in the lens....

Hi Shane,

I was amazed as well. My first reaction was to clean the sensor, as all the dust spots were always in the same place. I bought a $200 cleaning kit with a sensor scope, and only after that I realized that dust had somehow entered the lens. The photos were shocking to say the least...

Many people buy Sigma, Tamron and other makes of lenses and swear by them, so maybe my circumstances were exceptional, but I certainly wouldn't like it to happen again. With the drought in Victoria and around Australia, the place has become a bit of a dust bowl in recent years. Victoria used to be known as the 'Garden State', but we can no longer boast this accolade.

I certainly wouldn't like my comments to prevent others from purchasing lenses other than Canon.

Regards,
Barry.

Barry that doesn't compute. Dust in or on the lens, in my experience, is highly unlikely to show up on the image. A lot of it can reduce contrast and maybe at some point sharpness to a small degree, but I don't think it would ever result in a "spot" on an image. I could be wrong though.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Doesn't compute?

Hello Nill,

Yes, definitely, there were specs all over my images, they looked like flies buzzing around. I cleaned the sensor (spotless) and replaced the lens (EF), no specs ! put the Sigma back on, and a zillion flies again... As I said, I was also amazed, but they were big specs, and very easy to see.

Have you had dust in a lens before?

Regards,
Barry

I don't think I've ever seen a lens without at least some dust inside it, even right out of the box. ;-)

I'm really surprised to hear this was visible in this way, but if the specks were there with the dusty Sigma, and not with other lenses, then clearly that's what it was. Very interesting. Do you have any examples to post?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net