| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2008 02:39:41 AM · #1 |
I have a Canon 30D and want the best lense for soccer matches and figure skating. Nothing with a street price over $1000, but I'd like the most bang for my buck as always. Thanks for your replies.
Cheers--Mike |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 02:54:25 AM · #2 |
That's a tough one because pros would use a telephoto in the 300mm - 400mm range, and you're not going to get near one for under $1000.
Good Luck! |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 03:10:11 AM · #3 |
| How is the 70- 300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? Granted it would be nicer to have a faster lens for sports. Soccer in the daytime would probably work fine but figure skating would be more difficult- even if you are shooting at higher ISOs. This gives you more reach. The 200mm f/2.8 II USM can be found for under $1000. Less reach but faster shutter speeds available. Both would be a compromise. Faster may be better- you can get a sharper image and still crop more to get you the equivelent of more reach to some extent. |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 03:15:03 AM · #4 |
| a soccer lens of course.. :) |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 03:17:28 AM · #5 |
This is a tough one. If it were for daytime soccer only, I'd recommend a 70-200/4 with a 1.4x TC, this would be a flexable combo with great image quality (maybe a bit short, but at least in the right range). But for figure skating, I can't imagine f/5.6 or even f/4 would be much fun.
I would have to suggest looking into the sigma 70-200/2.8 . It's a solid lens. The IQ isn't quite up to the canon, but still very good. Tha auto-focus also isn't quite as fast, but it still keeps up just fine. 200mm will be short for soccer, but if you can get close to the field, and wait for the action to come to you, it will perform well. The f/2.8 will be a necessity for any indoor sport. I've gotten away with f/4, but then again I have a slight advantage with useable 6400 ISO :)
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 07:22:01 AM · #6 |
IDEALLY, you really need two lenses: Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS for use outside and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS for indoors. The combination will set you back $2700.
Why those two lenses? Because the 100-400 will give you the reach, the sharpness, and the fast focusing that you need and outside. And being outside during the day you won't mind the slower f/4.5-5.6 aperture. The 70-200, on the other hand, will give you the faster aperture that you'll need for indoor work. It doesn't reach as far, and that's going to hurt. But a slow aperture will hurt even worse.
As a trade-off, you could buy just the 70-200 and then use an extender outside. Using the extender will help you get the range you need outside, removing it will let you use the faster aperture inside. I used the 2x extender for several years, giving me a 140-400 range on that lens. But I always found the images to be a bit soft. A compromise here would be to use the 1.4x extender instead, and get a 98-280mm range out of the lens. It'll be sharper, but not nearly as long. Either way, 70-200 plus extender is going to cost you around $1800.
If you're "serious" about taking pictures in these situations, then any solutions under that price range are going to leave you seriously wanting. If you're only wanting to play around, then by all means, choose a slower/cheaper/less sharp lens.
For example, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 is slow to focus on moving subjects (indoors or outdoors) and has an aperture range that is too slow for indoor work. But if you're only playing around, then missing a shot or experiencing motion blur will just be part of the fun.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2008 07:48:20 AM · #7 |
You could try an older USED EF 35-350 L that was a cracking lens (still is) but has been upgraded by the 28-300 L IS but that is serious money.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2008 08:59:20 AM · #8 |
| Ideally, you'd have a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, but that's a bit out of your price range. |
|
|
|
08/25/2008 08:59:57 AM · #9 |
When I shoot soccer I use two bodies. One with a 300F2.8 and the 1.4X TC attached to it. And the other body has the 70-200F2.8 attached to it.
300mm is far too short for a soccer field, and yet too long when the action is close. You cant truly cover it with one lens. IMHO the 100-400 isnt a good choice simply because the backgrounds can be so distracting even at the best venues. And its hard to blur a background at 5.6.
Matt
|
|
|
|
09/19/2009 03:31:02 AM · #10 |
| Thanks so much for all the great advice! Mike |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 06:51:01 AM · #11 |
| I go to soccer matches sometimes - I use a 70-300 sigma zoom - a cheap one - I don't try to cover the full length of the pitch - I get in close behing the goalpoast and let the action come to me - I assume the idea is to get good shots not cover everything, I have the focus on to track and I concentrate on people running at least slightly towards me. And I take a lot of pictures. The results are pretty good. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 07:03:05 AM · #12 |
i took this last weekend with my f2.8 70-200 with a 2x converter as you can see it was a bright sunnny day and my converter was pretty good in saying that if it was a night game i would just used the lens with the faster f/stop hope this helps
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 07:06:26. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 09:22:27 AM · #13 |
MattO is absolutely right about the 100-400. Its great during the day but your backgrounds are going to be distracting. Example:
Having shot indoors also, I can tell you that there is no lens that can do both well under $1000. You can compromise to cover both, but your results will reflect it. Unless you are using blur to show the motion or if you are shooting for the web only (really high ISO), your best bet is to go with the 70-200 F2.8 and wait for the optimal shots (close to where you are) or crop. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 07:39:01 AM EDT.
