Which lens to rent for first MLB game?

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/04/2009 12:52:33 AM · #1

Hey all, I'll be going to watch the Cardinals play later this month and want to try my hand at shooting it. I'll be sitting over the dugout near 3rd base and the game will cover late evening, sunset, and evening. Since the longest lens I have is the 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4x tele (which is probably inadequate for my needs) I would like some suggestions on which lens to rent. I plan on testing out several lenses over the next few months before I buy my favorite of the bunch.

I'm considering (in no particular order):
Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS
Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS
Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (non-IS)
*I'm open to any other suggestions as well :-)

I've read all the reviews, and I realize that there are major differences between these lenses (and I'm not just talking about price). I'm also aware that this is a very personal decision, so if anyone would care to opine, I would be extremely grateful!

Right now, I'm leaning towards the zooms, thanks to the wide variety of focal lengths needed for baseball (although I plan to primarily shoot the infield), but there is alot to be said for the amazing quality of both of those primes.

BTW, I also really enjoy nature photography, but am still a major novice so I don't NEED a super crazy-long wide lens...although I'm not against it either! ;-)

Thanks for stopping in!

- Alex

faidoi

Pentax K10D

08/04/2009 01:28:09 AM · #2

Assuming this is St. Louis Cardinals at Busch Stadium correct?

JeffryZ

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

08/04/2009 01:28:36 AM · #3

As a starting point, you may want to contact the stadium you will be visiting and inquire what they will allow you to take in. Long lenses over a certain size may be prohibited.
From the Cardinal website //stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/ballpark/ballpark_guide.jsp

Cameras/Video Equipment
Both still and video cameras are allowed in Busch Stadium, as long as they do not obstruct another guest's view. Credentialed professional news crews/cameras are only allowed on the concourses and are not to film any game action unless given permission by the Cardinals.

This is not clear on what is allowed but a large lens may label you as "professional".

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/04/2009 01:39:41 AM · #4

From what Ive seen the big boys tend to shoot the Canon 100-400 or the 70-200 2.8 both IS. While the primes are likely to be sharper, baseball needs you to fill the frame from too varied a distance.

I mostly shoot baseball with a Sigma 50-500, which as long as it is a day game works very well. Of course the faster lenses really distinguish themselves with quick focus in night games. But under good light the longer lenses can really give you the reach you want.

The A's have a similar ban on lenses that can be considered "Professional", but no one has ever bothered me bringing in the 20 inch long (fully extended with hood) Bigma, but be prepared to be turned away and store it in your car the first time you bring it in.

edit for the question Alex posed above, this is about 320mm, shot from about 25 rows behind the dugout, but the Coliseum has a ton of foul ground.

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 21:43:26.

08/04/2009 07:27:58 AM · #5

I hear what you're saying about the long (especially white) lenses. I had already read the rules regarding camera gear, and it seems very clear to me that it shouldn't be a problem since I am not a "credentialed professional" (i.e.: I don't have a press pass nor do I make any revenue from my photography), but I'm aware that they may have "unwritten" rules at the gate. Also I have no way of knowing what length of lens may "obstruct another guest's view." It's definitely hit and miss, but I'm going to make my decision based on the assumption that none of the lenses listed are going to be an issue.

Anyways, I agree that the zooms offer much more flexibility, but are they good enough (i.e.: the AF speed) to shoot in the low lighting situation that I'll be in? Also, like I said earlier, in this case we're just talking about renting the gear (although I'm trying to limit my choices to something that I can afford to buy when the time comes in a few months) so money isn't really a factor.

EDIT: Brennan, where were you sitting when you took this shot and what's the focal length, I
don't see it listed in the photo info.

- Alex

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 07:30:24.

Five_Seat

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2009 09:26:15 AM · #6

Originally posted by Alex_Europa:

I had no problems carrying a 50D, 10-22, 50/1.4 and 100-400L into Citi Field for a mets game a month or two ago. Obviously I had to let security peer into may bag, which is a dedicated photography bag, not a backpack (I don't know if it even matters). They were fine with it.

On the technical side, if it is a night game 5.6 is just bit too slow. I was shooting @ 400mm, f/5.6 and ISO 1600. Camera shake was not an issue but the action just moved to fast to come out sharp - specifically the swinging bat and the pitchers release. If you time your shots well you will definitely be able to get some keepers.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/04/2009 09:46:56 AM · #7

Isn't it a double-standard to disallow a long lens for "obstructing view" but to allow flags, towels, clappy-balloons, #1 Foam hands, foam hats...
?

Seems to me a long lens is much less obtrusive than all the fan-paraphernalia the stadium wants to sell you at insane prices.

If I really wanted to bring a long lens to a stadium and was told no at the door or in the stands, I'd try giving the person a $20 handshake for some preferred treatment. ;-)

AJSullivan

08/04/2009 09:57:22 AM · #8

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Isn't it a double-standard to disallow a long lens for "obstructing view" but to allow flags, towels, clappy-balloons, #1 Foam hands, foam hats...
?

You can complain about that stuff too if you want, just be prepared to deal with an army of fans being pissed at you.

MattO

Nikon D4

08/04/2009 10:31:17 AM · #9

I recently went to a Cardinals game and had no issues getting in a 70-200 with a 1.4TC, I also took a 24-70. To be honest I left the 24-70 on the camera, shot a few photos of my family and did some of the ballpark ahead of time, then left it in the bag and enjoyed the game. Heck I paid $150 for three tickets I sure didn't want to waste my time not enjoying what I paid good money to see.

If you really are going to shoot the game unless you are strictly shooting the infield and batting you are going to need a 70-200 and possibly a 1.4. If you plan on shooting anything in the outfield make sure you take you a 400 and 1.4TC. I shot a HS game played there from the photo wells and was really short with my 300F2.8 and 1.4TC. Although I did have to enter through the media entrance to get in with the big white lens that time.

Matt

Edit to add a few of the images I actually took at the game. :D

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 10:36:35.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/04/2009 12:16:12 PM · #10

If you are shooting from the stands, I'd think at least a 400mm reach would be necessary to get any detail ... these were all shot last month from the third deck at ~~PacBell~~ ~~SBC~~ AT&T Park in San Francisco; my Canon is rated at 412mm (equivalent):

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/04/2009 04:49:54 PM · #11

OK, so it sounds like the 100-400 will probably be too slow for the portion of the game that happens after sunset...so that leaves me with either the fast primes or the Sigma zoom.

Question 1) Would a 300 f/2.8 or the 400 f/4 be too much length from my position over the dugout near 3rd base to capture images within the infield? It's been years since I've been to a baseball stadium (nor do I have any experience with these focal lengths), so I'm having a difficult time pre-visualizing the possibly compositions. Anyone have any examples?

Question 2) Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma zoom that I listed above? On paper it seems like a pretty sweet lens (great focal range and wide open aperture, relatively decent price for what you get) but it lacks IS (which isn't really an issue in my case) and has "lemon" potential.

Thanks again for everything so far guys! Please keep the advice coming!

- Alex

PS: Only 7 hours left to get in your votes on the Death II challenge! ;-)

MattO

Nikon D4

08/04/2009 04:59:45 PM · #12

I owned the 120-300 Sigma zoom for a couple of years. Its a decent lens for the money. AF isn't on par with the Canon primes, but its also a zoom. Sharpness with a good copy is excellent I have some great images with it. It lacks the saturation and contrast of the canon too. The biggest drawback to that lens is it weighs over 6 pounds. I couldn't even begin to shoot with it without a monopod. I do shoot my 300 Canon handheld and can do it all day so I'm not a wimp. I know you won't make it into Busch Stadium with a monopod without a media pass.

Matt

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2009 05:13:47 PM · #13

I'm thinking the 300/2.8 would be a beast to hand hold for a baseball match? if your thinking Canon thats even bigger/heavier than my Sigma 300/2.8 (a monopod might not be allowed). Also, have you checked out renting? in the UK your deposit is normally the cost of the lens and you get that back minus the rental cost. And yes, they actually charge your credit card.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

08/04/2009 05:29:54 PM · #14

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Isn't it a double-standard to disallow a long lens for "obstructing view" but to allow flags, towels, clappy-balloons, #1 Foam hands, foam hats...
?

You can complain about that stuff too if you want, just be prepared to deal with an army of fans being pissed at you.

Just saying... but I do like my #1 Foam Hand as much as the next fan. ;-D

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

08/04/2009 05:36:19 PM · #15

If you bring a long enough lens, they might sit you on the field next to all the camera men! I'd go with the 400mm prime of course, be prepared to switch to to a smaller focal length once Albert Pujols steps up to the plate, you might not see the ball when he hits it.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2009 05:48:27 PM · #16

My $.02...
Since you can't move much, zoom is pretty important.
Being right behind the dugout you'll be pretty close to a lot of the action.
Stadium lighting is excellent.

The canon 100-400 would work great.
70-200 would do the job and a TC would make it even better zoom wise but I'd still get the 100-400 for sharpness and more reach, and just pump the ISO up if needed.

And, you will be in the prime foul ball zone. Keep your eyes on the action!!!

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/04/2009 06:06:49 PM · #17

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

Also, have you checked out renting? in the UK your deposit is normally the cost of the lens and you get that back minus the rental cost. And yes, they actually charge your credit card.

Not with LensRentals.com; they're awesome. No deposit required: they hold the funding required for the rental 2 days before it leaves their warehouse and charge the same amount once it ships.

It seems crazy to me that that is the business model in the UK for lens rentals. To each their own, I suppose...

- Alex

MattO

Nikon D4

08/04/2009 06:13:50 PM · #18

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

I have never mounted my new 300F2.8 to a monopod. In fact the collar was removed from my lens as soon as I got it, and its in the box. I hand hold for several games in a row during tournaments. The IS model is 6lbs with the collar, but there is no zoom needed so you can hold the camera in one hand and then support the lens with the other. With the Sigma 120-300 zoom it also weighs 6 pounds but you can't support the lens and function the zoom at the same time, hence the need for a monopod.

Matt

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/04/2009 08:03:57 PM · #19

Here's what Danny Wild uses . . .

- Canon EOS 1DMkII | EOS 30D
- Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L
- Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L
- Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 20:10:43.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/04/2009 08:10:23 PM · #20

If you are sitting next to a railing, casually walk in with this gear, clamp everything down, hook up your wireless shutter release, buy some peanuts and Cracker Jack (and a beer), kick back, and enjoy the game! LOL!

scooter97

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/04/2009 09:39:14 PM · #21

I was able to sit in the first row at the end the Phillies dugout for a game on July 11. I used my Canon 40D and my 100-400 lens. Even at 400mm you can't really get as close as you might want. This lens is versatile and has good reach but is not as bright as some of the primes. I shot these pics at ISO400. I don't like to go above that because of the noise. I wasn't getting shutter speeds faster than 1/250 sec. If I were renting a lens to shoot a game and had your seats, I would choose the fastest longest lens you could get. You never know when you will get that chance again. Look at my folder in my profile titled: BBall 100-400 to see some other examples.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/04/2009 09:51:14 PM · #22

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

You can complain about that stuff too if you want, just be prepared to deal with an army of fans being pissed at you.

If you have a super wide like the 10-22 one way to get everyone to not be pissed at you is to take shots of them enjoying the game and then have them write down their email address on something and take a shot of that, and promise to send them a shot or two. Pretty soon they are cheering you on and asking if you got a particular play and wanting to chimp your display. You might get tired of " Oh dude can you send me that?"

08/04/2009 11:50:00 PM · #23

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

I wonder if anyone would notice....LMAO!

Originally posted by scooter97:

Scooter, that was really helpful, thanks! It was so helpful, actually, that it made my decision harder, LOL. I really have no idea which lens to go with, but I guess that's the beauty of renting: it's not exactly a permanent decision.

The 400 DO IS + a 1.4 TC is a pretty tempting option...that would give me an extra stop at 400 and a 560mm f/5.6 (not including the 30D crop factor of course). Along with that I could rent a 70-200 2.8 IS (I only have the non-IS f/4 version) which I could also use with the TC to round out my available focal range. Thoughts?

- Alex

scooter97

08/04/2009 11:59:59 PM · #24

IMO the 70-200 will be too short except for shots of the players as they return from the field to the dugout. The - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L and Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L would be the ones I would rent. Like I said, if you aren't going to be there on a regular basis, get as much lens as possible. You should recognise which lenses the pros use and copy them. They use those lenses for a reason. They get the $$ shots with them!

scooter97