Next lense.....

Ricky91t

Ok i mainly shoot sports G.a.a (hopefuly rugby)Rallies and maybe some of the prodrift season 2008.I have a canon eos 20D and a 300D with 1 90-300 lense and a 28-105 lense.I need a new lense for sports.What do you think would be my best option(Money is a problem but im happy to save if you know a good lense)
Thanks

City-Exile

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

oshead

City-Exile wrote: »

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

I was just about to say same. If you can afford, go the whole hog and get the one with IS.

Ricky91t

Do any of you use this lense your self??
I have a feeling it would be to short for sports??

Biro

It's a little short, but you won't notice all that much difference coming from a 300. The improvement in image quality will be worth it. You could always crop! You could invest in the extender also. 1.4x is supposed to give good results. I have the 2x, and while there is a degradation in the quality, (not to mention going from 2.8 to 5.6 and the drastic reduction in focusing speed) at 400mm you'll still probably get better results than from your current lens. If you're planning that though the IS is the one you should consider. Expensive, but good.

soccerc

ricky91t wrote: »

I have a feeling it would be to short for sports??

...but if money is tight it will make do.

Otherwise you are talking circa €3.5k - €5k for a 300mm

Dwilly

I thought IS was pointless for moving subjects? Am I wrong?

Paulw

I shoot mainly rugby. The two lenses I use - 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Both have IS, but I normally have IS turned off (useful though for panning with cars).

These would be the two lenses totally recommended for sport.

The 70-200mm is on my 20D body, and the 300mm on my 40D. Check my Flickr for samples.

soccerc

Paulw wrote: »

I use - 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Both have IS, but I normally have IS turned off (useful though for panning with cars).

These would be the two lenses totally recommended for sport.

Only if you are a Canon user.:mad:


Nikonites like me, and the vast majority of sports snappers, it's the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 and 300mm f2.8.

Paulw

thimblefull wrote: »

Only if you are a Canon user.:mad:

Thankfully the OP is a Canon user.

Most Canon Pro sports photographers would use the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, and a 300mm/400mm/500mm/600mm f/2.8 (or f/4 depending on lens).

So, it boils down to what you want, what you need, and then what you can actually afford.

ian_m

Nice pics dude.
Those rally guys are mentalers.:D

georgey

Have you thought of the 100-400 IS? I have borrowed one for tommorow for a match in croke park I will be sure to post my views after I get a look at the results, I know its a slow lens but wot are ye to do? that big beautiful white beast (400 2.8IS) is sooooooooooooo expensive and I coulnd not justifiy the outlay for the little sport I do, have you any tips for me for tomorrow? do I need permission to be there and to take shots (from the G.A.A end)?

Paulw

The 100-400mm is a great lens. I have one also. It is a slow lens though, but for a bright sunny day it is fine.

For sport, you want to set your camera for TV, with a shutter speed >1/400. The faster you can get the better, to freeze the motion.

On a bright day, I'd certainly use that lens.

As for photography at Croke Park, I'm sure others can give some more information, but I believe you would need a GAA photographers pass to get pitch side.

City-Exile

This was taken with a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, on an EOS 400D.



This was taken with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, on an EOS 40D. (IS not turned on.)

Calina

ricky91t wrote: »

Ok i mainly shoot sports G.a.a (hopefuly rugby)Rallies and maybe some of the prodrift season 2008.I have a canon eos 20D and a 300D with 1 90-300 lense and a 28-105 lense.I need a new lense for sports.What do you think would be my best option(Money is a problem but im happy to save if you know a good lense)
Thanks

I'd like to cut in if I may.

The nice thing about the 70-200 2.8 is that you can, if it's a little short, stick a teleconverter on it without too much hassle. I don't have the lens myself but I have used it and it's very nice, even with the TC.

That being said, I'm a little allergic to the question "can you recommend me a sports lens." In short, you have two lenses. You haven't told us very much about them, but that's an aside. The point is you feel that what you have is inadequate to your needs - the information that we need is why you feel what you have is inadequate to your needs. After all, the reach you have exceeds the reach on the lens which is being recommended to you.

As it happens, I don't shoot off the 70-200 because what I needed more than anything when I last bought a zoom lens was reach and a lot of it. I shoot with a 500mm zoom Sigma. Yes it's marginally slower at the short end and a lot slower at the long end but I have learned to accommodate it and ISO control can go away to giving you some flexibility. So while i would not discount the advice you have gotten about the 70-200 as suggested above - and C-E has provided a couple of very nice examples, I would think that this discussion would be a lot more fruitful if you can indicate why you feel what you have is inadequate.

SOL

I know this is slightly off topic but did that f.28 200-500mm that sigma announced ever materialise?


but I'd definitely recommend a 70-200/80-200 f2.8, the highest quality you can afford, it is probably the most ubiquitous lens across all applications in photography and as a result has seen the greatest attention from manufacturers, I have an 80-200 f2.8 from Nikon which is by no means the latest or greatest and it still delivers astounding results, in all kinds of situations.

Ricky91t

Well first of all sorry about not replying sooner have hadmajor internet problems(Still not sorted):(
Ok ill try and reply to all of you:D
Well i have considered the 100-400 but this is only longer than my lense i want something with a better dof as the 90-300 produces quiet clear backgrounds.
Problems with 90-300:This lense is slow autofocus and produces alot of badly focused shot's i know the glass in it isnt the best as its a very cheap lense it has no tripod collar and dof is'nt good enough for sports(i think)
My other lense is fine ill probably upgrade that to the us usm version some time but at the moment im not to bothered(it does the job).
Using the 90-300 i just have the feeling im never going to get the best quaility image.
I was at a match today and heres some photos i took..
I feel if i had a better lense the photos would be better as when i look at these on a large scale they are quiet low quality






Note no editing done on these only thing is iv resized them with a batch resizer which seems to greatly reduce the quality:eek:

Paulw

Well, from these photos, I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 might suit better. It's A much sharper and clearer lens. It doesn't have the same reach as your current lens, but the quality should be better.

Very much something for you to try and consider.