Lens for shooting football pics from stands

[thestrangebrew1]

I'm looking for a lens I could use for taking shots from the stands, mostly during the day, but sometimes early evening/night. I was looking at the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS USM, but wow that's expensive. I'll just be doing pop-warner stuff, so it's not like I need pro-gear. With that in mind, the non-IS version is considerably less and I was wondering how big of a difference IS vs non-IS makes? Also, this is another noob questions but I have a 55-250mm IS kit lens. Does this get me closer to the action from the stands vs the 70-200mm looks a lot bigger than my kit lens. Any other lens you guys recommend for long shots that won't break the bank? I think I saw a Tamron 70-200mm with IS (they call it VC I think) for about half the price. Do I need something bigger/longer?

Edit: I currently have a Canon t5i camera.

 

[Rifter]

at moderate to full zoom IS makes a huge difference, i would not buy a lens for this purpose without IS. Unless you are shooting from a tripod. The lens you mentioned should be good for this purpose depending how far away you are. If long distance away look into a 300mm or even larger, but you can always crop them later in post.

Edit to add i use this lens for my sports shots:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

 

[CuriousMike]

Your 55-250 will get you closer than the 70-200; it won't be a whole lot more reach, but it will be closer.

The 70-200 you listed will be sharper, have better contrast and deliver better photos for the early evening/night stuff ( by virtue of its larger aperture.)

Tamron has their 70-300 which is a highly rated consumer lens that would get you even closer.

Personally, I'd use your 55-250 and see what kind of shots you get; get an idea of how far you are off for "zoom" during day.
At night, you're going to be sorta screwed ( or live with really high ISO ).

If you find you need MOAR zoom, then look at the Tamron 150-600 or the Sigma 150-600.


Also - be sure there isn't some way you couldn't get on the sidelines ... that'll make the biggest difference of all.

 

[corkyg]

For what you propose, a monopod would be a good tool, and with a fast enough shutter speed, you can get it done without IS. A monopod plus a tight extension of the neck strap gives you quite a lot of stability.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

at moderate to full zoom IS makes a huge difference, i would not buy a lens for this purpose without IS. Unless you are shooting from a tripod. The lens you mentioned should be good for this purpose depending how far away you are. If long distance away look into a 300mm or even larger, but you can always crop them later in post.

Edit to add i use this lens for my sports shots:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

I used that exact Nikon lens and I've really gotten some great shots with it at local rugby matches:

DSC_0126 by Garth, on Flickr

I found myself almost always using it out at the full 300mm though, and it just so happens that today I'll take delivery of my 300mm f/4 AF-D lens. I intend to sell the AF-S 70-300 VR and pick up an 80-200 f/2.8 to replace it.

Still, I don't have anything bad to say about the 70-300. I'm worried I'll miss the AF-S focus motor and VR but we'll see. I'm making those trade offs to try to get into some faster glass without going broke...

 

[BrainEater]

I use this lens for ski / sports photography :
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html

Awesome lens.I get amazing shots from 200 yards away.

That price is way down too.Mine's a loaner , but it was 2500$ back when it was bought.

Camera lenses have come down in price , good time to invest.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Thanks for the tips all. I was checking canon's refurbished lenses and there is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for $319. It fits the budget, but do you think it would be a decent lens for my application? It's gotten decent reviews, and for the price, it's something I might enjoy using. Thoughts?

 

[CuriousMike]

Thanks for the tips all. I was checking canon's refurbished lenses and there is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for $319. It fits the budget, but do you think it would be a decent lens for my application? It's gotten decent reviews, and for the price, it's something I might enjoy using. Thoughts?

If you haven't used your 55-250 yet, do so. Figure out if it does what you want.
If it does, you're done.

The 70-300 will give you a modest amount of more zoom - probably not worth it.

Also look at the Tamron 70-300.

 

[Wuzup101]

Is the kit 55-250 that you have the STM variant or the IS II (older) variant? I have a 55-250 STM that I purchased refurbished from canon for like $130 a little while back to use on my 70D. I also have a canon 70-200L F2.8 II that I got fairly recently. I can tell you that the 55-250 does a pretty damn good job in good light (obviously your results will suffer as your light drops). I'd use that 55-250 you have for a while and try to figure out what you want. If you want more reach, I'd consider jumping to something like a 150-600 from sigma or tamron instead of the 70-300 which barely gives you any additional reach. Those 150-600 lenses are going to cost you more than the 70-300, but they give you a meaningful increase in focal range.

Also consider weight. If you are going to an event specifically to take photos, the weight of something like a 150-600 or 70-200 2.8 may not bother you. However, if you are going to watch your kids, you might not want to lug around a brick (my 70-200 is something like 52oz).

 

[NAC]

My 2 cents:

If you have the 55-250 STM, or the even newer USM then that is a great start. Use it and see how it goes! There are older 55-250 lenses are not as sharp and likely focus speed will be slower. But still use it, and see how it goes.

Also - get off the stands, at least sometimes. Better equipment will make you better able to capture a shot or get better image quality - but viewpoint is an important part of making a photograph good or interesting. You want faces and expressions - that is difficult or impossible to get from the stands. So move around the field. When I shot soccer, I mostly stayed behind the opponents goal so I can face my team coming towards me. But I'd still move around to get variety and capture the defenders from up close.

Lastly, a 2.8 aperture lens, like the 70-200 will help in low light, and potentially have faster focus speed, and you can blur the background more. So, definite advantages. But, you'll have less reach and they are expensive. I would recommend that after you have used the 55-250 for a few games, you can decide if you need more zoom or not, and if low light / using high ISO is a problem or not.

Then you'll decide which direction to go in:

More zoom - not a lot of options, but the Canon 100-400 mark I or mark II is probably your best bet. There is a new Canon 70-300 USM, which may be good. But I would NOT get the old one which is around $300. I had one, along with the 55-250 STM. In my experience, the 55-250 had better image quality and faster focus. So I sold the 70-300.

Better in low light - a Canon 70-200 2.8 will be your best bet, the IS II version being the cream of the crop. You can save money with a non-IS version or a Tamron.

 

[NAC]

I meant to add: I have a 55-250 STM and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS (which is similar to a 70-200 2.8 IS, but with less zoom). I found that in shooting soccer, I liked to still use each lens for some games. The 55-250 gave me more reach, the Sigma gave me better background blur.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Thanks again everyone. My 55-250 is the STM so I'll stick with this and play around with it for a little while and see how the shots turn out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A

 

[EOM]

First thing to remember is you're on a crop body, so you'll be looking at a 1.6 crop factor. Your 250mm is a 400mm in 35mm equivalent, which helps with reach.

Second, as someone else has said, IS really helps a lot, so I'd try and find one with IS.

Third: Exposure Triangle:
(S) You'll want to keep the shutter speed above your focal length, so fully zoomed in on the 250mm you'll need at least a 1/400 shutter speed (to account for your crop factor, as mentioned above). That's pretty fast and doesn't allow a whole lot of light. Thus, (A) and (I)....
(A) you'll want the widest aperture you can muster to get the most light. Your 55-250 will be at 5.6 on your most zoomed in setting which isn't ideal for fast moving sports shots. Even finding a used 70-200 f/4 IS would be a big improvement(full stop, better lens), though obviously the 2.8 is better.
(I) You'll want to push your ISO as far as you can without excessive noise. I don't know how the t5i performs, ISO 1600 might be a good starting point to see what you can get.

Fourth, get down from the stands and onto the sidelines if you can.... it gets you closer and the angle is a bit better as you'll be level with the players and not shooting down from above them.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Good tips! I plan on getting on the sidelines and behind the goal post for some shots.

 

[demiro]

I agree with those saying that the 55-250 will do a nice job in good light. I had the older model and the 70-200/4, and sold the 70-200 because the size and weight were not worth the gain in IQ.

As for IS, I don't think you need it for sports. Assuming you are shooting at 800+ shutter speed IS is inconsequential. Check over on POTN with the sports shooters to get the best info.

 

[MrSquished]

I agree with those saying that the 55-250 will do a nice job in good light. I had the older model and the 70-200/4, and sold the 70-200 because the size and weight were not worth the gain in IQ.

As for IS, I don't think you need it for sports. Assuming you are shooting at 800+ shutter speed IS is inconsequential. Check over on POTN with the sports shooters to get the best info.

IS is still good for long range zoom lenses because it corrects for all the handshake you see in the viewfinder, making it easier to frame your shots. handshake is greatly amplified the zoomier you go.

 

[demiro]

IS is still good for long range zoom lenses because it corrects for all the handshake you see in the viewfinder, making it easier to frame your shots. handshake is greatly amplified the zoomier you go.

I never had an issue using 55-250 at full zoom with an OVF, and I am not some expert shooter. Different story with super-zoom cams with EVFs, where you are getting out to 600mm+.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

So I was able to get down on the field and take some shots. Still a lot to learn, here are a few of my favs:

One thing I noticed was I was taking continuous photos of a play, and one would appear normal, but the next shot would be very dark, then the next would be normal again. What would cause this? I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So I was able to get down on the field and take some shots. Still a lot to learn, here are a few of my favs:

One thing I noticed was I was taking continuous photos of a play, and one would appear normal, but the next shot would be very dark, then the next would be normal again. What would cause this? I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right.

Perhaps HDR bracketing is turned on and you don't realize it?

 

[EOM]

So I was able to get down on the field and take some shots. Still a lot to learn, here are a few of my favs:







One thing I noticed was I was taking continuous photos of a play, and one would appear normal, but the next shot would be very dark, then the next would be normal again. What would cause this? I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right.

Perhaps you're using spot metering and you metered on a helmet on one shot, and then on a dark part of a uniform on the next? Bracketing is another suspect to look at, but there would be an obvious pattern there

 

[Wuzup101]

One thing I noticed was I was taking continuous photos of a play, and one would appear normal, but the next shot would be very dark, then the next would be normal again. What would cause this? I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right.

What mode are you shooting in? Full manual? Are you letting the camera choose your ISO or are you picking it yourself? Are those back to back shots or are you zooming around in between?

If you aren't in full manual, I'd guess what EOM said above, that the camera might be missing it's metering mark, or possibly a glossy helmet is reflecting some light and causing metering to be off.

If you are in full manual with a locked ISO, but you set your aperture at f4 with the lens at 55mm, you'll lose a stop of light going to anything on the long end (over 155mm which is f5.6). That lens only holds f4 for about 10mm at the wide end and then goes to 4.5 (at 64mm), 5 (at 100mm), and 5.6 (at 155mm).

 

[TennesseeTony]

The previous three answers have covered everything I can think of except one: Any chance you are using the flash? Flash can't recharge fast enough for the dark shots, but the metering system is expecting a flash regardless. As evenly lit as the background is though, I doubt the flash is being used.

And if anyone is curious, yes, of course I use the flash on a bright sunlit day, at -2/3rd stop usually, unless I need a fast shutter.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

What mode are you shooting in? Full manual? Are you letting the camera choose your ISO or are you picking it yourself? Are those back to back shots or are you zooming around in between?

If you aren't in full manual, I'd guess what EOM said above, that the camera might be missing it's metering mark, or possibly a glossy helmet is reflecting some light and causing metering to be off.

If you are in full manual with a locked ISO, but you set your aperture at f4 with the lens at 55mm, you'll lose a stop of light going to anything on the long end (over 155mm which is f5.6). That lens only holds f4 for about 10mm at the wide end and then goes to 4.5 (at 64mm), 5 (at 100mm), and 5.6 (at 155mm).

Yea I'm shooting at full manual, but auto ISO. Shots were back to back. AI Servo and auto white balance were on too IRC. For the most part, shots were taken at 5.6 I think, full zoom.

@ Tennessee: No flash was used. It was a pretty bright/sunny day.

I'll be in Santa Barbara, CA for the next few days and will be messing with my camera while down there. Can't wait to learn more.

 

[EOM]

Can you post the original pics? hosted imagr pictures strip the exif data and could have answered our questions about metering type, iso, aperture, etc. Can I see some of the light/dark contrasts?

 

[EOM]

And if anyone is curious, yes, of course I use the flash on a bright sunlit day, at -2/3rd stop usually, unless I need a fast shutter.

Speaking of exposures... if you're trying to keep the shutter speed up a bit higher, tell the camera to expose 2/3 or 1 full stop DOWN in exposure. Assuming you're shooting raw (or even most out of the camera jpgs these days) can compensate for that and bring up the exposure.