First post after having lurked around this site for some time
I'm wanting to purchase a new lens for photographing tennis. I'll have a budget of around 1000$ (but wouldn't mind spending less ofc) and have courtside access (due to being a player myself ). I have photographed tennis a bit before and found the needed FL's to be between about 50mm (shots from the back of the player) - 150 mm (from around the net) - 300 (across the court). Most of the venues I will shoot will have pretty cluttered backgrounds so a large aperture will be my main concern together with FL.
My current setup:
t2i/550d
canon 10-22
canon ef-s 18-55 IS
canon ef-s 55-250 IS
canon ef 50/1.8
sigma 30/1.4
These are my considerations right now:
canon 70-200 f4
canon 135 f2
canon 200 f2.8
sigma/tamron 70-200 f2.8
sigma 50-150 f2.8
sigma 100-300 f4
I'm guessing I won't need IS that much since I'll need SS's of 1/500+ anyway. The ideal lens would be 50-300 f2.8 but without that option, what should I sacrifice? I've been leaning towards the sigma 50-150 since I could use it for everything but across the court (still have the 55-250 that is almost enough) and be small and light enough to form a good walk-around kit together with the 10-22 and 30/1.4. But the price drop of the sigma 100-300 f4 have gotten me tempted as well though I'm not sure f4 is fast enough? And maybe one of the 70-200 2.8 would be a more solid choice anyway? A bit concerned with the sigmas IQ wide open and the tamrons AF speed - fast enough for sports?
Needing some input here, before my brain starts to walk in circles
Thankful for any advice!
I think the Canon EF 70-200/2.8L would be a great solution, but it's not on your list. Maybe it costs more in Stockholm (a beautiful place) than your $1000 limit, but it goes for about that price in Canada and the US. If the L is too expensive, then you should consider the Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms. It's an incredibly useful range. It'll provide most of what you want in a single lens. I don't know which is better between the Sigma and Tamron, but both have great reputations, so you'll probably be OK in either case.
Thank you for your thoughts, Jim. You're right in that it costs a bit more in Stockholm (indeed a very beautiful place!) but I'm heading to the US in a week so the plan was to make the purchase across the pond in any case. The canon 70-200 F2.8L is still about 1350$ on amazon, though.
I can't help but feel a little sceptical to all of the 70-200 lenses. They don't deliver much more than the sigma 50-150 in terms of IQ or reach (still not enough to shoot across the court unless heavily cropped) but are considerably larger and heavier which might mean that they wouldn't see much use outside the tennis facilities. A 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4x TC could be an option, though.
Mar 14, 2011 at 06:59 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Do you realize that about every lens on your consideration list cost more than those $ 1000 max you have to spend. And some of them about $ 2000 in Sweden
Mar 14, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Trots wrote:
Thank you for your thoughts, Jim. You're right in that it costs a bit more in Stockholm (indeed a very beautiful place!) but I'm heading to the US in a week so the plan was to make the purchase across the pond in any case. The canon 70-200 F2.8L is still about 1350$ on amazon, though.
I can't help but feel a little sceptical to all of the 70-200 lenses. They don't deliver much more than the sigma 50-150 in terms of IQ or reach (still not enough to shoot across the court unless heavily cropped) but are considerably larger and heavier which might mean that they wouldn't see much use outside the tennis facilities. A 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4x TC could be an option, though....Show more →
If the lens cost $ 1350 on Amazon (USA) then you have to add shipping, 25% VAT, and custom duty on that
Actually, they all go for less than 1000$ on amazon right now, except the 135L at 1035$. I'll be making the purchase in the US next week to take advantage of the strong Swedish currency atm
Mar 14, 2011 at 07:11 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Trots wrote:
Actually, they all go for less than 1000$ on amazon right now, except the 135L at 1035$. I'll be making the purchase in the US next week to take advantage of the strong Swedish currency atm
But you have to add at least 35-40% to the Amazon price, if you order from Sweden. Many times it's cheaper to order from Amazon UK or Germany. And the companies that do the shipping also like a fee because they have to collect the VAT & Custom Duty.
A normal price for me when I order a $ 1000 lens from the US to Sweden is about $ 1500 when I get it
Since you have courtside access I would think that up to 300 would be plenty of FL. You don't mention if this tennis will be mostly indoors or outside. When my daughter was playing in high school and college I specifically purchased the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Yes it's heavy, but outdoors it was outstanding.
I could rarely get courtside because certain USTA/juniors and highschool rules. Just another thought. Istill have the lens and every time I think about selling it I find another reason to use it.
Also Canon just announced a 200-400 IS with built in 1.4x converter. I would think it's probley very pricey though.
Good luck.
You're going to want at least 2.8 in order to get as shallow a DoF as you can, especially on a crop. You will have *almost* enough reach on the long end with the 1.6x factor of your camera, and if you can rent/borrow/buy a 1.4X converter to use with it, you're golden (giving you a 448mm equivalent FOV on your camera).
This is from about 5 rows up, just behind the baseline, but with 5DII, so no crop factor. First is about 180mm, second is about 150mm.
Agree with Andrew that you like to have an f/2,8 lens or faster for tennis/sport. To be able and blur the background will make the players and images stand out a lot more.
The problem is that a fast tele lens and budget below $ 1000, is not very often a good combination Maybe a used 70-200 f/2,8. A used 200/2,8 is also rather cheap.
The 135/2 with a 1.4X extender might be ideal on a crop camera...
Gives you FOV equivalent of 216 at f/2 and 302 at f/2.8 (losing the stop for the extender)....still maybe a little close, but you could always move towards the net and shoot from farther if you've got access.
And buying used, you might fit both of those close into your $1000 budget.
Thanks for your input guys! Much appreciated. This will mostly be outdoors. Indoors sometimes even F2.8 won't be enough with the crappy lighting in most smaller tennis venues so I'd prefer some fast primes there.
It seems like a 2.8 is indeed what I need. I'll see if I can extend my budget to the canon EF 70-200 F2.8L or the sigma 70-200 F2.8 with OS that also seems like a good buy.
A 135/F2 with a 1.4x is also a cool option but would cost about the same 1350$. I've had some success shooting tennis with my 50mm prime indoors and I have to say I didn't feel that restricted at all so I'm open to any prime solutions.
A tokina 50-135 F2.8 + a canon 200 F2.8L would also be a lightweight solution for the same 1350$, I guess.
I looked at the canon 100-400L as well but I think I'd prefer the sigma 100-300 F4 then, for the extra stop.
I'll take a look on the used market now
70-200 is a great choice - but I would personally just get a 135L.
You can use it for all kinds of stuff, not just tennis - and its very compact compared to the 70-200L's - and I tend to use it a lot because of the smaller size.
I disagree about the blur considerations and paying more for a faster aperture lens for background blur reasons, you really can't blur much out at the tennis because the background is so close
To be honest there's little advantage of 70-200 f/2.8 compared to f/4 if you are shooting outdoors. But indoors under lights you get the advantage of faster stop
For example, this is a f/2 lens at the tennis - there is hardly any improvement in blur (if at all) compared to above shots for example:
What body did you use? Mine were taken using a full frame, which will give almost a stop of DoF difference compared to a crop.
My suggestion for faster than f/4 was based not only on ability to get shallow DoF, but also that extra stop of light to bump up shutter speed...
I had a 70-200/4 before the /2.8, and the photos with the 2.8 are much better. I can't post any real comparisons because after I went from the /4 to the /2.8, I also switched to full frame....so aples and tangerines.
But no matter, that is correct, you can't *really* isolate the subject unless you are pretty close and the background is pretty distant. Or you're shooting something like a 300/2.8. That said, the extra stop of light and the little bit of extra DoF does help....
The more I think about it, the more the 135 with a 1.4X extender idea appeals...especially on a crop body...
bah, just noticed Nadal is soft in mine - need to go back and look at the RAW...in the meantime, here's one that shows more DoF with a /2.8. Taken from the same position as the other two....
I've never had a chance to shoot professional tennis but for college and high school I use...
indoor: mainly 85 1.8, with a 70-200 2.8 for sideline shots (between games, coaches, etc)
outdoor: mainly 70-200 2.8, 100-400 depending on venue and light conditions
