Does anyone shoot football with this lens? My friend is going to be having a few winter tryouts/practices with his summer football team, and I'm going to be shooting photos of the team for him. I'm wondering if the 200 2.8L is going to be good enough from the sidelines to get some decent keepers. Ideally, I'd like to get the 70-200 2.8L, but my budget won't allow that right now. I was thinking of getting the prime for now, and then selling off in the spring/summer for the zoom lens.
Rick,
I have no doubt you can get good shots with the 200/2.8, every bit as good as what you'd get with the 70-200/2.8, though of course your range will be more limited. The only real limitation you'll have is reach (which the 70-200 would not solve for you). Most football shooters have a 300/2.8 or (more likely) 400/2.8 with the 70-200 on a second body. So as long as you realize that you'll be limited to the stuff that's fairly close to you (for example: you can shoot the QB from the sideline if you are about 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and the ball is in the center of the field; you can shoot from behind the end zone if the action is coming at you from about the 15 yard line), you'll be fine for starters.
Adding a 1.4x TC will help. It will boost you up in to f/4 , but the image quality won't be affected. I just sold my 200mm f/2.8 because I found in Wildlife shooting the 70-200mm f/4L IS worked better for me. It is a really sharp lens, just don't be so far away that the AF won't pick up the subject... What camera are you shooting with?
I use the 200/2.8 nearly exclusively for high school football under lights, lately with a 40D. I like it because it's much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 zoom.
Thanks guys for the input! I have a 7D. I'm new to the DSLR world with the 7D, so this is mostly me just experimenting with sports shooting. Typically I like to do landscapes and wildlife. My friend doesn't expect anything out of it, so I've got nothing to lose, everything to gain by trying to get some shots for him of his team.
Wish I could go with a 70-200 F/4 (cost is the driving factor here), but I'm thinking I won't be able to get shutter speeds fast enough indoors to make it worthwhile, but maybe I'm wrong?
If you can push the ISO up you can. Indoors the 200mm f/2.8L is super because you are close. The 200mm f/2.8L is about $600 right now on the Forum. The lens is half the weight and half the size, and black which makes it NOT stand out ....The sharpness is real and again with a 1.4x TC you have a 280mm f/4L which is also better than a 70-200mm f/4L in reach for the same amount of light needs..
I don't do football, but the action I often photograph is a bit faster than that and 200 f/2.8 does it great.
It focuses faster than 70-200 f/2.8 IS, it has better IQ, it is lighter and priced better than 1/2 of the zoom price.
For most faster action IS is not much of a help anyways.
The only thing you'd lose is zooming down to 70mm.
Shooting fast moving targets like this favourite stunt pijun of mine is a piece of cake from the standpoint of AF capability.
rshmn wrote:
Does anyone shoot football with this lens? My friend is going to be having a few winter tryouts/practices with his summer football team, and I'm going to be shooting photos of the team for him. I'm wondering if the 200 2.8L is going to be good enough from the sidelines to get some decent keepers. Ideally, I'd like to get the 70-200 2.8L, but my budget won't allow that right now. I was thinking of getting the prime for now, and then selling off in the spring/summer for the zoom lens.
Any opinions?
Thanks!
Rick
If there is enough light to shoot at f2.8 you'll be happier with the prime. Except for the versatility of zooming, the 70-200 2.8 will be a disappointment after the 200 2.8. The zoom is noticeably softer at 200mm.
I shot with my 200L2.8 with a 20D and with my 5D for football. With those cameras, I did often go to f4 to help increase the keeper rate. Getting AF and tracking it with those two cameras do not result in a in focus rate of more than 50%. Sometimes I felt it was about 25%. Great lens though. I have mind for 15 years and it is light, portable and incredibly sharp as the above photos attest to.
If anybody has experience using a 200Lf2.8 with a 1DMII or any 1DxII or higher aftering coming from a 20D or a 5D, I would be interested in hearing the before and after opinions.
The 200/2.8L is excellent glass, and you will enjoy using it very much.
However, if you feel a zoom would be more versatile and useful in your
applications, don't hesitate to get the Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS. Even at
the extreme 200mm end, It is close to the IQ of the prime. You won't need IS
for sport shooting, so I'd not spend the money on the IS version of the zoom.
rshmn wrote:
Does anyone shoot football with this lens? My friend is going to be having a few winter tryouts/practices with his summer football team, and I'm going to be shooting photos of the team for him. I'm wondering if the 200 2.8L is going to be good enough from the sidelines to get some decent keepers. Ideally, I'd like to get the 70-200 2.8L, but my budget won't allow that right now. I was thinking of getting the prime for now, and then selling off in the spring/summer for the zoom lens.
Any opinions?
Thanks!
Rick
That's what I did... started with the 200/2.8L prime until I finally got the 70-200/2.8L
Great lens!
Here are some football shots with it...
Smaller, lighter than the 70-200. Sharpness advantage of a prime, obviously. Black, so it's less conspicuous on the street or in the stadium. <6" long, so it's allowed in most arenas, ballparks, stadiums.
rshmn wrote:
Great looking pictures!! I think I'm sold!
I did try looking for that $600 one in the forum, but couldn't find it.
Oh, I know of one that's available for much less than that
clarence3 wrote:
That's what I did... started with the 200/2.8L prime until I finally got the 70-200/2.8L
Great lens!
Here are some football shots with it...
Smaller, lighter than the 70-200. Sharpness advantage of a prime, obviously. Black, so it's less conspicuous on the street or in the stadium. <6" long, so it's allowed in most arenas, ballparks, stadiums.
Oh, I know of one that's available for much less than that
Thanks again for the help everyone in making a decision on this one!! Clarence, want to share the lead on it for me? Thanks!!
Thanks!!