I want to try my hand at shooting football (soccer to most of you ) and just wondered what the minimum and cheapest gear I would need decent shots of Sunday footy.
I have a 5D with 70-200f4 with 580 EX, all my other glass are wides as I normally shoot landscapes.
Is the 5D fast enough to cope with soccer if I paired it up with fast glass or would I need something like a 500D or 7D.
Also what is the best priced long zoom? I know the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM is the bees knees but way out of my price range.
Yes, 70-200mm is fine for soccer and you should get good pictures provided - as mentioned above - you wait for the action to happen close to you. Forget about taking action that is taking place far away (even with a 300mm lens).
Use centre point to focus, aim at the players chest. Adjust ISO so you have a shutter speed of 1/500 sec.
Some might think I'm crazy, but I don't think the 300mm F/4 IS is that big of a step down from the f2.8 version. I say go out on the field and practice. You can take some shots and then do some calculations to see how much ISO you would gain by going with a 2.8 over an F4. But for Soccer and even football, I prefer the zoom lens.
In my opinion 70-200 on a FF body is going to be pretty short. You'll be eliminating a lot of the field because it's just too far away. 100-400 is a great starting lens assuming you'll be shooting in daylight. Opens up a big chunk of the field to shoot and can shoot action that's pretty close as well. 1.6 crop body will open up the 70-200 a fair amount and make it much more usable. If it's all you have and aren't in a position to make a move, then 5D + 70-200 will get you started, but you'll soon be wishing you had more reach ...
What you might gain in reach with the teleconverter you will lose in aperture (you'll be at 5.6), so I don't recommend that you use the 1.4x with your 70-200 f/4 lens. (280mm isn't going to allow you to shoot much more than 200mm, but f/5.6 could really cramp your style if light is an issue.) As others have suggested, take your equipment and go shoot football. You'll see soon enough what it affords you and what its limitations will be.
I use the 300mm f/4 lens for youth soccer and it works well for most daylight games. I suggest that you rent one for a weekend and try it. The purchase price will be less than a 70-200 f/2.8 + converter.
Guys I have been thinking. Initially I was thinking of getting a 300mm f/4 for my 5D. This would cost me just over the £1000 mark.
Now I am thinkng would it be a better option to go for the 7D (and keep my 5D) as this is a great sports camera and also due to the 1.6X crop it would make my 70-200 f/4 a 112-320 f/4.
Also this would mean I have another body for getting more focal ranges out of my existing lens line up.
I've shot soccer for many years now. Your choice of the 7D is good. Its fps is where you want it to be. There are two items in the thread I would caution you on.
1. The crop factor is NOT a multipler. Said another way, it does not do the same as a teleconverter, i.e increase the reach of a lens. It is no different than using photosop in PP to crop out a piece of a photo. You then have to blow it up to see it better which does not by itself make it the same, in fact the resolution captured is now spread over a larger area.
2. Use of the 100-400L. This lens is fine in mid day shooting where there is PLENTY of light but attempt it on a very overcast day, or late in the afternoon and you'll be starved for light therefore limited in shutter speed. Its max aperture tends to be light limiting in less than bright conditions. Yes there is ISO compensation, but even that has limits. In the end the ability to achieve fast shutter speeds will suffer. 1/500 is a minimum, soccer is covered better by keeping closer to, or over, 1/1000.
f/2.8 lenses are the norm. That in a 70-200 with a 1.4tc will yield a 280 mm rig operating at f/4.0. This will cover a closer portion of the pitch under a number of conditions. You'll have to remove the tc and deal with a closer section of the pitch in order to compensate for low light.
schlotz wrote:
2. Use of the 100-400L. This lens is fine in mid day shooting where there is PLENTY of light but attempt it on a very overcast day, or late in the afternoon and you'll be starved for light therefore limited in shutter speed. Its max aperture tends to be light limiting in less than bright conditions. Yes there is ISO compensation, but even that has limits. In the end the ability to achieve fast shutter speeds will suffer. 1/500 is a minimum, soccer is covered better by keeping closer to, or over, 1/1000.
f/2.8 lenses are the norm. That in a 70-200 with a 1.4tc will yield a 280 mm rig operating at f/4.0. This will cover a closer portion of the pitch under a number of conditions. You'll have to remove the tc and deal with a closer section of the pitch in order to compensate for low light.
Are you saying that the 70-200 f2.8 would be a better option for me than the 100-400L. Bear in mind that I want a combination that will also allow me to shoot birds and wildlife.
I was going to say some of the same above. It really depends on what your shooting and when. Shooting outside during the day with sun you will be fine with the gear you have. Shooting in lower light your going to want faster glass. Shooting my childrens soccer I think was one of the easier sports I have shot. Even with my original XT I was able to get good shots in decent light. Good luck in your venture.
Your camera body is fine, except not having the 1.6x factor will shorten that 70-200. I've read/heard of a lot of people forgoing the 1D and using the 7D for sports b/c the AF is on par with the 1DIII, and it is APS-c vs APS-h. I've played with a 7D with a 70-200 mounted on it for basketball, and except for how it felt in my hand, could not tell much difference in AF performance. (you do notice the difference though when you hit that shutter release). I am pretty sure it uses the same battery set as the 5D MII (and maybe the 5D) so that works in your favor.
I've used the 100-400 for AFB, and it has great reach and is also good for BIF, but you can kiss those action stopping shutter speeds goodbye once dusk sets in. You might be able to get by with 1/500 or 1/250 later in the day, just going to have to employ some panning technique to keep the players somewhat crisp. I still like my 70-200 2.8 more then the 100-400. *but these are just my thoughts*.
Just be willing to move around if you can and or stay b/w the penalty boxes and work the action on the near side to you. (and occasionally drop behind the goal if you think someone is going to break thru/score or for a corner kick/free kick near the box.
Welcome to the land of photography a.k.a. the compromise zone. What is best for one venue can be marginal for another. While there are those that might imply that the 100-400L is marginal for birds, I cannot comment as that is not where I spend my time behind the shutter. For soccer, yes, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a much better choice. It does not allow the reach but will provide good service for those times where you wait for the action to come to you. In the end, its up to you in choosing what and where to compromise.
) and just wondered what the minimum and cheapest gear I would need decent shots of Sunday footy.