Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

[wakarimasen]

Hello Folks,

I use a Canon 1D Mark III to photograph my sons' rugby and hockey matches at school. I currently use a 100-400L F4.5-5.6 lens - predominantly for the 'reach' since they started playing on large pitches. This is fine for the rugby, as it tends to be in reasonable light, and the photographs are definitely not for sale! However for the hockey - which at the moment is played in the late afternoon and early evening - I struggle a little. Most often, I find myself using the Hi ISO setting (i.e. 6400) and shutter speed of 1/320 sec. Even then, I am sometimes under-exposing by 1-1.5 stops. The results are not brilliant, but at the same time not completely dreadful:
Banbury-Away-140302-0022.JPG

However, I'd like to do 'better,' so for the experts: what's my best course of action:

1. get a 'better' higher ISO camera - such as a 1D Mark IV?
2. get a fixed prime lens - such as the 300 F4L IS (I think the F2.8 might well be cost-prohibitive) and zoom with my feet?
3. get the 70-200 F2.8L IS lens - and lose reach - meaning more cropping later-on, but better AF accuracy?
4. get the 70-200 F2.8L IS lens - and use with a 1.4X converter (which I already have)?
5. get a Nikon D3 instead - only kidding!

Best regards,
RoyM

[Paulstw]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

Used to own the 1D3 myself, and the ability to crop well in lower lit shots is a no no for a clean shot. The more you crop the more you destroy. I now have the 5D3 and 1DIV, both superb. The 5D3 might edge it for lower light, although haven't tested them together yet.

The name of the game is getting more light in. I upgraded to a 300 2.8 for that simple reason. High iso just destroys colour, contrast and saturation. Noise can be dealth with but overall that washed look or higher ISO above 6400 tends to leave most folk wanting more.

At 1/320th it's pushing it for freezing sports action, pick the peak of the action and you can do it, but not for me. Most guys I know loved to the Sigma 120-300 f4. A very good lens, only bettered by the 2.8 version that you can pick up used for £600 now. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS is not a bad lens either. Any failing in IQ over the canon lens will be made up with lesser ISO setting needed.

It's a horrible spiral looking into changing things for sports. You can get away with f4 for the majority of the time. It just gets difficult in lower lit grounds and the dead of winter.

[paul linton]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

Cameras come and go, but lenses last a lifetime so i would maybe go down the lens route first and you're going to need a f2.8.
As paulstw says lots of options sigma/tamron both do 70-200f2.8 /sigma the best build/tamron the sharpest,if you prefer to stick with canon the 200L f2.8 prime is superb mkI or mkII only difference is mkI has a pull push lens hood the other a removable one,you can also get the original canon 70-200L non IS (I've never use IS setting on my 400mm well not for action).

If you need a bigger focal length then the only sensible option is the Sigma 120-300f2.8 or if you have very deep pockets canon300/400 f2.8.

After saying all that shooting in flood lit conditions is difficult even using the best equipment and always find ourselves always fighting against the lowest iso setting and the highest shutter speeds we can get away with Roll on summer!

Paul

[wakarimasen]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

Hello Gents
Thanks for the comments - much appreciated. I used to use a 70-200L F4 IS with a 1.4X II extender. However, I convinced myself that I needed more 'reach' as the subjects were sometimes too far away (and hence small in the viewfinder) to focus accurately. Was my assumption correct, or would I have experienced non-stellar performance due to the effective F5.6 aperture. This is what made me buy the 100-400 lens - to get the subject effectively larger in the viewfinder!

Any thoughts?

Best regards,
RoyM

[paul linton]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

Hi Roy

I used my 200mm during the first half of a match i covered at the weekend and soon realized the benefits of using my 400mm for better reach.
The problem is not much choice at f2.8 for the bigger focal lengths , Sigma 120-300 being the cheapest option, Canon 300/400IS and you're talking anything between 2000 and 4000 pounds,the non IS 300mm/400mm are still very good but be warned they can not be repaired if they go wrong as canon do not stock those parts anymore.

The other option you mention is canon's 300mm f4 again another cracking lens and can be used with your 1.4 converter but is f4 much better than f5.6 (what focal length does the f4.5 change to 5.6 when zooming on your 100-400mm)

Paul

[wakarimasen]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

From the website of Bob Watkins:

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 10.32.53.jpg

It seems a 300 F4L IS would give a one stop advantage compared to the 100-400

Here is the article

[Paulstw]

Re: Lens Choice for Rugby & Hockey

All you need to worry about is staying away from f/5.6 in floodlit grounds or failing light. It's not just exposure issues you'll have but AF issues too. Less light to AF means no shot.

300 f4 is a cracking lens for a lot of applications.