# lens recommendation soccer



## lux (Feb 14, 2013)

I was looking for advice on what lens camera combination to use:

subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline. 

cameras: 6d (For which I do not have any focus issues in younger kid sports) or t2i
lenses:70-300 IS 4-5.6, 
70-200 2.8 is Mk II

I assume that 6d plus 70-200 is better than 6d 70-300 because cropped I would still get a better picture. Therefore the main question would be is 6d + 70-200 better than t2i 70-300. I'm giving up a lot of reach for the IQ of the 6d 70-200. 

Indoors the 6d 70-200 has been great for soccer and basketball.

thoughts


----------



## candyman (Feb 14, 2013)

Personally, I prefer my 7D and 70-300.
The soccerfield is big. The 5D III and 70-200 is nice for close goal action. But fieldaction I try to get by long zoom and have also the OOF around the subject. And for me, the field action is more exiting to shoot


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 14, 2013)

lux said:


> I was looking for advice on what lens camera combination to use:
> 
> subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline.
> 
> ...



why not both? 6d+70-200 will give you awesome, high IQ shots when your subjects are close enough. Have the 75-300 on the t2i as a second body, IQ won't be as great but you'll have the reach for shots on the other side of the field!


----------



## Happy viking (Feb 14, 2013)

70-200 and 1,4X or 2X extender?


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 14, 2013)

lux said:


> I was looking for advice on what lens camera combination to use:
> 
> subject: 11 yo soccer match (outdoor) . I will have moderate access to the field...that is I can likely stand along one sideline.
> 
> ...




I don't have any of the tele zooms and stick to primes for the most part. For local youth soccer I found that the 200 2.8L II works very well. I also bring along my 24-105, 135 and a 500 but find that with the 200 I get the best results in that setting. And it's much much cheaper than any of the big white zooms for the same kind of optical quality.


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 14, 2013)

I'd definitely go with 6D and 70-200mm. No doubt. It is in a different class than the 70-300mm (non-L). I would keep the AF point in the center and shoot away in AI-SERVO.


----------



## WPJ (Feb 14, 2013)

Hi, my son is in u7 and I find the 300l f2.8 great on my 7d, I wish I had a second body for a 70-200 or a 200 f2.0.

we have gotten some amazing shots


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 14, 2013)

It sounds like you have both cameras and both lenses, so you are all set. Why not bring both? I have photographed my kids' soccer with a 70-200 on a 5D2, 5D3 and 7D, all with excellent results. However, when the action is far away, 200mm is sometimes not enough. That's when a 400mm (or 300mm on a crop camera) would be great. 

Of course, when the action is very near you, 70mm may not be wide enough. So you will miss some shots no matter what you bring, but that is unavoidable (unless you weigh yourself down with several cameras).


----------



## Niterider (Feb 14, 2013)

I personally would use the 6D and the 70-200mm, but I would put a 2x extender on it. The 70-200 F2.8 IS II performs very well with a 2x extender on and focusing is still pretty fast. Effectively, you will have a 6D with a 140-400mm F5.6 lens. If you are worried about the focus speed and IQ loss with a 2x extender, there is a 1.4 extender you can use instead.


----------



## lux (Feb 14, 2013)

Wow, thanks for all those quick responses. This was my first post and I really appreciate it. What a great community


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2013)

lux said:


> lenses:70-300 IS 4-5.6,



I take it this is the non-L?

If it is the L then definitely use this lens for outdoor soccer.

I suspect the center point of the 6D focuses better for soccer than the Rebel, although they did remove the helper points for the center that that 5D2 had which seemed to be extremely important for field soccer shooting with that particular body so I really don't know though.

70-200 is very short for field soccer, although it makes a nice lens on a backup body for the occasional close shots.

On 20MPish FF 300 2.8+1.4x TC was nice = 420mm.

Try both in both combos and see how things go.

300 f/4 non-IS can be found used for maybe $650 (this one is probably better to use without TC for sports although it is fine to use the TC for birds sitting around) although perhaps the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 1.4x TC these days would do almost as well??? ???

I suspect the Tamron 70-300 VC would work even better than the 70-300 IS non-L, although I never tried the tamron for sports. The 70-300L focuses 50% faster than the tamron and has more precise AF.


----------



## Wilmark (Feb 14, 2013)

I have shot large field sports with 70-200IIF2.8 + 2XIII on 5D3 and the results are OK you can see some here:
http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/p929851709 - where the match is being played on a smaller field I was allowed on the sides. The 2X greatly slows down any ability to track despite the 70-200II +5D3 speed using servo mode. I imagine that soccer and cricket have similar sized fields although with cricket the action will be more or less at the centre of the field - you can see some examples of this here with the same equipment http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/2020for50. The Cricket was a large public game with very little ability to get too close. In the latter situation the 400 mm provided with FF is not enough for comfort - i suspect that the best is to try to get at least 600 mm with the option to use a teleconverter - which ever you (or your camera) can tolerate without reducing performance/speed/IQ too much.


----------



## keemikpoiss (Feb 14, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> I'd definitely go with 6D and 70-200mm. No doubt. It is in a different class than the 70-300mm (non-L). I would keep the AF point in the center and shoot away in AI-SERVO.


+1 
I usually like to stay at about 25 yrd (a bit past the edge of the penalty box arc) away from coaches and shoot action near that goal. The attached shot with 5D3 and 70-200L illustrates field of view at 70 mm from such a spot. With 70-200 mm, I find it hard to get keepers when the action is near the far goal ... not enough reach, and there is usually somebody between the play and the lens. 

When you have a white lens, it is less likely that parents from the other team chase you away from "their" side if you keep your distance. Depending on the game situation and sun, I sometimes wander over to the wrong side.

Also, consider a tripod or monopod for support.


----------



## lux (Feb 17, 2013)

*Re: lens recommendation soccer update*

An update:

I tried them all today. The 2ti + 70-300 non-L had a lot more reach...effective up to 480. Some trouble this AM with cloud cover.. Iso set to 800 (don't like going higher with the 2ti) and 1/1000 with f5.6. The pictures were just soft for the most part. I have sideline access and I found that I did not use more than about effective 300mm. 

The 70-200 mark II on the 6d is a lot sharper...even cropped for distance they were better. If I really needed effective 480 maybe it would make a difference when cropping but not at effective 300. 

I also got to use a 100-400 L lens of friend of mine on the 6D which gave me sharpness but the focus was noticeable slower than either of the combinations above (especially the 6D+70-200). I can comfortable move focus from about 150-300 with one hand which was pretty good. I will say however, the focus delay was annoying. I think I'm spoiled. 

So, I need to practice a little more with the 100-400 and compare it to the 70-200 to get a better feel for background blur, focus etc to see what works better for soccer.

Of course there are other options such as the 70-300 L, adding a 1.4 extender to the 70-200, the 300 f4L (maybe a used unsupported 300 non IS 2.8) and the 400 5.6. If I'm looking for at least 300mm and good fast focus on a 6D...any thoughts.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 18, 2013)

300 2.8 would be awesome, but definitely not cheap... the 300 f/4 is very sharp, plays reasonably well with a 1.4x extender if you wanted more reach, and has fast AF. If you wanted to add to your collection, I'd say the 300 f/4 (IS nice for other usage, but probably not necessary for fast-moving sports if you can find a used non-IS version) would be a great add!


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 18, 2013)

I'd recommend the 70-300mm L - which is sharper (especially at the tele end), better AF, more contrast and superior IS and a bit 'faster' than the nonL lens at the same focal lengths.

On a crop body (eg T2i or 7D, etc) - it's effectively a 480mm, which- when having decent amount of MP (18MP) still allows a decent crop.

I find 70-200mm short for such outdoor sports, though of course the constant f/2.8 is handy for stopping action.

Otherwise going for a large prime (eg 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8) is going to cost you a lot more money. I love my 70-300mm L for outdoor work... both occasional sports - and great as a walk around wildlife lens too.

Paul


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 18, 2013)

I'm considering putting together a kit for reach with my 6D. I'm looking at the 300 f/4 IS with 1.4 or the 400 5.6. Im not sure which set up would give me the best sharpness. I'm also planning on shooting indoor events where I may not be able to get close to the stage, which is why I considered the IS. I'll be renting one of the lenses and was wondering if anyone had experience with either.


----------



## lux (Apr 14, 2013)

Ok another update: It has been 2 months until my eldest had a soccer game in the daytime without severe cloud cover. So I tried a few combinations

6D 70-200 , 6D 70-200 with 1.4 III, 6d 100-400 and 2ti 100-400.

so here it goes.
6d 70-200 not enough reach for much of the field. If close to where i'm stationed then fine but not really enough close predictable action. Maybe good for infield baseball or indoor soccer.

6d 70-200 with 1.4 III. better reach but still not enough and trading some decreased IQ and I just have a harder time holding it. not sure why and decreased focusing speed

2ti 100-400: Too much reach for me at this point. Maybe if I were better...I just need to see more of the action and then crop later as needed but the game just moves too fast

6d 100-400: have to say in the end this was the clear winner in sufficient light. Reach enough for most of the field. The push pull is fast to change FOV and soccer is very unpredictable. I wish it were better in low light but on a hazy bright day I shot at F4-5.6, ISO 400 and shutter speed never dropped below 1/1000 and often was higher. Of course that means I'm going to need to buy this lens of a pal. 

Yes I know that the 300 2.8 with 1.4iii or 400 2.8 would be better but so would a 1dx and I don't have that kind of cash. I might rent an older model 300 2.8 for fun one of these days but even those are >3.5K to purchase and for $55 a weekend I could rent it for 4-5 weekends a year for the next 15 years for less money than buying a used one.

I know that a lot of people complain about the push pull but I can quickly move from about 200 to 400 and follow the action. I imagine in a more predictable sport that would be less beneficial. 

well anyway, that's the current state of affairs


----------



## lux (Apr 20, 2013)

bump

thoughts?


----------



## rizenphoenix (Apr 20, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> why not both? 6d+70-200 will give you awesome, high IQ shots when your subjects are close enough. Have the 75-300 on the t2i as a second body, IQ won't be as great but you'll have the reach for shots on the other side of the field!



+1

That's exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## lux (Nov 24, 2013)

OK, this is an update; the fall season just ended.

For the most part I used the borrowed 100-400 with the 6D and during the daytime it was a great combination. For night games I put he 70-200 ii on and let the action come to me.

I did rent a 300 2.8 and it was a lot better...even took pictures at night but I don't have that kind of cash. 

I did try to have two cameras going occasionally but it never worked for me. (though it does improve the chances of going anywhere you want on the field without anyone bothering you). 

I'm sure a new 100-400 when it comes out will be great...it will also be 2500 and I can likely get a used 100-400 for 1000.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 25, 2013)

lux said:


> OK, this is an update; the fall season just ended.
> 
> For the most part I used the borrowed 100-400 with the 6D and during the daytime it was a great combination. For night games I put he 70-200 ii on and let the action come to me.
> 
> ...



I used my 70-200 2.8 II with a 2x III extender on my 6D to shoot a few of my nephews soccer games this fall and was happy with the combination. This lens is so good, even with the IQ and light loss with the extender, the quality is still very good. I've considered buying a 100-400, 70-300L or 400 5.6, but don't really use focal lengths above 200mm often, so had trouble justifying the expense.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 25, 2013)

Soccer is difficult, because of the size of the pitch. There is no such thing as a universal lens to cover it all. If you try to shoot everything, you may end up with nothing.

I normally chose what part of the pitch I would be looking for pictures from. In your case, I am assuming you would want pictures of your kids, so it depends on which position they play. If you read the game properly, you should be able to get good shots with your 70-200, with the right shooting position. That's the one I used the most. An advantage of these kind of games is that you can normally move freely around the pitch and get the best possible positions. 

If you win the lottery and can buy a 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, that will do a better job for some parts, but you would still need to complement with the 70-200.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 25, 2013)

If you're shooting for small prints and online, then the 70-200 or 70-200 with 1.4xiii should work well...just crop more. The af speed and accuracy, sharpness, and zoom range make the 70-200 the best sport lens ever. IMO 

As Eldar wrote, you can't effectively cover the whole field, so just try to cover the side/area closest to you....and make those shots awesome.

Someday, when looking back on soccer season 2013, do you really want/need hundreds of decent shots or would you rather have a couple dozen awesome shots? My point is that the 7o-200 combo will get you more of the "awesome" images compared to the other combos you listed.


----------



## GregW (Nov 25, 2013)

I have shot my kids playing soccer with both lenses mentioned, both on a crop body. My opinion is that it depends on the size of the field/pitch. The fields are generally much smaller for the lower age groups and I found the 70 end (effective 112mm on crop) to be too long for much of the field closest to me, especially if trying to capture multiple players in action, but imagine it would about perfect on FF. 

The larger fields on which the U14-U16 teams play would render the 70-200 a tad short much of the time. That said, the shots I got with my 70-200 2.8 II were so far superior that I sold the 70-300 (non-L). As mentioned previously by others I found careful sideline positioning to be the best method for capturing what I was looking to capture. I am considering the 300mm L 4.0....


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 26, 2013)

I live in Brazil, and I know well the difficulty of photographing football on a field official size (giant). The only option that allows decent pictures of your side of the field, and also on the opposite side, is use two bodies, and two lenses with focal length quite different. For example, 6D + 24-105 (closer to you) and other combination T2i + 55-250 STM (away from you). If have good lighting would not be a limiting factor to use dark lenses. Obviously, if the budget allows 70-300L will do fine on your 7D. Stay away from 75-300mm, it will surely disappoint you. I do not understand how Canon still manufactures such a lens, which was acceptable at the time the cameras were only 3 megapixel.


----------

