# Which setup would you have?



## thgmuffin (Oct 24, 2013)

This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo. 

Shooting on a 6D!

Tamron 70-300 VC and Canon 135mm F2
OR
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

I feel like the 70-300 would give a lot of flexibility in terms of focal length for outdoor sports.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 25, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.
> 
> Shooting on a 6D!
> 
> ...



Sorry to say this, but the BIG mistake here is shooting sport with 6D ???

I know 135L works very well on 5D III - AI servo, 4 or 8 points expansion mode, case 2.


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 25, 2013)

I would go with the canon 70-300 L. If more indoor than out then 70-200 f2.8 or the 135 f2 you suggested. But also it depends on which sport, distance to subject and so one.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 25, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> thgmuffin said:
> 
> 
> > This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.
> ...


Well, it's doing a lot better than my T2i!


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2013)

The Tamron 70-300 VC is kinda garbage after 200mm so you might as well go for the 70-300L which I hear great things about. I'd then couple it with a 135L for indoor sports. Maybe invest in a monopod for the 135L too.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 25, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Sorry to say this, but the BIG mistake here is shooting sport with 6D ???



I've shot junior high wresting, baseball, volleyball and football with my 6D and it does OK. The keeper rate isn't as high as it would be with a 5D3 or 1DX, but its good enough. The quality of the in-focus shots is great.

As for as lens choice, 200mm is fine for the indoor sports, but I've found you need 300 or 400mm for football. The Canon 70-300L is a terrific choice for outdoor sports, but it isn't a fast lens, so you will need to crank up the ISO indoors - the 6D is a great high ISO camera, but lower is always better. 

I use my 135 f2 and 70-200 2.8 II for indoor sports and 70-200 with 1.4x or 2.0x III teleconverter for outdoor sports with very good results. I owned a 7D until recently that I was using for sports due to its better AF system, but found I preferred the 6D due to its better image quality and clean shots at ISO 1600 and up - something the 7D can't do. Overall, my keeper rate was a little lower with the 6D, but the quality of the shots with the 6D was so much better I sold the 7D and don't miss it.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 25, 2013)

So would you have two light lenses or one heavy lens? :-\


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 25, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> So would you have two light lenses or one heavy lens? :-\



A zoom is preferable if the action is ever coming toward or going away from you. On the sidelines, sometimes a prime lens is ok.

As for the AF of the 6D, I have written a lot on this already. With my own 135 f/2, I agree the AF speed is a bit slower than it should be (not as fast as with my 70-200 f/4). The reason seems to be, the AF sensor just isn't sophisticated enough to take advantage of a lens faster than f/4. All AF points other than the center point, can vary in their accuracy with my 135 f/2, and thus are unreliable...especially in servo mode. And the problem is, _if you leave all points active, the camera always seems to want to find focus with any other point, instead of the better center point._ With f/4 lenses, especially with the 70-200 f/4, this does not seem to be an issue at all.

This is obviously a "crippling" that was designed into the 6D, to keep 5D3 owners happy about paying $1200+ more, and to keep the parts cost of the 6D at rock bottom. If the 6D had a derivative of the 7D's AF sensor/system...5D3 owners would be a bit less happy...because the 6D's files are cleaner within a very usable ISO range, than are the 5D3's files...specifically the luminance noise.

My own experience in bright daylight with things like passing cars, is the servo AF on the 6D is generally much more accurate and faster, for objects coming toward the camera...than for objects receding quickly from the camera. 

For indoor sports or other low light events where the targets stay close to the same distance from the camera, you can pretty much get accurate and adequately fast focus with most any fast aperture lens, and the 6D...especially if you only use center point in servo mode...or in single shot mode for that matter (with multiple half press to keep engaging and tweaking the focus).


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 25, 2013)

Do you still have the t2i? If so, I'd maybe consider a 2 body set up... on for reach and one for close up shots... maybe the 135L on the 6D and maybe a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 convertor on the t2i... that would give you an effective focal length of 672mm... which leaves huge gap between the two lenses... so maybe 200mm f/2.8L (I don't remember if it is compatable with the 1.4 convertor)... but if it is, then you have 448mm.

This is a hard question... because I don't like any of my answers. 

Maybe the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM plus a 1.4 convertor for outdoor sports... and then the same lens for indoor. For indoor, you can use f/4... but it is really hard to get the shutter speeds you might desire, even with a high iso.

I'll give it a look again when it is 3a.m. and I can't sleep and maybe I will come up with something better.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 25, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Do you still have the t2i? If so, I'd maybe consider a 2 body set up... on for reach and one for close up shots... maybe the 135L on the 6D and maybe a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 convertor on the t2i... that would give you an effective focal length of 672mm... which leaves huge gap between the two lenses... so maybe 200mm f/2.8L (I don't remember if it is compatable with the 1.4 convertor)... but if it is, then you have 448mm.
> 
> This is a hard question... because I don't like any of my answers.
> 
> ...



Good advice. And event photography really does scream out for a second body anyway.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 25, 2013)

however you decide, I don't think you need image stabilization. for sports you want a minimum of 1/500 of a second & I generally like to shoot at 1/1000 or faster to freeze the action. 

at those shutter speeds, is doesn't do a Heck of a lot... so get a monopod, save on the lens, but don't skimp on the image quality.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 28, 2013)

I still have my T2i! 

Generally I will be shooting in our school's football stadium. 



IMG_7289 by THGBrian, on Flickr



IMG_7234 by THGBrian, on Flickr



IMG_7188-2 by THGBrian, on Flickr

First two were shot with my friend's 70-200 mark ii and the last was shot with my 24-105. Anyway, I hope the pictures show how much the lighting varies at different times of the day. I'm not sure if I could get away with my T2i at 1/500. Plus, I wouldn't really want to carry that much gear around too....

Any recommendations?


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 28, 2013)

Another vote for biting the bullet and getting a 70-300L. Its IS is absolutely amazing, IMO, and when you're shooting out at 300mm, you're going to be relying on that IS pretty heavily.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 28, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> I still have my T2i!
> 
> Generally I will be shooting in our school's football stadium.
> 
> ...



I shoot some football and I would suggest not shooting from the stands or above the action. It resembles a point and shoot camera and doesn't take advantage of the shallow depth of field you have when shooting at f/2.8 and 200mm. So take your shots from ground level... take a knee because it is a slightly more interesting angle than standing, dont' lay down because if a ball or player comes your way, you won't be able to get out of the way. 

Try and predict the future. Shooting the receiver jumping away from the camera is significantly less interesting than seeing the receiver jump towards the camera and you can see his eyes focusing on the ball. If you are stuck in one place... I understand... but if you are allowed to roam the sidelines... I like to spend time ahead of the action so I can see it coming my way. 

Also... and I do this too to my dismay... if the action is happening on the other side of the ball, maybe you don't take that shot... because it is so far... and you would have to crop so much, but because of the distance, the depth of field is greater, so it doesn't POP!

As for the 70-300L... at an aperture of 5.6 at 300, you are losing 4x the amount of light that you might have at 200mm at f/2.8. And that's a lot when you are shooting night games. 

and I still contend, that IS isn't important when you are trying to get 1/500 of a second shutter speeds or preferably 1/2000. 

and I thought I said this earlier... but crop more. Isolate your subject... making them the only subject. The goal post and the bystanders... I would cut them out. and the group photo in the huddle... crop into the image and adjust your alignment a little... the blurring will be intensified and bring out the players a big more. 

If you don't want a 2 body setup... I understand. 

Are you allowed to use flash? Maybe a high speed sync using a 580 exii or a 600 rt? At a distance... there is a little less glare. 

I still vote for the 70-200mm f2.8L USM (non-is) and a monopod. Night games are such a beech to shoot at f/4... even with the 6D...


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 28, 2013)

What about the Tamron 70-200 VC?


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 28, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> What about the Tamron 70-200 VC?



never used it... can't say.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 28, 2013)

Go for the 135mm f2L.

A few reasons why:

You have 20Mp at your disposal. You can crop a hell of a lot and still get images usable for most purposes, provided said images are sharp etc.

F2 gives your af a huge helping hand. Massive helping hand. Regardless of your shooting aperture.

Zooms distract. I got better pics with my 200 f2.8L than I get with my 70-200 f2.8L. You spend less time doubting your choice, and more time tracking and giving AiServo the best chance of the shot.

Seriously, 135mm f2L. Grrrrreat lens. I would prefer a shot from a 135mm cropped than a shot from a 70-300 taken at f5.6 full size (f5.6 being the max aperture at the 300mm end, with attendant negative effect on AF) 

It's also handy to have f2.0 as a shooting option, no matter how high ISO your camera has. It's 3 extra shutter stops over a 300mm at f5.6, all other things being equal. For sports that is good.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 28, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> This would be a setup for indoor/outdoor sports! It would be highschool football, volleyball, and water polo.
> 
> Shooting on a 6D!
> 
> ...



As others have mentioned, I also would not recommend shooting sports with the 6D due to it's slower fps and 9 AF points. If budget is a factor then I recommend looking at the 7D or a used 1D mk3 or 4. But if you're sole camera is the 6D then it's a moot point.

As for the lens, I suggest the 70-200 f2.8 VC because you'll need it for indoor sports. If the focal length isn't far enough, then you could possibly get a 1.4 teleconverter that would stop the lens down to f/4.


----------



## lux (Oct 28, 2013)

wierd post to be reading; I have a 2ti and a 6D and take pictures of kids and family for the most part including sports such as indoor basketball and soccer and outdoor soccer. I have tried all sorts of combinations. First I should say that if you just use the center point the 6D is not bad for focusing and is better than the 2ti and light years better than my xti. The 6D's other advantage is the ability to stop action since you can increase the iso...as high as 12000 and have pictures that are pretty good. I have a 70-200 mark II and this is great for indoor action. I assume the tamron would be as well. the 2.8 though is pretty important since lighting can be terrible. 

As for outdoor sports I have used the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender and I've used the 100-400. The latter is probably a little better for soccer because of the difference in range...especially with larger fields but there could be a debate (I rented a 300 2.8 I for a weekend...wow that was awesome). the 100-400 is worthless from evening on...especially if it's overcast because you just can't stop action. Then you have to decide 70-200 or nothing. 

Therefore, if I can only get one lens I would get the 70-200 since it will allow you the ability to do the most and it is also a great lens for taking pictures of kids at events etc.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 28, 2013)

Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...

I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 29, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...
> 
> I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!



I think all of us said that f/2.8 is a minimum. F/2 is better. Do you really think more reach and less light is the right decision?


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 29, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> thgmuffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, at what I can afford right now....yes. :-[


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

Maybe its just the web render but the last shot of the guy jumping to grab the foot ball is all blury.

I do the same types of shoots, I use a 7d with usually 300f2.8 on one and a 70-200f2.8 on the other. Near the end I drop the 300 and put on a 17-40 to get close in shots after the game wish I had a fisheye for that.

you need faster frame rate or just luck with the 6d

I'm also looking at the 400f2.8 to,add next summer and a third body.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 29, 2013)

Right now I could get a 1D Mark II for $280....

I'm pretty sure this destroys my 6D in terms of FPS and AF ability (Tracking), but is it worth it?


----------



## Zv (Oct 29, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...
> 
> I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!



Dude, which part of our advice led you to this choice?? The tamron is just going to annoy you as f/5.6 at the long end with blurry images and poor AF accuracy is gonna just kill all the fun. You'll end up trying to sell it after 2 days. 

Buy something decent now. Not later. I would rather shoot with my 70-200 f/4 IS and just crop tight rather than use the tamron at 300mm. It's that bad. I have a shot of the moon that proves this. (Somewhere!).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 29, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > thgmuffin said:
> ...



I implore you not to buy the slow telezoom. It'll be on ebay after your first game. 

A little more money spent now (say on a used 200mm f2.8L) will make a world of difference.

Pay cheap, pay twice. 

There is a lot of gear snobbery on these forums, and it's all very easy for folk with big deep pockets to tell you to spend lots of money for the best results. And whilst they are generally right, they also generally lack self-awareness.

Not everybody has big deep pockets. Not everybody with deep pockets wants to empty them in a camera shop.

I don't have big deep pockets, and I'm not suggesting you go nuts with the visa card either, i'm just trying to suggest decent ways forward that will suit the money you've allocated for this job.

A used 200mm f2.8L II isn't a vast stretch, but is a different world in terms of capabilities.

AF needs light to work, so bright lenses really are best, especially as ALL canon DSLRS have centre spots that work even better with fast lenses, this includes the T2i and the 6D.

Putting a slow lens on either of these cameras is going to handicap them. With a fast lens they should be able to do a good job. 

I'm not a gear snob, I've just walked this path. 

I can guarantee that you'll be back a week after buying the slow telezoom asking 'what now?'

Save yourself that week, and save yourself the money you'll chuck away. I don't have shares in canon so my only interest here is stopping a fellow 'tog making the mistakes I once made.


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 29, 2013)

Buy cheap, buy twice.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 29, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > thgmuffin said:
> ...



Thgmuffin....check this link out for a comparison of the tamron 70-300 at 300 vs canon 70-200 with a 1.4x at 280mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=757&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

The canon will focus faster and it's clearly sharper.

Also, the tamron lens will be almost worthless in 10 years, but the canon will still be worth $750 ballpark....so what's the better choice financially when you consider that the canon also will give you much better pictures? 

This is my suggestion:
1. Used 70-200 2.8 ....you need 2.8 for indoor sports. NEED. 
2. Buy a 1.4x extender. Now you have a 98-280 f4 for field sports....and if the lighting is poor at a night football game you can still get great shots with just a 70-200 at 2.8. (You'll just get less of them, but trust me, I've shot plenty of football and the 70-200 works just fine.

3. Work on your editing. 99% of sport shots require some editing. Cropping, sharpening, and the light. 

With the three shots you posted I took the liberty of doing a 2 minute edit on a couple of them.
Workflow...
1. Straighten
2. Crop
3. Light changes and contrast
4. Sharpen and detail 

Jdramirez and Paul walnuts both offered some solid advice....and I agree....don't buy a tamron 70-300 for sports

With the first pic I would normally crop tighter, but didn't have enough pixels to do it, which sometimes happens. That's when I try to crop less and tell more of a story with the shot....with this one I wanted to leave the goalpost in the picture to show that it's a possible touchdown catch.

Edited and then the original. (done with free software on an iPad)


----------



## Northstar (Oct 29, 2013)

Straightening, cropping, contrast and light changes.

Edited and then the original.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Oct 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> thgmuffin said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



+100. I hate spending money on stuff but eventually learned that getting quality gear will save you more money in the end. The tamron will end up on ebay and you'll be down $100.


----------



## lux (Oct 29, 2013)

As I said for anything indoors, anything at night or even heavy overcast, if you want to stop action you really should have a 2.8 lens if shooting with a 6D...this is both for being able to have high enough shutter speed to stop action as well as to have autofocus (with center point alone on AV mode). With my 6D and the 70-200 2.8 I can get pictures in these situations. With my 100-400 I simply can not even at iso's >12000 which aren't ideal. To be honest even with a 2.8 lens sometimes it's not possible at night games. Kids fields aren't always that well lit. 

That being said I can get great pictures with a 2ti and the 100-400 in the middle of the day


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 29, 2013)

I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself



I don't get it if you expose the image what ever way you can using iso/aperture/time it should not matter as long as your image comes out the way the original photographer intended. Each of us have different views but its the original author who needs to make price with what he produces no?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 29, 2013)

I agree that high iso can sometimes be seen as an excuse not to use supplementary lighting.

High ISO cannot on it's own add catchlights, modelling, increase contrast.


----------



## Zv (Oct 30, 2013)

WPJ said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself
> ...



In some places that have mixed lighting or really ugly lighting it won't matter how long you expose or how high the ISO - it's still ugly light! In order to create good light you'll likely need to add light via flash etc. to get a more even light or to create separation between subject and background (backlight or rim light). 

However the high ISO gives you more flexibility when exposing for the ambient light and when using flash (more power). 

An example is a portrait in a dimly lit restaurant; you'd want to use a higher ISO to be able to stop down a bit and get a relatively short shutter speed. Then accentuate with flash to finish the job lighting your subject. This way you get independent control of background and subject.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 30, 2013)

Zv said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I guess the example I had in my head was the grainy overly contrast black and whites that some people like Jared polin do alot of they think its perfect, and rightly so they think its perfect, but most of us may think its crap.


----------



## lux (Oct 30, 2013)

Hmm Flash is helpful for basketball games I guess but for outdoor soccer most of the action is going to be too far away. Fast lens and high iso are your friend. I guess some people have extremely powerful flashes but my guess is that some refs and participants might object.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself



Jd....I think I understand what you're saying....

I have shot at poor light sporting events where the action is stopped, and I continue to shoot manual at 1/1000 and ISO 3200, even though the subjects are moving slow or not moving much....they are exposed correctly, but the image quality would be better if I quickly switched to 1/500 and ISO 1600....or maybe 1/250 and ISO 800

I probably should use my custom settings more to do this.


----------



## thgmuffin (Oct 31, 2013)

Northstar said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself
> ...



Hey Northstar, thanks for all of your help! The tips you gave on editing and cropping are very helpful! 

Right now, I can't get the high end 70-200 simply because I don't have the money. I'll use the 70-300 for friday's match and hopefully I can get some good pictures.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 31, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Did you buy it new from a place where you can return it if you don't like it.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 31, 2013)

lux said:


> Hmm Flash is helpful for basketball games I guess but for outdoor soccer most of the action is going to be too far away. Fast lens and high iso are your friend. I guess some people have extremely powerful flashes but my guess is that some refs and participants might object.



I agree, if you use a better beamer or something, you're going to blind the players. 

High ISO capability in low light is extremely necessary. It's also necessary in very bright daylight if you are using f/9 and want 1/2500 of a second.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> lux said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm Flash is helpful for basketball games I guess but for outdoor soccer most of the action is going to be too far away. Fast lens and high iso are your friend. I guess some people have extremely powerful flashes but my guess is that some refs and participants might object.
> ...



I have the yongnuo 622's and the IR beam works well for night time shots, but it doesn't work with AI servo... which is a shame... because that would be nice to have it.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > lux said:
> ...



You're speaking of IR triggered off camera flash, or on camera flash? How would flash work with AI servo anyway? I tried a Yongnuo 560 and sent it back. I admit I don't know much about them, but I know I need E-TTL...


----------



## thgmuffin (Nov 1, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> thgmuffin said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


Of course.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> [/quote
> 
> I have the yongnuo 622's and the IR beam works well for night time shots, but it doesn't work with AI servo... which is a shame... because that would be nice to have it.



You're speaking of IR triggered off camera flash, or on camera flash? How would flash work with AI servo anyway? I tried a Yongnuo 560 and sent it back. I admit I don't know much about them, but I know I need E-TTL...
[/quote]

the 622's are transceivers that trigger off camera flash, but used alone, they will emit the red lines which aid in auto focus in darkness. using that alone would not blind the players and would help to lock in on your subject.... but it doesn't work in ai servo mode.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 8, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



How did the 70-300 work out for you?


----------

