# Which lenses for cricket?



## dan86 (Oct 10, 2012)

Hi everybody.

This is my first post although i have been a frequent visitor for some time and the knowledge i have gained in doing so has been invaluable.
The trouble is stalking other peoples threads won't always yield the answer required. So this is my first question and I'm a little nervous, i've never been very good at public speaking.

70-300L + 135L/200L or 300L IS + 70-200 f4 non IS

Both combinations give similar flexibility in different packages for a similar price. The reason I want the reach of 300mm is for local cricket matches. Although it probably won't be long enough they are the longest lenses i can afford that retain IS. 
I currently own the 75-300 III (came as part of the kit with my 550d/t2) and it is impossible to hand hold at 300mm so IS will come in handy even though I'll propbably drag my tripod along anyway.

The 70-300L by all reports is a very good lens the only draw back on a crop camera being the variable apperture which will be 5.6 at 300mm - where most of the shots will be. Which is why i've included either the 135L or the 200L to compensate for low light-action-stopping goodness.

The 300L IS gets me an extra stop of light at 300mm but it leaves me at 300mm. So the 70-200 is included for a bit of flexibility.

My other lenses include the 18-55 kit lens, 10-22, 100L IS macro (the reason for me needing to upgrade my other lenses) and the 50 1.4


So..... if there is anyone out there who has shot any cricket (or other sports that are similar) can you point me in the right direction. Or am I completely wrong in thinking that any of these lenses will be long enough keeping in mind that is is just the local Tasman Peninsular cricket association so i could probably just walk onto the ground if I'm not close enoough.

P.S. The Tasman peninsula is also one of the most scenic areas in Tasmania (Australia) so there will be plenty of other photo opportunities if the cricket sucks.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Which lenses?*

300L IS + 70-200 f/4. You could always add extenders for more reach.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Which lenses?*

On a Crop Sensor Body, I have shot Soccer with a 200mm f2.8 and found it to have plenty of reach and speed for the sport. 
When moving to a Full Sensor Body, I moved up to a 300mm and found it captured back most of the reach lost by shooting full frame.
As for hand holding, the 300mm f4 is as easy to manage as any of the 70-200 zooms. I used this for Lacrosse last season and had no problem tracking and shooting hand held for the entire game while on my feet.
I have since upgraded to the 300 f2.8 and have found it quite a bit more cumbersome along the sidelines, but added a wide shoulder strap to "rest" during time out.
Thinking that Cricket is played out of doors and in the daylight, any lens that provides f4 or better should afford you the shutter speeds you need to capture the action. Lenses with f2.8 or better will give you better subject isolation with shallower depth of field, but that may not be the look you are going for with this particular sport.
Cheers!


----------



## dan86 (Oct 11, 2012)

Thanks for the replies guys.

Yeah I was thinking that the fact I could use extenders on the 300 and the 70-200 are probably putting that combo in front. But, the 200 or 135 would also be good for indoor cricket (which i didn't mention earlier... sorry) where lighting isn't good and reach isn't such an issue.

I'm not sure about comparing soccer and cricket as far as reach goes, (I've never been to a soccer match) but with cricket if you are shooting the batsmen, you are are on the furthest boundry plus the length of the pitch if you want to see the batsmen front on (cricket is played on an oval).


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 11, 2012)

I've taken a 70-200 f/4 IS to the Gabba a few times. (200mm is the cricket Australia limit and I've never wanted to push my luck). But 200mm just isn't long enough! Each time I've wished for something with longer reach. I'm thinking the 70-300mm on a 550D would be a good choice if you want to travel light with just one lens. But have you considered going even longer with the 100-400?


----------



## HawkinsT (Oct 11, 2012)

If you're wanting these lenses specifically for sports have you considered the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) and the x1.4 iii extender? Since you're going to need a high shutter speed anyway to capture the action the lack of IS shouldn't matter too much and is significantly cheaper and gives you a lot of versatility at a high aperture; you could also invest in a monopod if no IS is an issue. I'd recommend the 1.4 extender over the 2 as the drop in focus speed is quite noticeable between both (although outdoor with cricket specifically I guess the x2 would be fine).

As for the lenses you mentioned, I wouldn't bother with the 70-300, I've never used it but a friend of mine has extensively (for wildlife shots) and I know he's not overly impressed with it, I think the 4-5.6 max aperture would present problems indoors and having to rely on a fixed prime would be very awkward. Having said that the 135L is an absolutely fantastic lens; my 100% go-to when the focal length allows. Unfortunately though as an indoor sports lens (speaking from experience) you will be missing a lot of shots unless you have a second body also. Having a zoom (such as the 70-200 2.8) is just the better choice when it comes to sport.


----------



## chasn (Oct 11, 2012)

I disagree about the 70-300L. I use this and my 7D for photographing my son's cricket and very happy with the results. It also did well at the O2 indoor tennis last year at iso 800 and max reach in quite dodgy light. I have tried it with the 5D 2 - results not bad but I did miss the extra reach -


----------



## scotty512 (Oct 11, 2012)

I use the 70-200 2.8 L with a 5D mk3 and find the length perfect for local cricket, have 2x extender if further away from outfield


----------



## PeterJ (Oct 11, 2012)

Fellow Tasmanian lurking eh ;D. I just checked a few grounds I played on (just local cricket too) in Google Earth and it looks a reasonable position down the ground would put you about 80 meters from the facing batsmen. On a crop a 200mm lens will give you about 9 meters field of view across, 300mm about 6 meters.

Hardly a close-up but I think either would give good results and a good context of the slips / bowler and how they're moving to go after the ball. Just for cricket I'd probably go for the 300 for the extra stop, but as you say not a very flexible option.

Have you tried your 75-300 yet for cricket? While the IQ may suck it'll answer your questions on focal length and you can always crank up the ISO just to get a feel for what shutter speeds you'll need for the kind of shots you want. At that distance you might find something like 1/500 is OK, I just checked a few I took of a social game 1/800 froze the ball fairly well, no doubt travelling slower than a proper game but I was also very close so relative movement across the frame would probably be similar.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 11, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> I've taken a 70-200 f/4 IS to the Gabba a few times. (200mm is the cricket Australia limit and I've never wanted to push my luck). But 200mm just isn't long enough! Each time I've wished for something with longer reach. I'm thinking the 70-300mm on a 550D would be a good choice if you want to travel light with just one lens. But have you considered going even longer with the 100-400?



Hmm, just thinking, if you took a 70-200 f/2.8 + a 2x TC, would they know? (Yes, it is only f/5.6 and slower AF, but you do get more reach....)


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 11, 2012)

scotty512 said:


> I use the 70-200 2.8 L with a 5D mk3 and find the length perfect for local cricket, have 2x extender if further away from outfield



Nice pics. I will say however that local cricket fields are not a fair comparison for actual test match/T20 fields...plus, at local fields you can just walk around to some extent while in actual matches you are strictly kept at the perimeter... 135L or 70-200L II while both great lenses would be hard pressed to frame any sensible action from the boundry. 

Reach is the key here. 135L is good for cozy basketball courts, cricket fields are rather too big for 135L, unless you want "long" shots of the filed. 200mm is not that much of a gain.

Both 70-300L and 100-400L on 7D or other crop bodies are probably the best option for an amateur on a budget. 

But here is a different way of answering this question... most of the sports magazine guys you see at the boundry are mostly on 1D mark IV or other professional bodies (1.3X crop) with white 500L or longer lenses on sturdy gear...only way they can snap pics of Tendulker or Pietersen's facial expressions or the pitch close up from that far.


----------



## PeterJ (Oct 11, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Nice pics. I will say however that local cricket fields are not a fair comparison for actual test match/T20 fields...plus, at local fields you can just walk around to some extent while in actual matches you are strictly kept at the perimeter... 135L or 70-200L II while both great lenses would be hard pressed to frame any sensible action from the boundry.


Agree they're nice pics. But it sounds like a fair comparison to me, the OP said it's a local cricket association on the Tasman Peninsular, not sure they have too many test matches that far from Bellerive unless I've missed something .

The appeal of those country grounds is you can reverse your car up to the boundary and enjoy a few nice cold beverages from the Eski in the back ;D.


----------



## dan86 (Oct 12, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > The appeal of those country grounds is you can reverse your car up to the boundary and enjoy a few nice cold beverages from the Eski in the back ;D.
> ...


----------



## scotty512 (Oct 16, 2012)

Hi Dan86

no they were all without the extender, as I was lying on the ground slightly inside the in field, so I think that on a crop sensor you will be fine and adding the 1.4 or the 2 will increase the range adequately for you


----------



## dan86 (Oct 17, 2012)

Thanks mate


----------



## scotty512 (Oct 17, 2012)

checked last night and the second photo was taken with the 2x extender on the 70-200 F2.8


----------



## gn100 (Oct 17, 2012)

400 f5.6 is also worth a look..... also a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 1.4 or 2 times extender is another option


----------



## rj79in (Oct 22, 2012)

Why not try the 100-400 mm. It will give you the reach as well as versatility. 

Anyhow, this is one of the shots I got at a game recently in India with the 100-400 mm with a 7D. The field was compliant with the International specifications so I must admit that even 400 mm seemed less than sufficient. 

I plan to get a 1.4x teleconverter and will see how it goes. I will lose autofocus on the 7D but think it will be manageable because cricket is one game where you can focus manually and wait for the appropriate moment!


----------

