# Tele lens for football/soccer



## timkbryant (Aug 29, 2012)

OK. So I have a relatively limited budget.

I'm looking at either a 300 or a 400 prime for shooting soccer and football.

As much as I would love the f/2.8 IS version of either, they are considerably outside my price range.

So my question is this: which would you recommend, oh more-experienced photogs: the 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6. We're talking the L in both cases.

And, to make matters more complicated, likely by the time I'm shooting these sports again, I will have a FF body (currently APS-C).

Alright. Have at me!

p.s. Whichever I get I will likely end up using for hockey as well. But I have the 70-200 f/2.8 for that, and that's been perfectly fine.


----------



## Menace (Aug 29, 2012)

If you are planning going FF, I'd suggest 400 f5.6 as you may have enough reach with the 300 f4 on a crop body which you'll lose going FF. 

However, you should be able to shoot higher ISOs with your FF so the loss of one stop may not be such a big issue (IMHO). 

On the other hand a 1.4 extender may be an option with the 300. 

Personally, I'd suggest the 400 f5.6. 

Cheers


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 29, 2012)

400 f/5.6 seems to have better IQ and behave better with ext 1.4 over the 300 f/4. But in most cases you will be limited to tripod mounted configuration as it doesn't have IS. If you plan only sports and not birds in flight without tripod then I think it's better than 300 f/4. Any use of either handhold would point to 300 f/4 as the winner. BTW - I have exact the same dillema.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 29, 2012)

Your 200mm is effectively giving you 320mm now, so when you go to FF a 300mm is coming up just shy of that. I initially used my 200mm to shoot lacrosse with the 5DIII, but found it too short to get the images I wanted. I purchased a used 300mm f4 IS and found that it gave me exactly the field of view I needed. The 300 f4 is very sharp, very accurate, very fast. The images were impressive, much sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 IS. I would think that this focal length and aperture would be very suitable for outdoor Soccer or Football.





I have since replaced the 300mm f4 IS with a f2.8 IS (ver I). Sharper, faster, albeit much heavier, I expect to get even better results this season.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 29, 2012)

I used a 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS for a while until I needed to shoot night games. Now, I shoot 70-300 F/2.8L IS for day games. If you are shooting from the sidelines, that should be sufficient but soccer and football are shot best from the end lines so you may want to have the longer reach.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 29, 2012)

It depends. For sideline passes, you only need 200mm on a 1.6x crop body = 320 and for some shots, that's still too close. If you are in the stands, get the 300 f/4L, because that'll be 480mm. 400 lens for football and soccer is way too long on a crop, unless you are WAY back in the stands. If you have a sideline pass, effective focal length of 300mm is the farthest you want to shoot. I use a 300mm lens on FF for sideline passes, and I still have to have a 70-200 lens on another camera for closer action.


----------



## k.tomasa (Sep 10, 2012)

wow nice, this is really great conversation. i have now an idea on how to capture the best shot of my favorite football team while playign against tough oponnent. very helpful topic for sports.


----------



## infilm (Sep 11, 2012)

You might want to consider renting a long lens if you are on a budget. If you intend to buy, I'd go with the 300 f4 L. Great lens and a good value. Also if you can be patient you might be able to steal one on the used market. There are great deals for someone who isn't in a rush to buy


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 11, 2012)

Just FYI, for football and soccer I use the 400 f/2.8L I IS, 300 f/2.8L I IS, and the 70-200L II IS. Basically from 70-400 mm.


----------



## PeterJ (Sep 11, 2012)

Have you given much thought to the 100-400? The aperture's not greatly different and although the primes have a better IQ it'll cover the range well on both a crop and FF. I guess it depends on if you intend to keep your crop as a 2nd body when you get a FF, in which case you'd have your current lens for anything too close for 300/400 (without lens swapping that is).


----------



## The Bad Duck (Sep 11, 2012)

Ok, this is _Canon_ rumors but you should take a serious look at the Sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS. Skip the non-OS version since it is crap. That will probably be my next lens.
You guys can count, but with a 1,4x extender that gives about 170 - 400 /4 OS and the 2x extender gives 240 - 600 /5.6 OS and that seems extremely usable. Perhaps one needs to step down to f/8 with the 2x extender to get some more contrast but hey... you still got a lot of tele and can use that on normal camera bodies. Usable is too weak of a word to use I´d say. Oh and it zooms too - so if the action starts to get closer than expected... just zoom out.

Good luck with your choise.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 11, 2012)

The Bad Duck said:


> Ok, this is _Canon_ rumors but you should take a serious look at the Sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS.



Lots of options for you!  The Sigma was a nice suggestion (never used one myself, but it looks all right to me)... 100-400 is a serious option too... 

good luck


----------

