# Is there an all around "Best Lens" for Sports Photography??



## ottor (May 23, 2009)

Regardless of price (OK, under $2K) is there a "Best" lens for photographing action sports - mainly outdoors? If I had a choice, I'd also want one that would be satisfactory for indoor B-Ball or Rodeo also... but specifically one that would capture the _color_ and _clarity_ of field sports... 

Tks in advance....


----------



## farmerj (May 23, 2009)

I would have to ask what kind of sports?

For my daughters Marching band, I struggle with my 70-300.   It's a poor lens I would say based on it's an f/4.5 lens to start at 70mm and goes to f/5.6 on the long end.  I get a lot of noise  in the pictures at 300 mm.  It's pretty decent on stuff under 50-75 feet, but anything more, and the quality I think goes down.

I use a 50mm f/1.8 for shooting some indoor stuff, but would love to get (soon) the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for some of the stuff I do.  My fixed lens just doesn't work for what I want under 15 feet.

Any sports lens I would suggest is f/2.8 or faster.  Regardless of who makes it.

It's a combination of ISO, shutter and aperture that you need to either stop the blur and get crisp sharp stop-action shots, or else to deal with the action of what's happening.

It also will depend if you can use a flash.  Most of what I shoot, flash is restricted completely or highly frowned upon.


----------



## bigtwinky (May 23, 2009)

Hands down I would go with a 70-200mm f/2.8 with IS (Canon).  Its just under 2k US, but its a damn nice lens.

If you are shooting Nikon, replace the IS with VR (Vibration Reduction) and I'm sure you'll find the equivalent.

B&H sells it at $1800, but they currently give you a $200 rebate so its $1600
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html


----------



## dxqcanada (May 23, 2009)

Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 APO


----------



## usayit (May 23, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> Hands down I would go with a 70-200mm f/2.8 with IS (Canon).  Its just under 2k US, but its a damn nice lens.



Definitely not "hands down" if you haven't considered the type of sports photography.  This is where "farmerj" is asking the right question.  What type of sports?   I had 100-400L and my cousin had my 70-200 f/2.8 IS at a Polo game.  Definitely WAY too short for that size field.  The fast aperture wasn't a big advantage in the bright daylight.  Indoor basketball is a different story.

OP needs to realize that sports photography is about the most expensive and most depending type of photography you can get into to.


----------



## Blank (May 23, 2009)

One of my favorite lens' for indoor and outdoor is the Canon f2 135mm. It is "the" best valued L lens in the Canon lineup. Around US$1,000

Indoor basketball, nothing beats the f1.8 85mm, in my opinion. Around US$350

Both lens' are versatile for indoor and outdoor. As good a lens as the f2.8 70-200mm is, it is bordeline useless indoor (for action sports) if lighting is not above average.


----------



## benhasajeep (May 23, 2009)

Basically you need two lenses. 

With your budget I would look at a 70-200 f/2.8, and at the Sigma 50-500. Now the sigma would only be good for daytime sports outside. But it has a very good following. Also good for animals, birds, etc where you can't get that close.

The 70-200 f/2.8 for the indoor sports. They make primes that are faster and more usefull. But limits how much you can fill the frame with your subject.

Floor level flash is a no no, in indoor sports. So fast glass is necessary, unless you want to mount wireless flashes in the rafters (have enough of them).

I shot college sports for 2 years in college. I used 80-200 f/2.8 inside for basketball and volleyball. And a 300 f/2.8 and the 80-200 f/2.8 for football (my own lenses by the way).


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (May 23, 2009)

OP did say best "all around" lens. So i would have to agree with bigtwinky that the best ALL AROUND sports photography lens would be a 70-200 F2.8. For sports (unless its motor sports) the IS shouldn't really be a huge issue as the shutter speeds youre using are going to render the stabilizer useless anyways. I say motor sports because i know canon (not sure about nikon) offers a "mode two" on its stabilizer that just stabilizes the camera shake on the vertical axis, making the blurred lines when panning as straight as possible.


----------



## farmerj (May 23, 2009)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> OP did say best "all around" lens. So i would have to agree with bigtwinky that the best ALL AROUND sports photography lens would be a 70-200 F2.8. For sports (unless its motor sports) the IS shouldn't really be a huge issue as the shutter speeds youre using are going to render the stabilizer useless anyways. I say motor sports because i know canon (not sure about nikon) offers a "mode two" on its stabilizer that just stabilizes the camera shake on the vertical axis, making the blurred lines when panning as straight as possible.



Nikon has that seem feature on the VR option as well.

I actually turn off VR when I am taking panning or other shots I am typically following the action with.

About the only time I find it useful to use VR is when I am stalking wild game and it's a purposeful and intentional action to take a picture of an animal while handheld.


----------



## Mike_E (May 23, 2009)

A 200-400mm on a D3 with a Tc 1.4 and 1.7 in your pocket.

A little over budget maybe but there you are..


----------



## KmH (May 23, 2009)

For sports there is no such thing as 1 best all around lens. It takes at least 2 lenses and that means 2 bodies also.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 23, 2009)

One lens to rule them all,
And in the lightness bind them.


----------



## usayit (May 23, 2009)

There is absolutely no such thing as a best all around anything...  anyone who says otherwise hasn't put much thought into the answer.  Anyone who believes them needs to do more research and perhaps, rent equipment.


----------



## Montana (May 23, 2009)

For rodeo, if you are shooting from inside the arena, two bodies and two lenses.  From across the arena, a 300 f/2.8 and for the upclose action a wide zoom like the 24-70 f/2.8 works well.  At least around my hometown, photographers can be inside the arena with the bucking bulls and broncs....its just at your own risk.  The wide lens works well for the roping and barrel racing as well.  I just shot a rodeo with my 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter attached, bringing my max aperture down to f/4.  I'd love to have a 300 2.8 to help control the hidious backgrounds at rodoes.  Indoor basket ball may be another story all together.  Faster primes perhaps.  There is no all in one lens for sports.  

The Sigma 50-500 was recommended earlier and I disagree.  I own that lens too and never use it for sports.  Its a slow lens.  It could be used on sunny days, but not optimal.


----------



## table1349 (May 23, 2009)

When I'm shooting football, soccer, baseball, softball or field events it is the 400mm f2.8L.  Track 300 f2.8L and a 70-200 f2.8L on two different bodies.  Indoors, depends on the sport and where I am working.  Baseline/sideline usually primes of different lengths.  That is why the list of lenses in my sig is so large.  Specific lenses for specific tasks.  

Best all around sports lens is the lens that gets the job done.


----------

