I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with a zoom lens EF 75-300mm.

What I am trying to do is take pictures of my son on the soccer field. I would love not to have the blur face just some really nice pics. He’s fast so I need something to handle action.

Games are anywhere from midday for club soccer and early evening for high school soccer. The zoom lens all the way out leaves face blurry or I might as well use my iPhone. What I want is to be able to sit in bleachers, zoom in on my player, and get facial features - not look like I’m using a disposable.

I don’t know if I can buy a lens for this camera - if so what type of lens should I get? Or do I just buy a whole new camera with lenses. I want to purchase within the next month so I can practice before games begin. I’m tired of taking what could have been fantastic pics.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ What time of day does your son play? If it’s mid day games, you’d be better off learning how to take action shots - as a new lens really won’t help all that much here. If it’s at night, then the lens may be warranted. Either way - you need to understand how to milk faster shutter speeds out of your gear - meaning you need to be learning exposure before throwing money into gear. \$\endgroup\$
    – OnBreak.
    Jun 8, 2019 at 15:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I was going to say the same thing as @Hueco, but he said it better. So specifically, how are you using the camera? That is, are you using shutter-priority (Tv) mode, or are you using a different mode, such as fully automatic or preprogrammed scene mode? Have you tried to improve your shooting & handholding technique? \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb
    Jun 8, 2019 at 15:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, this question (which is a dupe of the dupe I proposed) is also very good, and has very good answers: What Canon lens would be good for shooting high school/college sports? \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb
    Jun 8, 2019 at 15:44
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ To add some context to my previous comment. Let’s assume a sunny 16 kind of afternoon and ISO 400. Your proper exposure would be f/16 at 1/500. But, there’s no reason to be at f/16 so you can open up to get f/8 at 1/2000. This aperture would provide plenty of depth of field and the shutter speed is plenty fast to freeze action. If you can’t get clean shots in this scenario, you need to work on your technique - not get a new lens. Now, can you clarify what your shooting scenario will be? Thanks! \$\endgroup\$
    – OnBreak.
    Jun 8, 2019 at 17:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Hueco Except that the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 is blurry at 300mm no matter how good one's technique is. It's really a dog of a lens. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jun 8, 2019 at 17:48

2 Answers 2


Do not buy anything yet.

  1. Post an image of your resulting images at 300mm Let us see your Exif information. There is a chance the blurriness is because of camera shake.

  2. Make some tests shoots to yourself and define what is the maximum noise on high ISO you are willing to accept.

  3. Practice your technique holding the camera. Use the ISO defined in (2) and open the diaphragm all the way.

  4. Make some test shots with a tripod, to discard camera shake.

  5. See if that improves your images.

  6. After that analysis, only then, consider purchasing new gear. You now will have a clear idea of what you need, and what to expect.

    • Longer focal length? Twice of that?

    • Faster lens? A wider aperture? Twice of that?

    • Sharper lens? What length and aperture?

    • Bigger sensor twice as big? A new camera body?

    • Less noise? a new camera body with better noise on high sensitivity?

    • A portable tripod?

    • Better seats next time you go to a game?

    • A combo of all previous ones?

    • Encouraging your kid to play chess instead? :o)


You're fighting several things here, most of which can be improved somewhat by throwing some money at the problem. This is even more the case for the early evening games than for the mid-day club soccer contests. It's going to take a LOT of money to get clear facial features from the stands at an early evening contest unless the field is lit a lot brighter than is typical for high school stadiums.

Throwing money at a photographic problem only works if the user has the knowledge, skill, and ability to take advantage of the improved equipment. Better gear doesn't make anyone a better photographer. But better gear does allow a skilled photographer to extend the limits of what can be done when compared to the same photographer using more limited gear.¹

Let's start with the lens you are currently using: EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. It's not a very good lens. In fact many Canon shooters consider it the "worst" interchangeable lens in Canon's current catalog. There have been several variations of the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 that go all the way back to the early 1990s. The very first 75-300mm f/4-5.6 had 12 lens elements arranged in 9 groups. With one notable exception (more below), the rest all share the same optical formula with 13 lens elements in 9 groups. Especially on the long/telephoto end these lenses are just not that sharp. There's a reason Canon practically gives them away in two-lens "kits". For the purpose for which you intend, it is limited in almost every possible way:

  • It only goes out to 300mm, which is still fairly short for capturing individual players from the stands of most high school stadiums.
  • At the longest focal length, it is limited to f/6.3 as the maximum aperture. That's too "slow" for action/sports unless one is shooting in bright daylight conditions with little or no clouds in the sky.
  • Its optical performance, which is not that great to begin with, is weakest at 300mm, where you are going to almost always want to use it due to your distance from your subject.

So the first thing you should consider is a better lens. You can go anywhere from fairly modest improvements with the same focal length range and narrow apertures all the way up to much longer, faster, and seriously expensive lenses.

The EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM introduced in 1995 was a completely different lens than all of the other 75-300mm lenses offered by Canon. It had 15 lens elements arranged in 10 groups. It was replaced in 2005 by the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS which had the same basic optical formula (and very similar overall lens design). That lens has now been supplanted by the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II which has a totally different design with 17 elements in 12 groups but there is not much, if any difference in the overall optical performance compared to the lens it replaced in the lineup. In the same "class" is the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (which has noticeable improvements over the older EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II it replaced). Of course with the EF-S designation this lens can only be used on Canon's APS-C "crop bodies" such as your Rebel T3/1100D. It also has slightly less reach, at 55-250mm instead of 70-300mm, but the image quality is about the same and the price is more attractive.

The problem with anything that maxes out in the 250-300mm range is that it doesn't have enough reach, even with a "cropped" APS-C sensor, to get tight shots of single players from the stands. Those of us who shoot field sports from the sidelines find 70-200mm lenses with APS-C bodies to be the bare minimum. Even when shooting from the sidelines with a 70-200 on a crop body, I often need to crop the image further while editing. 300mm or 400mm is even more desirable, but also more expensive for the same maximum aperture.

This image was taken standing just behind the railing at the bottom of the stands. I was at the same height as the similar walkway you can see on the other side of the field. I had been up in the stands taking photos of the high school band when I was walking back down towards field level and saw this play developing. The original image was 5472x3648 pixels. It was cropped to 4780x3187 (or about 85% of the original linear dimensions) before being downsized for web viewing.

enter image description here
EOS 7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, ISO 2500, 200mm from the front of the stands and cropped moderately, f/2.8, 1/800 second. You can just see motion blur in his right foot as I was panning with the ball carrier's torso.

Unfortunately, f/2.8, which is what we need for night sports, is a lot more expensive at 300mm than at 200mm. The EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II runs over 3X the cost of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III (currently $6,100 vs. $1,900). The new EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III is 2X the price ($12,000) of the 300/2.8, while the older EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II is a "bargain" at $8,000 until dealers run out of current stock.

You can sometimes find deals on older "Big Whites" (what many of us call the Canon Super Telephoto series of lenses), but they're relatively rare and the prices are still an appreciable chunk of the cost when it was new. Even the older ones are excellent and continue to be used for decades. I know a photojournalist who is in a staff position as the senior photographer for a newspaper in a town with major college sports that is still using the 1999 original version of the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS. I also know several sports freelancers still using even older EF 300mm f/2.8 non-IS lenses. Most owners will use them until they break and can't be repaired. One concern with buying older lenses used is that it can be hard to find anyone willing to work on them. After about seven years Canon stops officially supporting lenses that have been replaced with newer models, and no one else, such as third party repair shops, can get parts for them unless they already have a copy of that lens they are parting out that still has the part your lens needs.

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports is a fairly unique third party option that is more affordable than the Canon f/2.8 options above 200mm, but it's still pricey at $3,400. It's not quite as good optically at 300mm as the Canon Super Telephoto, but it's far better than anything cheaper that can reach 300mm. It's also large and heavy enough that it would be difficult to use sitting in stands. I wouldn't consider using it without a monopod to help support the weight for anything that was going to last more than a half hour or so. (There are previous versions of this lens that are pretty good, but not as good as the current 'Sports' model, which is part of Sigma's Global Lens series that include the ability to be updated and electronically calibrated/adjusted by the end user using Sigma's USB Dock.)

If one is willing to forgo the fast f/2.8 aperture, then there are other options available.

Sigma and Tamron have both introduced several 150-600mm f/5-6.3 optically stabilized zoom lenses. They're a little more affordable, being in the $1,000-$2,000 range, than 300mm+/$5,000+ fast primes. The Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 Di VC USD G2 ('G2' is for 'generation two') seems to be slightly better optically than the Sigma offerings. Like the Sigma 120-300/2.8, they are heavy enough that I wouldn't use one for very long without a monopod to support the weight. Of course their maximum aperture is relatively slow which precludes using them for low light action shooting such as night sports. But if you are shooting in bright sunlight they do decently well for sports/action. They're not quite as sharp on the long end as they are in the 150mm to about 300 or 350mm range, but they are noticeably better than budget 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lenses in the overlapping focal length ranges between 150-300mm. Past 300mm they're still a bit less sharp than much higher priced "Super Telephoto" prime lenses with faster apertures such as the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II or the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III. For "early evening" soccer that happens before sunset, a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens would be near the edge of usability depending on whether the players were in the shade or still being directly illuminated by the setting sun. Once the sun goes down it's too slow.

Some very good photographers liked (as opposed to loved) the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS as a good compromise between absolute image quality and affordability. Others don't care for it. It is an older design that was replaced by the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II in 2014. The "II" is a better lens and the higher price reflects that. Like many of the lenses Canon introduced between 1987 and around 2005, the original EF 100-400mm was very good for the film era, but its shortcomings can be revealed by higher resolution digital sensors. The optical performance of most of Canon's telephoto lenses released since 2008 or so are a step above their predecessors. Unfortunately, so are the suggested retail prices.

The current EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II performs better optically than the 150-600mm third party lenses from Sigma and Tamron, but also gives up the 400-600mm focal length range. You have to balance optical performance, maximum focal length, maximum aperture, and price when deciding between such lenses.

There are three older "budget" options from Canon that some folks like:

  • The EF 400mm f/5.6 L is a non-IS design from 1993 that is still sold.
  • The EF 300mm f/4 L is a non-IS design from 1991 that has been discontinued for several years.
  • The EF 300mm f/4 IS is a stabilized design from 1997 that is still sold.

Especially if one is sitting in stands that are not rock solid due to movement of fans jumping up and down, the IS will come in very handy to deal with some of the camera movement caused by that. Keep in mind that IS does nothing for subject motion, only for camera movement. For this reason I would not recommend spending money on anything you plan to use in the stands that does not offer IS/OS/VC (whatever each manufacturer calls in-lens optical image stabilization).

Another approach is to use a very sharp lens, such as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III (or very similar "II") or the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2, and live with knowing one will need to crop the images. In the case of the "II" and "III" versions of Canon's 70-200/2.8, one can also consider adding an EF 1.4X III or EF 2X III extender. Those combos will set you back around $2,400, but that is still a far cry from the $5-10K for the Super Telephoto "II" series lenses.

For your money you get one of the best 70-200mm zooms in the world when used bare. When combined with the EF 1.4X III you have a 100-280mm f/4 lens. With the EF 2X III you still have a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens that can still focus fast enough to shoot sports (most lenses coupled with a 2X extender or teleconverter can not) and IQ that holds its own with the 100-400 and even the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6. The "II" and "III" versions of the 70-200 are the only zoom lenses I would consider using a 2x extender with for any kind of sports/action.

This last approach is dependent on using a camera with enough resolution to spare for cropping. Which leads us to your camera. But before we move on, there's one more thing you should keep in mind:

Anytime you are considering a lens in this price range, it is always a good idea to rent one for a few days to see if it matches the need you have for it. If there's not a good rental house in your area, borrowlenses.com and lensrentals.com both have excellent reputations. Lensrentals will even let you buy the copy you're renting at a competitive price if you decide that you want it.

For that matter, you can look at the schedule for the upcoming season and see if there are a cluster of games in a short time period and consider renting one of the above mentioned lenses for a week. If you live near a large city, there may also be a local camera store that rents lenses, though the selection will probably be a bit more limited.

Although the lens is by far the biggest piece of the puzzle, let's also look at the camera you are using.

The EOS Rebel T3/1100D has a 12.2MP 1.6X "crop factor) sensor. It was introduced in 2011 as the budget entry level Canon EOS body. While it is perfectly capable of taking many very good photos, in regards to the use case indicated by the question it has a few shortcomings:

  • 12.2 megapixels doesn't leave very much room for cropping when one is focal length limited by the lens they are using. On the other hand, the extra "reach" of the APS-C sensor gives the same pixel density as an approximately 30MP full frame camera would.
  • A maximum setting of ISO 6400 probably means ISO 3200 or even ISO 1600 is the fastest usable ISO setting. That's not a concern during bright daylight hours when ISO 100 to ISO 400 will be usable, but it quickly starts to get in the way in the early evening as the sun begins to approach the horizon.
  • It's 2011 technology in 2019, when better sensors are available. Canon didn't really improve their APS-C sensors in terms of high ISO performance from the late 2000s until the introduction of the 80D and 7D Mark II in 2016 and 2014, respectively. Some of the current lower level models still use sensors that are based on the older technology.
  • Beyond the sensor and image quality, the EOS Rebel series does not offer in-camera lens calibration, called Autofocus Micro Adjustment (AFMA). As one uses longer focal lengths at wider apertures, AF inaccuracy can become a significant factor. AF near misses that aren't noticeable at shorter focal lengths and narrower apertures begin to stick out like sore thumbs at longer focal lengths and wider apertures. Bodies such as the Canon 80D, 7D Mark II, and most of Canon's full frame DSLRs offer AFMA to match manufacturing and calibration differences between a specific copy of a camera body and a specific copy of a lens. I consider it essential when shooting at 200mm or longer and f/4 or wider.
  • The basic 9-point AF system of the T3 is okay if you tend to always use the center F point. But it is slower, much less configurable, and not as good at tracking moving subjects during high frame rate shooting as more sophisticated AF systems found in upper level bodies such as the 7D Mark II or 80D. A skilled photographer can overcome these obstacles for the most part and get usabel shots, but the more advanced AF systems will let the same photographer get much higher "hit to miss" ratio.

The current EOS 80D, 77D, and Rebel T7i/800D all share the same sensor and AF system. The EOS 7D Mark II has a better AF system (in several ways) and a different sensor that is slightly better than the others at high ISO (ISO 1600 and 3200 in particular), but doesn't do as well as the others at low ISO settings between ISO 100 and ISO 400. In real world practice, you probably would not notice any difference in sensor performance between any of them when shooting sports. If you are going to upgrade your body, I would consider the 7D Mark II or 80D, which both offer AFMA, over the 77D and Rebel T7i/800D which do not offer AFMA.

¹ For more regarding how better gear can (and can not) improve one's photography, please see:
How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
Does the camera matter?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you very much for the explanation. I am thinking that if I go with a better lens than what I have that would be the best solution. I can upgrade the camera body at a later date. Most of our games are during bright days. So, at this point if I don’t get that really cool night pic there are other people who have invested money in their cameras. I have asked people what type of cameras and lenses they use but it seems like a secret society. Since this is my sons senior year I just wanted to get get some good pictures. That are mine. \$\endgroup\$
    – Legs31
    Jun 8, 2019 at 20:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ You say op won’t get enough reach but don’t discuss the 400 f/5.6. It’s the only “budget” option available with more reach. \$\endgroup\$
    – OnBreak.
    Jun 8, 2019 at 21:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Hueco I'm still writing my complete answer but went ahead and submitted before the question was closed. It currently has (4) "close" votes. There's also the EF 300mm f/4. But neither of those have IS, which can come into play if one is sitting in stands that are shaking (been there, done that). \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jun 8, 2019 at 22:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ And honestly, the EF 400mm f/5.6 is a decent enough lens, but isn't that much, if any, better than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II (or III) + EF 2X III, which provides far more flexibility. Though in general I would not recommend a 2X extender or TC for shooting sports, the 70-200/2.8 IS II and III are good enough and fast enough to handle it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jun 8, 2019 at 22:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you so very much. I have learned much from your experience and explanation @Michael C \$\endgroup\$
    – Legs31
    Jun 9, 2019 at 12:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.