Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I would like to get into sports photography, and would probably want a better telephoto lens so I can get better close up shots.
What other factors should I keep in mind as I make my choice? Does IS (or VR) matter? What is a good focal length?
I'll probably be shooting mostly little league baseball/softball, church softball leagues, and kids soccer.
Sports in general means stopping the action. Kids are slower than pro athletes, but you still need a good range in shutter speed.
With that in mind, IS/VR is no use because both technologies prevent camera shake at slower shutter speeds, and obviously slower shutter speeds does the exact opposite of stopping the action. However, IS/VR is nice for low-light, handheld use for other purposes, so if you plan on using your lenses for more than sports, you may wish to consider getting IS.
So, what do you need in a good sports photography lens? Lenses with wider apertures (aka faster lenses) give you more light to work with, allowing faster shutter speeds. In addition, the faster the lens, the better your camera's AF will perform. On most prosumer bodies, the AF points require at least F2.8 to achieve their best performance.
Focal lengths will depend on how close you can get to your subject, as well as how much cropping you can get with your body. If money is no object, then a 300, 400, or 500mm prime will do you well, but they're really expensive, so a zoom around 300mm might be a good start, or even a good 70-200 with a TC in a pinch (though the latter option does reduce your working f-stop).
I recently shot a hockey tournament, and picked up the Sigma 70-200 for it - it was perfect - I shot in my end of the rink, for the most part, but the lens was built well, sharp and was significantly cheaper than the Nikon I was looking at.
One thing I'm thankful for, is the fast focus on that lens. That's an important part of sports photography, and sometimes people don't think to recommend thinking about it.
You might want to look into Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L, which has significantly longer reach than the 70-200, but still might be usable if you want to use it outdoors. It's also cheaper, costing around $1250.
I've taken some quite good rugby shots with a Sigma 70-300mm f3.5 lens. It was a nice sunny day which helped keep shutter speed up. 300mm isn't quite enough to get full person shots across the whole width and length of a rugby field, so you just need to choose your shots based on the position of the ball. I went for more "scene setting" shots when they were at the far end (line outs, the whole scrum) and close up or single person shots as they got closer.
I've used the same lens for a cricket match, and it was fine at full zoom. A longer lens would have meant slightly less cropping afterwards, but there was plenty of detail there.
Just make sure you get the ball(s) in the shot!
I use a Sigma 70-200mm with a 1.4 teleconverter for Select and high school soccer and that combination works great. The challenge is shooting at night, but that combination works well also, especially when using a monopod. Of course my Nikon D7000 is part of my success.
I have just recently got into sports photography. Most of time, I shoot soccer games.
The lens I prefer is the 70mm-300mm f4.0-f5.6 Sigma, which I believe is the most economic choice for a beginner such as me.
I think in shooting outdoor sports, most of time the light should not be a problem. And 300mm has a good reach for soccer.
Here are 2 of the best images which I currently can take, both of them were taken with the Sigma mentioned above.
