Football/Sports Lens Recommendations for EOS R10

[Urrjay]

I swear it's like reading in hieroglyphs when shopping for camera lens as a noob. Ive put forward as much effort as humanly possible before coming here but I'm still so lost as to what I'm looking for and what would actual work for my needs. 

My wife has a mirrorless EOS R10 with a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM EF Mount Lens that she's been using for basketball games. Now that football has started, it became evident pretty quickly that this was not the lens for football. Therefore I am on the hunt

I came across Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM. Is this a good lense for outdoor football? Is there any that you would recommend? The budget is around $2k

Thank you in advance

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

The RF 100-500 is a fabulous optic, it has excellent glass, great image stabilization and dual motors to make it focus lightning fast and great for eye/face tracking.  It's not cheap but I think it would be brilliant. 

You can get a Refurb lens from Canon that will be good as (may even be) new, and comes with a Canon warranty:
Shop Canon Refurbished RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM | Canon U.S.A., I

[Urrjay]

Would you recommend this?

[Replaced link to facilitate conversation.]

[wq9nsc]

How far away is your wife and what level of football?  At the high school level, a lot of fields are very poorly illuminated so the RF 100-500 may have too narrow an aperture.

I shoot from the sidelines and the "longest" glass I regularly use for football is a 400 f2.8.  Canon's 70-200 f2.8 is an excellent lens and is equivalent to a 320mm on the APS C R-10 so if she is fairly close to the field, it would be a great lens.

Attached photos are from 70-200 and 400 f2.8 glass respectively on full frame 1DX III bodies.  The first was captured from just outside of the end zone and the second was on the sidelines looking quite a ways up field.

And on edit, the 70-200 f2.8 is also an EXCELLENT lens for shooting basketball, soccer, and pretty much any sport.  I have a lot of Canon fast primes and zoom lenses but the majority of my photos from any sports event are captured with a 70-200 f2.8

Rodger

EF 70-200 f2.8EF 400 f2.8

[Tronhard]

Definitely, my colleague Roger has a  point about the conditions.  Much depends on the level of light and the positions from which your wife can take her images.  If she can be on the sidelines, then the RF 70-200 f/2.8 may be a great solution.  If, on the other hand, she is shooting from further away and in decent light, then the reach of the RF 100-500 may be better.
You and she may both find this video of value: 
How To Photograph Football - Part 1 - BYU Photo (youtube.com)

[Tronhard]

I have to ask, so please don't take offense.  Why is your wife not asking these questions and engaging with us?
There are two benefits for this:
1. She assumedly knows more about photography, so will not find the process as stressful and will take a lot of pressure from you.
2. She will have a first-person perspective on what she wants or is comfortable with.  I have seen multiple cases where a generous-minded person has bought gear for someone, but it's not what they really want or need. That puts them in the difficult position of using it despite that, or risking upsetting the donor by saying so.

Honestly, I would encourage you to have her take part in the conversation.   If this is a gift, then once she has got the advice she needs, you can take her out shopping with you and make that process a part of the gift.  I would be surprised if she is not delighted with your consideration and engagement to be with her in the buying process.

[ebiggs1]

As others have alluded to the most important factor here is not the "hieroglyphs" of th elens but where you shoot from. It is always location, location and location. The second most important factor again not the hieroglyphs of the lens but know your sport. And not any the least how much light is available at the sports complex.

Us not knowing these very important factors make a reasonable lens suggestion problematic. If you can answer the location part that can narrow down the focal length (FL). SIde line and able to get close to the action 200mm may be adequate. Same lens 200mm shooting from the stands most probably will not be good.

As a basic guide more FL is always, always a better thing as well as a lower aperture number. The RF 100-400mm and 100-500mm can be good but 600mm is probably going to be even better. A problem with these type lenses are twofold as they tend to be bigger and heavier and secondly they tend to be slower lenses.

If you can come back with answers to the first two factors and the light issue or have your wife join us.

[ebiggs1]

You have an excellent lens in the EF Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM. And it is not a cheap lens however folks that buy an R10 generally don't spend or want to spend $8000 on a big tele like the EF 400mm f2.8, or any of the big teles in that category that are just as expensive or even more.

One of the 150-600mm super zooms is a more reasonable candidate ay around $1000, Of course there is always the used market; these lenses are good buys one the used market as they generally don't see much use.. Just a few football games. 😁