Help me chose the appropriate lens PLEASE - RF recos for arena photography

[marsmit714]

Hello Community!

I have had my R8 for nearly a year now and absolutely love it! However, I only have the kit lens (RF24-50mm), but I recently got into capturing horse cutting and this lens isn't cutting it anymore. I often find myself sitting too far from the action due to the arena setups to get the clean and crisp photos that I am looking for. 

I have been looking at getting the RF70-200mm f2.8 because I often find myself in low light arenas but would love the input on what everyone else would use. I am still an amateur photographer but finally found my niche that I truly enjoy capturing. 

TIA.

- Martina

[Tronhard]

If you are shooting in low light, then you definitely want that faster aperture, so the RF 70-200 f/2.8 sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  The rest is down to your placement relative to the action.

[March411]

Welcome to the site Martina,

Very cool that you found your niche, it makes the hobby more fun.

I own the RF70-200mm f2.8 and use it mostly for indoor sports. I use it on R5 and R6 MkII bodies. Like you I find that most of the arena's are fairly dark and I need a lens that is faster, I also need the additional reach to capture images at the far end of the arena when required.

Your arena's are most likely larger then the one's I am in so shooting location is important. I tend to move around to get the best angles and use the max range of 200mm to my advantage.

Pros:

• It's fairly compact and easy to handle for events 3 hours or longer.
• The image quality is fantastic
• The AF is fast and quiet. My keeper rate for events is at least 65%

Cons

• Can not use a teleconverter
• Long when zoomed to 200mm
• Location for photographing should be strategic, the lens still has limited range.

So I can state that for my application the 70-200mm 2.8 has been an excellent investment. The faster lens has allowed me to minimize post product, removing noise and the Bokeh is great for bringing the attention to the subject and eliminating the background distractions.

[ebiggs1]

Martina,

A few years ago I got asked to do some barrel racing events with and for a good friend of mine. I have the a 70-200mm f2.8L on my 1 Series. However I and he found 200mm to be a little short in FL. I ended up using my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.

Barrel racing was a new venture and I didn't really know how it would go. Similarly I don't know about 'horse cutting' but I am aware that horses are big and arens are bgi too. Plus they don't let you get very close and location from where you shoot is the most important part of any sports photography. Now that big Siggy is amazing but it isn't for everybody as it is very heavy and very expensive and no longer made. There is used , though. But something approaching its specs is probably what you need. If you spend a lot of money for the wrong lens you won't be happy on both fronts. Your bank account and still average photos.

If you make a mistake on FL make it on the long side and not the short side. IE, a 400mm zoom would be better than a 200mm zoom. The R8 has decent high ISO performance so I would use it and perhaps consider a lens like the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens plus some other similar models. Now with a lens that is a s slow as that one is, 3 stops or so, most times can be overcome with higher ISO, shooting raw and using DPP4 post editor.

"I often find myself in low light arenas ....

It is a numbers game but don't let them get to you. Sometimes the numbers look a lot better on paper than they do in action. You didn't mention how much you are willing to spend and big or heavy of a lens you can handle. All of these lenses in this category are going to be significantly bigger than you current lens.

[ebiggs1]

Martina,,

I am going to repeat to make sure you understand this, you must use raw and you must post process your images. These two things are mandatory and they are free but they will do more to deliver high quality photos than almost anything elses you can do or buy.

[March411]

I would agree with Ernie that the RF70-200mm could have limitations. I do stay pretty mobile in the stands and when available on the floor when shooting with this lens. That being said it will be a vast improvement over your RF24-50mm.

With the cost of the RF70-200mm @ $2,499.00 if I was going to with something that had better range I would grab the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM @ $2,699.00. It is a nice lens that performs admirably in low light and the IQ is outstanding. EB’s suggestion of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is also a good play and you will save a ton of money.

I used the RF 100-400mm mounted on a R6 MkII in some very dense rainforest in Costa Rica and got some beautiful images. I used Topaz to clean up the noise and you wouldn’t know that I was shooting at ISO’s @ 6400 or greater. The RF 100-400 could be a good option if you don’t mind a little post production.

Image shot with RF 100-400mm mounted on a R6 MkII @ ISO 6400

[MPBACK]

Hi Martina,

There is a more affordabe long zoom RF lens. for your R8.  It is the RF-24-240IS.  It is however a much slower variable lens that the RF 70-200L lens.  While the RF 70-200L is likely optically superior to the 24-240, The 24-240 can be used for a wide range of subjects.

Mike 

[Tronhard]

Given you have an R-series body and Canon do not support 3rd-party lenses, especially legacy EF lenses, I would ask if that has significance for you. If it does then you need to stick to an RF lens.   The good news is that the FF sensor on the R8 is very tolerant of noise and, as my colleague Ernie says, you should be looking at post-processing with a noise reduction software program, of which there are several out there.  I also agree with Ernie that you should shoot in RAW in order to give you much more latitude to do post-processing.  Shooting to slightly over expose will help reduce the noise, just don't let the whites blow out completely.  The good news is that you can see your exposure with the electronic viewfinder of the R8, so you can adjust as required.

With all that in mind, I would recommend either the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM for it flexibility, or the RF 100-500L 4.5-7.1.  I note that the latter is slower at the long end, so if you can work with 240mm, then you should find the  24-240 a great lens.  In the Share Your Photos section there are multiple posts using this lens: Search - Canon Community.

I hope this is helpful.

[ebiggs1]

When you are down to a few specific lenses as suggested you are really splitting hairs as any of these are going to work. So, now you need to decide which works a bit better. I would rule out the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM right off. Since you already have the kit lens. There is no good reason to duplicate it the FL you have unless you just like spending money. Most of the time all good photographers have two or more lenses at the ready. Plus like I found out 200mm or even 240mm may be a little short in FL. I am in agreement with March411 that longer is better with either the 100-400mm or 100-500mm. It is better to have more FL and not need it than it is to not have it and need it.

However even this point is made somewhat moot if you shoot raw and post edit as you can crop to a degree and achieve the same results.

IMHO, the  RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM type lens is what we used to call a soccer mom lens.

[wq9nsc]

Martina,

For sports/action I always gravitate towards faster (wide aperture) lenses.  Image sensors have definitely improved in terms of noise performance and will give acceptable results at an ISO speed that would have been seen as ridiculously high a decade ago.  But even with the best modern sensors, image quality is still better if you can stay in the lower to mid four digit ISO range and part of our goal as photographers is to get the best results possible.  Also wider aperture lenses allow the AF system to work a little faster.  Be sure to check the in-depth reviews for the lenses you are considering to see how fast they are at acquiring focus when rapidly switching between focal points because wide aperture lenses, which are not being designed to as tight of a price point, often have slightly faster focus acquisition than lenses built with more severe cost constraints.

Focal length (reach) versus aperture is certainly a consideration and a long focal lens that is also fast is expensive and heavy.  I shoot a lot of football and soccer using an EF 400 f2.8 lens and it isn't cheap or light but the performance is pretty magical under tough conditions.  With higher IQ (less noise/softening) from a faster lens, you will be able to crop a bit more severely so the focal length comparison between 200 and 400 mm when the 400mm end has a narrow aperture requiring more NR provides it with less than a 2 to 1 true focal length advantage when shooting in low light.

Cutting horse competition is one sport I have never shot so I would strongly advise you to study what others are using in terms of equipment and placement to see what is likely to work best for you.  Whatever lens you buy now should be one that you will use for many years and buy it from the viewpoint that it may be only 1/2 of the combination you need to fully capture the sport.  For most sports I will be using two camera bodies with a fast long prime on one and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom on the other with the 70-200 accounting for the lion's share of the event images. For sports, there often isn't an optimal or even close enough to optimal single lens solution.

If you purchase a lens that is a compromise between two needs that doesn't do either perfectly, then you are stuck longer term with a sub-optimal solution.  Think about buying a really good fast lens like the 70-200 f2.8 that will cover closer/mid range action and then maybe in a couple of years add a fast telephoto (either zoom or prime) perhaps in the form of used to make it fit your budget.

Even with fast glass, sometimes conditions require an increase in ISO beyond what you like.  For sports, I shoot manual exposure generally with the aperture wide open and the shutter speed fixed at a point fast enough to freeze expected action and I let ISO float in auto to complete the exposure triangle.  The photo below came from a very rainy night football playoff game last year where even my 400 f2.8 pushed the 1DX III to ISO 16,000 which is well within its capabilities and even an f4 with resultant ISO 32,000 would have been acceptable but even with post processing image quality does go down as ISO goes up.

Rodger

1DX III EF 400 f2.8 @ 1/1,000, f2.8, ISO 16,000