Sports photographer needs help deciding on a lens for EOS R

[Lkcphotos31]

I am a sports photographer who currently shoots on a Eos R and an ef to rf adapter that connects to my ef 70-200 f/ 2.8 L IS USM, the first generation of 70-200. My current lens has a foggy not sharp look to it during low light so I am looking for a different lens, I cannot send it in for repair because it is too old and they don't service them anymore. I cannot decide between the rf 70-200 and the ef 70-200. If anyone has any advice let me know! I am also looking at a 24-105 f/4 for the upcoming basketball season so if anyone has strong feelings about this lens please share. 

[March411]

The shot with that RF is tack sharp and the colors vibrant. Are the shutter speed, ISO and aperture exactly the same for both images?

[March411]

The shot with that RF is tack sharp and the colors vibrant. Are the shutter speed, ISO and aperture exactly the same for both images?

[Lkcphotos31]

Exactly the same settings. 

[March411]

Well that's a problem, now I'm leaning towards your thought, you have a problem with your lens. I should have asked earlier, maybe a did and missed it. Are you using a Canon adapter with your EF lens?

And by the way, thanks for coming back and following up!

[March411]

---

@Lkcphotos31 wrote:

Same location lower angle with the 100-400 instead of 70-200

---

I am not attempting to challenge your observations and I'm just sharing what I believe see, I could be wrong and hopefully others will join the conversation.

The two images are not from the same location, one is from the 40 yard line and the other appears to be a punt or kickoff with the player in the end zone.

The stadium lighting is significantly different in these two areas. If you take a close look at the picture that is hazy, the haze is the strongest in the upper right and then fades to almost no haze mid-frame. Somewhat in line with the stadium lighting. The image in the end zone is also is fairly noisy which contributes to the haze. 

The easiest and best way to resolve this is to head to the field with a friend (used as a model) when the lights are on and do some controlled test shots with the 70-200. For the examples you have posted it's fairly consistent, one image is end zone with heavy/strong stadium lighting, the other is mid-field with subtle lighting. The composition and camera angle are also different in each.

[Lkcphotos31]

Thank you for your input I appreciate it but one is on the flag distance and one is regular football distance they are different. So its hard to see but they are in relatively the same position. I am going to be renting a newer 70-200 this week and run some tests thanks for your help. 

[March411]

Renting is a good play, it gives you the opportunity to use a new piece of glass and may help identify where the challenges are cropping up.

Are you going to go EF or R?

Let us know how it works out after you do the rental if you have time. It will be interesting to hear what you find.....

Good luck and enjoy!

[Lkcphotos31]

I am renting an RF heres another photo in good light let me know if you think its sharp, I honestly can't tell. https://photos.app.goo.gl/wKQPyuH9LMwhURnL7 

[March411]

If it's the RF 70-200 2.8 I think you will be a big fan!

I'll start with, if ever you are in Chicago let me know so you can stop by and punch me. Hopefully you get the joke but when I review someone it's a little awkward. Hence you get the punch.

The image is pretty good, a little soft and the focus point looks to be on the jersey, the panthers text and the number look sharper then the eyes, that looks like your focus point. Also, you are a little over overexposed. What type of metering do you normally use? 

Your stuff looks good, I think you are on a good path and have to tweak a couple things. I've been photographing both commercially and as a hobby for a long time, I still need to review and tweak. Sports photographers, professionals shoot a ton of frames to get their keepers so keep that in mind.  How long have you had the passion for sports photography?

I also asked wq9nsc (Rodger) to circle back as he is a very good sports photographer that can add value.

I downloaded the image and tweaked it a bit in PS, just knocked the exposure down .55, just to compare.

[ebiggs1]

Lkcphotos31 there is a simple way to resolve this instead of going back and forth with guesses. Reset the camera to default. Select P mode. Set the ISO to 200. Set the lens to AF and One Shot not Ai-servo or any other Ai assisted focus modes. Daylight WB. Now go outside on a nice sunny day and do several dozen random shots. If the photos are sharp and clear there is nothing wrong with your gear.

Lkcphotos31 all photography gear has its limit and perhaps you have reached one with your shooting situation. Do the test first, it may save you a good deal of money.

[wq9nsc]

As Marc noted, this is due to lighting.  Unfortunately with sports we don't generally get to choose locations/poses and sometimes the lighting just sucks.  On a football field, when you have strong downward angled lighting behind the player and a fair but lesser amount of front or side illumination, you get the effect you see in your foggy photo.  Here are a couple of examples with the EF 24-70 f2.8 lens post game, both the same night, same field, post-game celebration but very different lighting where the players are strongly back illuminated and the second where the players are closer to the endzone and not directly backlit. 

I have captured similar game photos with my EF 70-200 f2.8 IS III and no lens is going to make a difference, my favorite EF 400 f2.8 IS II will do the same under those conditions.  You can improve things in post but nothing will totally get away from the issue, basically when lighting conditions really suck then that is going to have a major impact on the final image.  I know for the fields I shoot where the problems occur and I try to avoid the problem angles at those positions but it isn't always possible.

Both photos with 1DX II and EF 24-70 f2.8 with very different results, the difference is in the lighting intensity and location.  The washed out photo has already been heavily corrected for contrast in post, the original file is worse than your "bad lens" example.

Rodger