@footballmama wrote:
I messed up!
The lens I use mostly is my 55-250 which i use for football and I am mostly right on the sidelines
(I did almost get run over on Thanksgiving!)
I was looking for something sharper that would capture both individual photos and photos of the golfers. I didnt want to be switching lenses during everything too much either.
I wish I could afford the 70-200 but I am limited to things in the $400-$700 range.
Here is an image that I captured using the 55-250mm lens with a Rebel T5i. One is the complete image and the other is zoomed in to 100% of the tool belt region. No special processing. I consider that to be sharp enough for a quality 13x19 print (at least). Can you post images that you feel need to be sharper? You need to be shooting with a shutter speed of 1/500 second or sharper to minimize camera shake at 250mm.
If you are prepared to consider a zoom lens to replace your current 75-300 (which IMHO is one of Canon's worst optics), then I would recommend the EF 70-300mm lens, of which there are several variants. You might want to check out the following article I wrote on them:
70-300 Canon Lenses In-Depth Analysis - Canon Community
Although sports are not my specialty, I have used it in that context and would agree with my colleague (and likely your experience) that a wide focal range, coupled with great optical performance, will give you the best results. For portrait 70mm will work fine, and the superior performance of the the lens throughout its focal range (particularly the L version) will let you shoot wide open for faster shutter speeds and to create a shallow depth of field to isolate your subjects from background clutter. I would recommend the EF 70-300 MkII f/4-5.6 IS USM or the L version - both of which should be within budget second-hand or refurbished. They have excellent optics, good construction and a significantly longer reach compared to your 55-250. Two of the more applicable characteristics are the fast focus and effective image stabilization to improve hand-held performance. Like most Canon EF or EF-S lenses, they are no longer manufactured, but doubtless there are units in good condition on the market.
The big difference here is quality - all versions of the 70-300 are better than the 75-300. I had all three versions of the 70-300 and only recently sold the last of them as I have moved to the RF platform and did so with some reluctance.
Some sample shots of people, taken indoors will hopefully demonstrate the flexibility of the unit = first the MkII version:
And the L version:
It should be noted that the last image (just a casual shot of some fellow photographers) was taken on the rather unforgiving EOS 5DsR, a Full-Frame 52MP camera that shows any flaw in lens or technique and I felt confident in using this lens with it. The second image taken with the L version is heavily cropped to show how much one can do so if necessary. The original was massively downsized to post here but still shows the sharpness of the lens.
Finally, a comment from a professional photographer on the L version which has similar performance characteristics to the MkII unit.
If you can afford the L version, this review by Justin Abbott: these days it should be just within your budget.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Long Term Review (youtube.com)
A benefit of the MkII and L versions is that you can, if you so desire, at some stage update your camera to a Full-Frame or Mirrorless (via the EF-RF adapter) and use it with confidence that it will still render excellent results.
Like others have noted, a zoom lens is much more versatile and would be the most useful for the situations you listed.
I haven't looked at used lens prices lately but maybe check the bigger dealers (which do include some warranty) to see if there is any way that a used EF 70-200 f2.8 would fit your budget. The 70-200 f2.8 accounts for the majority of photos I take across all sports, it is just a great and versatile lens. Although it is now purely in a secondary role to my current version 70-200 2.8, I still have the 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS version I bought with my first 1 series Canon back in 2005 and it still produces the same incredible quality that it did when I bought it and that thing has traveled tens of thousands of miles with me flying, hiking, boating, etc.
In terms of primes, I have several but I very seldom use them for sports. Canon's EF 85 f1.8 is a great lens for low light and I have used it in some poorly lit facilities over the years. In terms of price/performance ratio, I would put the EF 85 f1.8 and EF 400 f5.6 as the two EF lenses that performed well above what they should given the relatively modest cost.
I have used my EF 135 f2 and EF 200 f2 primes in a couple of really badly illuminated sports venues over the years but that has been so rare as to call it insignificant in terms of sports usage. For sports (and most applications), a quality zoom lens is an excellent choice.
For portraits, a Canon (or my preference Sigma) 50mm f1.4 is perfect on the APS C sensor but those lenses will be less useful for general sports use.
So my STRONG encouragement is to see if there is any way you can locate a used 70-200 f2.8that will fit close enough to your price point. It will do a great job for golf and you will love it for football and with the APS C body you are using it has reasonable reach. I shoot football and soccer with a 70-200 f2.8 on one 1DX III body and a 400 f2.8 on the other 1DX III for night events or that body gets a 200-400 f4 for day events. But regardless of what is on the second body, roughly 80-85 percent of game photos come from the body wearing the 70-200 f2.8.
Realistically, I am not sure that given your current lens if there is anything new in your stated price range that is really going to "up your game" for most sports photos.
The 70-200 f2.8 is simply incredible and it works its magic whether you are shooting in an easy setting like well illuminated golf or softball but continues to do amazing stuff when the weather is horrible like this football game I shot in 40 degree pouring rain 🙂
Rodger
