Zooming for action sports

[pisapa]

I just bought a Rebel T6s with 18-135 lens and was wondering if I should buy a lens with a better zoom for taking pictures of my boys playing hockey. I am a newbie when it comes to higher end cameras so please excuse my questions.

Thanks in advance

[ebiggs1]

"... I should buy a lens with a better zoom for taking pictures of my boys playing hockey."

The short answer is, yes.  The lens you want is a 70-200mm f2.8.  There are several reasons this is the lens of choice.  One is it is a f2.8 and two is, it is a constant f2.8.  The 70-200mil is a far better lens IQ wise than any of the lenses mentioned above.

A hockey arena is a lousy place to shoot from. Lights are bad and there is a glass barrier between you and the players.

Which brings us to the most important thing.  What is that?  It is where you shoot from.  Position, position, position!  Are you locked into a certain fixed seat?

In the 70-200 zoom market you have three choices.  One from SIgma and Tamron each.  They both are very good lenses and have a more friendly price tag.  And of course the best in class Canon 70-200mm f2.8L.  It comes at a premium price but rest assured, there is no better.

Last thought is you don't want any prime lens.  That is any lens that doesn't zoom.  They would be nearly impossible to use.

Wait a minute, one more last thought!  You need to get a good post editor.  Post editing your shots will make a the biggest difference than almost anything else you can do.  Photoshop Elements is a good one for instance.

[ScottyP]

I listed primes because while I agree it is a great lens, the Canon 70-200 is a $1,900.00 to $2,200.00 lens.  

The fixed focal lengths are much more affordable, in case the OP is not earmarking that much money for this.  

I know fixed length lenses may not be as flexible as a zoom, but I know the pro photogs use fixed long lenses (500-600mm) at football games and get good results. True they may be using 2 cameras at the same time, and one of them will be shorter than the long lens.  

I would say the Canon 70-200  2.8 IS mk 2 is worth the money, if you are willing to spend that much on your camera gear.  If not, as a budget-friendly alternative that will give sharp images with fast shutter speeds, the fixed length lenses liike the ones listed above will give good service. 

[ebiggs1]

ScottyP,

I can't argue the price difference between the ef 85mm and any of the offerings in the 70-200mil range.  But what is the photo worth to you.  If the OP is in a fixed seat, like most of us would be, a prime of any focal length is going to be a handicap.

A ef 85 f1.8 is around $400, I think, and a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is around $1500.  Is it worth the extra $1100 bucks?  To me without hesitation, a resounding, yes.  Still too steep, check the used market but the zoom is going to be the choice.

The 'pros' use a 500mm or 600mm prime mainly because there aren't high quality zooms in that focal length.

"True they may be using 2 cameras at the same time..."  More like three or four!

I have come to realize you love primes.  So do I; I have several but I still choose the best lens for the job.   In this case it is a 70-200mil zoom.  When I can control the focal length necessary, I use a prime.

The ef-s zooms are too slow to be a good choice.

[jrhoffman75]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is an outstanding lens. I disagree with the advice that an admitted newbie should be attaching that lens to a Rebel. Hand holding is not easy with that lens and by the time you pick a high enough shutter speed to compensate for that the stop and a half advantage in light gathering disappears.

For someone just learning techniques a little digital noise is the last thing to worry about.

[ebiggs1]

"... an admitted newbie should be attaching that lens to a Rebel"

We were all a 'newbie' at one time or another.  He's no different and has to start somewhere, just like we did.

It is silly to think a 70-200mil on a Rebel is an impossible package to handle. I guarantee people all over the world do it all the time with great success.