Best lens for sports photography on EOS R50

[LB13]

I am looking for a versatile lens for sports photography primarily (baseball and Ice hockey) without braking the bank but still a lens with good quality and will last. For the most part I have been focusing and looking at all of the different versions of canons 70-200mm lens. Which is what I believe I will end up with, but have have no clue which one. I am mostly looking and am completely fine with the lens being used if it means I could get more bang for my buck!

All suggestions are welcomed and appreciated! 😀

[deebatman316]

What camera do you have? What is your budget to spend on a lens?

[dhondtm]

You're definitely on the right track with the Canon 70-200mm — it's a classic for sports photography, and there are several versions depending on your budget and needs. First, it would help to know what camera body you're using (DSLR or mirrorless, crop or full-frame), since that can influence lens compatibility and effective focal length. That said, here’s a quick breakdown:

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM – This is a workhorse. Sharp, fast AF, and built like a tank. The IS II version is a great value used, especially now that the III is out.

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM – If you're okay with sacrificing some low-light performance (like in indoor hockey rinks), the f/4 version is much lighter and significantly cheaper.

• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM – If you’re on a Canon mirrorless body (like the R series), this is a compact version, making it light weight easy to pack, but the lens telescopes from 70mm to 200mm (the barrel moves in and out).

• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z – If you’re on a Canon mirrorless body (like the R series), this is the best of the best, though it’s pricey even used. The Canon's vastly improved Z lens series also has the same internal zoom as the EF 70mm-200mm F/2.8L IS II making moving from 70mm to 200mm is a short, fast 'throw' using a single thumb maneuver — with no telescoping.

Additional differences between the two RF versions:

• Aperture: Maximum: f/2.8 - Minimum: f/32 while the Z has Maximum: f/2.8 - Minimum: f/22
• Minimum Focus Distance: 2.3' / 70 cm while the Z is 1.6' / 49 cm
• Aperture/Iris Blades: 9, rounded while the Z has 11
• Filter Size: 77 mm (Front) while the Z is 82 mm (Front)
• Weight: 2.35 lb / 1070 g while the Z is 2.5 lb / 1115 g

[deebatman316]

I would caution the F/2.8 version II IS its out of support as of this month. If something happens to the lens it cannot be fixed by Canon any longer.

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

Rodger is our resident sports photography expert.  He still shoots on 1D series DSLRs, but when it comes to capturing sports and action indoors and out, he's the king.  I'll alert him of this thread.  The EF 70-200 f2.8 Is one of his go-to lenses for sports.  Paired with the R50, the RF version is going to capture great shots under a wide variety of shooting conditions.

[ebiggs1]

"... primarily (baseball and Ice hockey) without braking the bank ..."

That is a tough bill to achieve. Everybody wants that and it is nearly impossible. IMHO, as an old baseball photographer I don't think you will be happy with the limit of 200mm. Especially if it is your only long lens. 200mm isn't all that long for outdoor sports it may do OK for hockey. I don't know as I have never done hockey or even been to a hockey game but I suspect the distances are much less.

Since you had to add that part about not breaking the bank I think the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens is still the best choice. Of course it still can not be your only lens as you will need something like the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens. Sorry if that broke the bank but that is just the way sports photography is. It is an expensive hobby. Think of it this way, you could have and the big do, spend a lot more and I mean a very lot more. Thousands and thousands more.

[ebiggs1]

"What is your budget to spend on a lens?"

No matter what somebody always asks this. The fact is photography is expensive. Bottom line, period, and shut the door. And to top it off sports and birding are probably two of the most expensive types of photography since they require long expensive lenses. However, a question like that is really asking what can you settle for? Sure there are ways to mitigate the costs like buying used but remember it is still an expensive hobby.

[LB13]

I am currently using the EOS R50. I am trying to stay under $1,500 that being said I will most likely have to buy used so that I am able to get a better lens. I am also completely fine with having to use an adaptor if the lens does not fit my camera body. I have borrowed a canon 70-200mm lens for baseball (not sure which model) but I know it is pre 2018, and i'm liking the lens for the most part. I completely understand that photography is an expensive hobby (hoping to make it into a small career), hence why I would be buying used but I would still love to try to keep the price under control. Any and all suggestions are appreciated, thanks!

[March411]

😀@ ebiggs wrote
That is a tough bill to achieve. Everybody wants that and it is nearly impossible.

---

That couldn't be more true. There are always going to be compromises. As Rick noted Rodger is our resident sports photography expert. His feedback is always relevant.

I currently photograph baseball, mostly Jr. league for my teenage grandson. I started with the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM and it produced some decent images but I had to move around quite a bit to grab the shots/angles I was trying to achieve. The workflow was a bit more chalenging because most of the images outside of the in-field needed to be cropped. I ended up purchasing the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and haven't looked back. I don't photograph hockey but at F4.5-7.1 unless the lighting was good you may have to push the ISO. The lens isn't fast but the reach was what I needed to reduce the crop percentage, really improved my workflow and final image IQ.

When you talk about budget and not breaking the bank none of the R series lenses mentioned I would consider cheap. The RF 100-500mm is right in the same ballpark.

• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM - $2,999
• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z - $3,199
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM - $3,099

[wq9nsc]

The first sports lens for pretty much any photographer serious about sports is some version of the 70-200 f2.8  And although higher ISO performance of cameras has improved throughout the years and there are good ways to remove noise in post, the extra cost of f2.8 over f4 is still very much worth it.  That is even more important for cameras like the R-50 with its APS-C sensor that packs the pixels into a smaller sensor meaning less illumination (and more noise) compared to a same generation full frame sensor with the same pixel count.

I shot sports for MANY years using a 70-200 f2.8 without IS and for sports I didn't miss IS.  I currently use the latest (and last) generation of the EF 70-200 f2.8 with IS HOWEVER my original 70-200 f2.8 travels with me to many events and I wouldn't hesitate to use it if needed.  For most sports shots, your shutter speed is so high that IS isn't needed and although IS is nice IF price forces you to choose between a f4 with IS or a vintage f2.8 without IS in the 70-200 range then the f2.8 is the far better choice.

Of course the proper focal length depends upon what you are photographing and your placement and the 70-200 isn't going to be great if you are stuck far from the action.  At sports events I use two full frame bodies and there will ALWAYS be a 70-200 f2.8 on one of them while the other will usually have a 400 f2.8 but with great lighting I will use the very versatile EF 200-400 f4 with built in instantly switchable 1.4X extender and for indoor sports where I need a little extra reach I will use a 300 f2.8 instead of a 400 f2.8 on the second body.

Since the R-50 uses an APS-C format sensor, the equivalent focal length of a 70-200 f2.8 on the R-50 is 112 to 320mm which is a decent range for a lot of sports if you have a good location.  Attached example photos are from high school baseball I photographed using focal lengths from 135 to 800 mm using a full frame camera with an assortment of Canon lenses (EF 70-200 f2.8, 200-400 f4 with 1.4x integrated extender, EF 400 f2.8, and EF 800  f5.6) which will give you a pretty good idea of focal lengths involved, the focal length is the caption of the photo.  The photographs in the 135 to 344 range will give you a good idea of what a 70-200 f2.8 and the R-50 can capture from a good location (field/dugout access).

IF you are further away, then you will need a longer reach lens and that gets very expensive (even used) to get one that has the reach.  Unless you are under optimal lighting conditions (daylight) then anything less than f4 is going to be pretty limiting and with the lower aperture compromise you are also generally giving up focus acquisition speed which is so critical in sports.

Rodger

334mm334mm343mm266mm135mm200mm560mm800mm400mm