Camera & Lens for Sports Photography

[rballdiva]

Hi All -- I'm looking into buying a camera and lens for outdoor sports photography, in particular outdoor racquet sports, so I'm not shooting a big a far distance like a football field, but rather a court. Think padel, pickleball racquetball. I'm currently leaning towards: EOS R6 Mark III with RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM which is probably at the top at my budget, but just curious if anyone thinks something else would be a better option, while staying within the budget.

[TomRamsey]

Sounds like you have done your research, that's a really good combination for sports, but I think you may need a little shorter lens since you should be pretty close to the action.  The RF 24-105 F4 may be a better option.  I have not shot court spots so I went on Flickr and looked up pickleball, most of what I saw was under 50mm, but I didn't think they were great pictures, many did not have EXIF so I don't know what they were shooting.  You might want to do a little exploring of photos to check focal lengths, and maybe you already have.  I have used a 70-200 (but on APS-C and it was good for soccer and basketball, for basketball it was too much, I shot mostly at 70, that would get me across the court for full action shots.  For full facial closeups 200 probably would have worked.  I guess if you do go for the 70-200, you may want an additional wider lens.

[wq9nsc]

The 70-200mm range should serve you well on a full frame camera body for small court sports.

This series of four shots was captured with a EF 70-200 f2.8 on a 1DX III (also a full frame body) during the last HS playoff game I shot last season.  The frames were shot from 88 to 102mm and I was just on the back line of the endzone when I captured them.  Earlier in the season I shot a catch with the lens at 70mm while backing up to avoid the tackler crossing the sidelines at the end of the play.

70mm would be a little tight on an APS-C sensor for some situations but it should be fine for any close action with the R-6.  The great majority of the time you will find yourself near the 200mm end of the zoom range.  For large field sports like football and soccer, one body will either have a 400 f2.8 prime or a 200-400 f4 with built in 1.4X while the other will have the 70-200.  For most sports, the 70-200mm focal length is a perfect range.  I need the f2.8 version because I shoot so many games at night on poorly illuminated fields but with decent lighting the f4 is fine and the greater depth of field makes choosing the perfect focus point less critical with the f4 aperture.

Rodger

[SignifDigits]

R6 MK III is an excellent choice.  AF is superb.  I would suggest that you first try the very excellent and inexpensive Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM lens.  It's a great lens.  Unless you're shooting in very low light you probably don't need a f/2.8 and can likely be satisfied with the ISOs and image quality that you'd get on that lens.  It also is a bit less obtrusive in public and very lightweight.  

It's now offered as a kit lens on the R6 MkIII - https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-r6-mark-iii-rf24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm-lens-kit  for only $250 over the price of the MkIII and $900 under the RF 24-105mm f/4.  As a $250 lens addition it's a gem.  I personally sold my 24-105mm f/4 L lens - no regrets for me.  If you change your mind you can always pick up an RF 24-105mm f/4 on the used market - they are plentiful.

I own the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z and have the 15-35mm f/2.8 L, and want the advantage of f/2.8 at those ranges, but for me the 24-105mm range is covered with the non-L STM lens.  I recently used it at a family memorial and loved how I could shoot it discretely on my R6 MkII.  Family members raved about the results.  Even indoors the ISOs were manageable and there was little in the way of cropping.