SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHY: BEST FIRST LENS PURCHASE

Let's debate which should be the very first professional lens you purchase as an up and coming sports photographer: the 70-200mm f/2.8? Or the 100-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6.
No matter what manufacturer you - Canon, Nikon, Sony, other - they all make variants of these lenses, so let's explore what's more important in sports photography: range or maximum aperture.
ABOUT ME:
I currently work as the director of photography and content of a national newspaper. You've likely seen my work in many publications including but not limited to the New York Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated.
🛒 Products I use or refer to in my videos:
-Pelican 1535 Rolling Case: amzn.to/3roy6Pu
-ThinkTank International Bag: amzn.to/3rjFFXB
-ThinkTank Memory Card Wallet: amzn.to/3jgKTk9
-ThinkTank 70-200 Rain Cover: amzn.to/3cG8HfM
-ThinkTank Long Lens Rain Cover: amzn.to/3pQaaEc
-PocketWizard Tranceiver Set: amzn.to/3tq9Ii5
-Magic Arm Kit: amzn.to/39QUr2d
***DISLCIAMER: The links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission when you make a qualifying purchase using those links. You are under no obligation to buy or use these links, but doing so helps support this channel and the content on the show!
#jerrytlai #sportsphotography
SUBSCRIBE!: kzbin.info/door/CvBVhQLXsrY18zuLbpK6ug

[@eddiegarcia3387]

Jerry Lai, your videos are super helpful because you present them in simple terms . I just happens to come across your videos and love them and will continue to learn from them .

[@JerryTLai]

Glad you found these videos and the channel! Hope I can keep teaching! :-)

[@thenexthobby]

I’ve started with an EF200mm f/2.8 II … I knew I’d often be at the long end of any 70-200, and this one weighs less, costs less, and is capable of fantastic performance. First use, indoor tennis. Available angles were miserable and I don’t have a sports camera (6D.) But the biggest issue was horrible light. At f/2.8 and about 1/640 or 1/800 I was up at 5000-10000 ISO, although that’s not a disaster for the 6D. I’d like to try the 100-400 IS for outdoor however. Maybe next year.

[@_SYDNA_]

Yep. 70-200 was the first pro-grade piece of equip. in my quest to shoot gym sports well. It was first living on a Canon 60D crop sensor. Then a 5d (with a 1.4x when needed). Now an R3. Really glad I got the best available when I went for it: f2.8L usm III. It looks like it's going to be with me for a long. As clunky-looking as that thing is, it's amazing how many things you can use it for. Thinking about a good lens for football. Do you think a 100-400 is long enough? Their new 200-800 is a little hinky at f9.0 but it's affordable and sharp.

[@colinweir5807]

Thank you for the video. As a canon shooter, I purchased the canon 100 - 400 F4.5-5.6 for motor sports esp drag racing. As you say works well in daylight but eventually bought the canon 70-200 F2.8 for when the sun goes down and the real fun starts.

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Colin! Yes the 100-400 is a very common lens at motor sports tracks (NASCAR is what I've typically photographed but I would imagine it works great for drag racing). Thanks for watching!

[@Auhana50]

I’m a Fujifilm shooter which they have a 200mm 2.8 prime however the price tag is $6000.00 😮 so I bought a fringer pro adapter and the canon worked well unbelievable sharp and much affordable. Your videos a so helpful Mahalo for your work Aloha 🙏

[@acardena13]

Great info. The other thing about the 100-400mm lens is that it's heavy. I use mine to shoot outdoor 4x4 races and constantly have to move around and even using a harness, it gets pretty heavy towards the end of the day. I was really looking at the 70-200mm lens last year but what swayed me is that I already have and use an 18-135mm Canon lens, which is great for when I'm on the track (which is really close to the action) or at the start/finish line getting photos of the drivers coming in or out of their cars.

[@JerryTLai]

The 70-200 f/2.8 gets heavy after a long time handheld too. If lighting is not an issue, the f/4 version is half the weight. That said, sounds like you have a solution that works well for your situation with the 18-135. Thanks for watching!

[@garyn7067]

Really wanted the 70-200/2.8, but as an injured senior citizen, the weight was simply too much for me. I had to drop down to the 70-200/4, at HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. But at one high school field, I ran right into the aperture issue. That field was 1 to 1-1/2 stop dimmer than my home field, and the f/4 was really too slow for that field. I think I was up at ISO 20,000. That field really needed the f/2.8 lens. The old saying is still true today, "in LOW light, FAST glass wins."

[@MrGuamani]

Yes the 70-200 2.8 was my first sports lens now debating my second lens between the 24-70 or the 100-400. The 24-70 is winning at the moment since I am doing indoors for now.

[@JerryTLai]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is a great all-around lens. For sports, it's fine if you are able to sit close to the action (like for basketball under the hoop). It's also an amazing vacation or travel lens!

[@forsterl.stewart414]

Another great vlog. Most you tubers make silly comments and suggestions. Of those I've seen of yours are spot on. Plus the good news you can pick up used lenses at a bargain price. Pick up name brand, third party lenses just don't last as long.

[@JerryTLai]

The only lens that I had ever bought new was a 70-200 f/2.8. All others I bought used. But you are right... stick to name brand and stick to the higher grade ones. The rest don’t seem to hold up over time, especially with the beating they take during travel or in sports.

[@DemetriusPayton]

Thanks for the advice. Will the 70-200 work well with Canon 5D Mark IV?

[@grahamshellswell4513]

Oddly, my first sports lens was the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. Ok, probably not a pro lens. But on a crop sensor body like the 500, it’s got a lot of range and gets the job done nicely for the price. Looking into the 70-200 f2.8 not though. I guess at some stage I should get one huh 🤔 Thanks for the great content. It’s really helpful to hear from and get good advice from a professional.

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Graham! Thanks for watching. Yes the 200-500 is a great range for sports and wildlife. But yes a 70-200 would round out your reach!

[@AndyMillerPhotoUK]

Yes and the a 300/2.8. Now since big cats in Africa are my target and my action shots tend to be before sun rise or after sun set I carry 600/4, 400/2.8 and the latest variant of the 70-200 each on their own body.

[@JerryTLai]

The 300 2.8 is a good option as a first pro lens, especially if you know you don't need anything close in. Of course, it is also generally a lot more expensive than the 70-200 these days. Anyways, thanks for your comments and thanks for watching!

[@jipsee70]

Great video, thank you for all the information! A while back I got a used 70-200 f/4 & wow is it great, but wishing I'd have held out for the 2.8, which it looks like I'm going to get now anyway, but researching the better investment, 70-200 2.8 vs 100-400. I think your video convinced me to go with the 2.8. Now if only I could break into sports photography, I'd be all set! Do you have a video on that?? :D

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Jipsee! Thanks for watching! While you can't go wrong with both, the 70-200 f/2.8 is probably the more versatile of the two. That video (breaking into sports photography) has been one of the top requests and is something I plan on addressing soon! Thanks again for watching and the support!

[@jipsee70]

Thanks @@JerryTLai, I look forward to seeing it!!

[@ahmikjones]

Thanks for this. I am going through your videos in order. So far, I haven’t made any big mistakes with my purchases. I shoot almost exclusively on the non image stabilized 70-200 F2.8 that I got used. I shoot my kids in gymnastics, swimming and water polo.

[@JerryTLai]

Hey Ahmik, thanks for watching and for your support. There is plenty more to come!

[@alessandroweston4868]

I guess Im asking the wrong place but does someone know of a method to get back into an instagram account..? I stupidly forgot the password. I love any tricks you can give me

[@jaxxgus6025]

@Alessandro Weston Instablaster =)

[@alessandroweston4868]

@Jaxx Gus Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site through google and I'm in the hacking process atm. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

[@alessandroweston4868]

@Jaxx Gus it did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D Thank you so much, you really help me out!

[@KeithLibbyBirmingham]

This is outstanding. Keep up the great videos.

[@JerryTLai]

Keith! Thanks man been a long time! This has been a fun project for me to give a little back - and to learn some video. Feel free to spread the word, I'm just finally starting to do that too. Hope to see you around again soon!

[@Richardlfc]

Just stumbled across this video and your channel after doing some researching on sports photography lenses. I'm a recent newbie to photography - and am volunteering at my local sports team (football, or soccer in the US!). Currently using a Canon 800D/Rebel T7i with a Canon 55-250mm f/4.5-f/5.6 but am pondering what lens to level up to next. I think from your advice and my research, can't go wrong with a 70-200mm f/2.8, although my only concern would be does the lens have enough focal length to cover football/soccer. Anyway, thanks so much for the video and I'm definitely going to check out the others you have released so far. Subscribed with thanks from the UK. :)

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Rich, thanks for watching and for the support! You can shoot football with a 70-200, but you will be limited in reach to probably around the goal box. So a little patience - letting the action come to you - would be required if you are shooting with a 70-200. That said, the 100-400 is a great lens... one you can't go wrong with... but if you shoot mostly night matches it's probably not your best option due to the very high ISOs that you would require. Let me know what you choose!

[@LeoDepiandri007]

Your information is very helpful. Thank you from Indonesia

[@JerryTLai]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Fatboy53]

Thanks great knowledge share

[@JerryTLai]

My pleasure, thanks for watching!

[@RohanGillett]

I did my first pro-cricket shoot last weekend, and there is only one choice for Fujifilm shooters, the 100-400. Unless you have third-party lenses, nothing is going to have the reach. There is the 70-300 mm now, but I think it falls a little short, even with the teleconverter. Yes, wide-angle lenses have their place in cricket, but the workhorse lenses will be the biggest ones you can get.

[@JerryTLai]

Cricket is one sport I haven't photographed before. Unfortunately it's just not very common here in the USA, but yes it does seem like you need extremely long lenses for it - probably similar to how large baseball fields are here.

[@lour7753]

I’ve got the 70-200E, 200-500, and 28-300, but I use the 70-200 the most.

[@JerryTLai]

The 70-200 is a workhorse for sure!

[@endowpictures22]

Planning to get 70-200mm for wedding photography...I think I will like it

[@JerryTLai]

Yes it's a great lens for weddings too! I shot probably 20 weddings early in my career, and the 70-200 was my primary lens at those events.

[@endowpictures22]

@@JerryTLai wow

[@kcraw2002]

Just went thru this selection process and got the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 with a Canon R6, and already stoked with what I can do capturing my daughter's mostly outdoor daylight soccer matches. So stoked I'm now wondering if a little moonlighting as a semi-pro sports photag could work... who knows?

[@JerryTLai]

That's a great combo!

[@naijafootballphotographer]

Thank you sir for your great work. I want to know, the fire started at the back of the goal post at what point at thee football pitch can I shoot a players' full body shot without having to crop in the football player.

[@JerryTLai]

A good rule of thumb for focal length vs how far you can position yourself is approximately 10 yards for every 100mm. So with a 200-500mm you have a range between 20-50 yards.

[@paulbechea1067]

I want to say that PRO lenses from Olympus are very good, but they can only be used on a crop sensor, this means that for sports in low light with shooter speed at least 1500, iso 1600 or more with 40-150 f2.8 lens, there is a lot of noise in the photo, I'm not saying you have to crop this image. This is also the reason why now I want to buy the Lumix S1R Camera with Panasonic 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 50 f1.4 lenses. Now I use the Lumix G9 camera with Olympus PRO 24-40 f2.8, 45 f1.2, and 40-150 f2.8 lenses.

[@JerryTLai]

Yes the PRO Olympus lenses are very nice. I don't question their optics or build quality. As an EM1 Mark II owner, I really enjoy the camera for what it can do, but my big fear of investing further into the system is I wonder about its longevity vs the Big Three. I don't know much about the Panasonic Lumix cameras, but I would imagine you may have the same apprehension I have in how long they'll hang around too. Hmmm, might be an interesting video topic now that I think about it :-)

[@kerrybelser]

Thank you

[@yusufanwar6656]

Thanks for the video. i am a new in photography, just started 5 month ago. And i interested in sports photography. In my area, badminton, football, futsal, skateboard and volley in small venue are the most common sports. With my nikon crop camera, is it better to buy 70-200mm or 24-70 to replace my only kit lens 18-55mm

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Yusuf, thank you for watching. I think even with a crop camera, even the 70-200 is more versatile. You will appreciate the reach when people are further away from you whereas with the 24-70 you are almost always going to have to be on top of the action.

[@coreycarter9752]

Great vids - thank you! For indoor sports where light goes to die, I can get close, what are thoughts on a 24-70 2.8? Thanks in advance!

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Corey, thanks for watching. The 24-70 2.8 is a fine lens, but when it comes to sports I think you will still find more utility in a 70-200. Because with a 24-70, the action still has to be basically on top of you for you to not have to crop in aggressively, whereas the range of the 70-200 will give you a lot more flexibility.

[@jaydropsvapereviewvlogbisa1261]

I'm sad 😥 sir jerry lai I used canon kiss x2 My lens is ef-s 55-250mm

[@peterp7736]

Hey Jerry! Thanks alot for your helpful videos! What cameras would you recommend for beginners and also for professionals?

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Peter, that's not an easy question to answer without a budget. That said, if you're looking to photograph primarily sports, I'd avoid getting an "entry level" DSLR. While all the manufacturers will market them as good for sports, you'll rapidly grow out of them. Depending on your budget, if you cannot get a new or current generation "pro" camera, consider a model one or two generations older as they would be the same price as an "entry" level camera. For example, the Canon 1Dx or a Nikon D4 can be had for around $1000 USD and both are still modern and robust cameras that will perform well for sports action.

[@peterp7736]

​@@JerryTLai Thank you for your answer. My budget for the body is $1000-2000 USD. So DSLR is still the way to go? I thought about the Canon 90D or 7D Mark ii but what you think about the aps-c sensor? If mirrorless FF maybe the Sony a7iii or Nikon Z6ii?

[@MrKuschelTieger]

Thanks

[@cjphotography77]

Hey Jerry. Do it make sense to use 70-200 2.8 to my EOS Rebel t8i? Thanks.

[@maryc.6168]

Thank you for your information .. I owned a Tamron 70-200 for my canon 70D Unfortunately the camera with the lens attached fell and shattered.. :-( I replaced my 70D with the 90D so I can still use my other nice lenses for that camera. ...when I look through the viewfinder, There's a small exclamation point in the lower right-hand corner in my 90D... do you know what that is ?

[@JerryTLai]

I've not experienced the explanation point in the viewfinder, but I did find this via Google: The “exclamation point” icon is a warning that you've set one of four possible things: 1. monochrome mode - you are losing all colors and will not be able to restore them, unless you are shooting Raw 2. manual WB correction - you may not get the color fidelity you are expecting 3. ISO expansion mode - you may have high-ISO noise in your image 4. "spot" metering - youmay not get the metering for your overall image

[@rebeccacablish6635]

I was curious what adapter you use for your Olympus M. Zuiko 40-150 f/2.8 on a Canon body. What specific sports would you use the this lens for? Thanks for your informative video. As a parent of high school athletes, I need an indoor and outdoor lens. Thanks so much!

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Rebecca! Thanks for watching. I don't use my Olympus 40-150 on my Canon bodies. If there is an adapter, I have not used it. I use an Olympus EM1 mark II with my Olympus lenses. It's a generation, maybe two older than current but it still works great.

[@rebeccacablish6635]

@@JerryTLai Ah-ha! That was the missing piece for me. You use it on your Olympus camera...got it! Thanks for the clarification.

[@MrApomen]

Hi Jerry. What would be best option . 70 180 lens with 40 Mp body or 70 200 and 24 Mp body. THANKS

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Guillermo, thanks for watching. I think when given the choice to purchase a lens or purchase a camera body, I go with the lens. Camera bodies are replaced every few years, whereas lenses last a very long time and depreciate very slowly. You'll find a 70-200 will last you at least 10-15 years, maybe more if well cared for and maintained (the 70-200 was the first piece of pro glass I bought and I had it for 15 years before I got the newer version of it).

[@fasttracksportsphotography6311]

70-200 90% of the time. Although for indoor like volleyball and basketball It's relegated to my 2nd choice. It's hard to justify the $12000 price tag of a 400m f.28 lens. If I need one I rent it.

[@gabrielreyes7508]

hello i am doing basketball photography indoors have been trying to do research for the longest time on whether to get the 70-200 f2.8 1 or the 2 the one is cheaper but i do not know if i should take the xtra time to save for the 2 please tell me what you would do

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Gabriel, thank you for watching. The newer versions are better - they are lighter and sharper. But truth be told, the version 1's are still very good. The problem with the version 1 however is if it breaks, I am not sure Canon will still service them.

[@martindenyer4907]

I have a Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkII IS. My question: Is there ever a time when it is an advantage to turn the image stabilizer off when shooting sport? I can't work out why anyone would turn it off, but there must be a reason or the off button wouldn't exist.

[@JerryTLai]

Hi Martin, thanks for watching. Actually, with the high shutter speeds required for sports, you should have it off. It will drain your camera body's battery faster because it's always engaging and driving the IS when not necessary, as well as potentially slow down your AF. IS is only useful if you have to hand-hold at lower shutter speeds, like around 1/250, 1/200 or lower, or if you are trying to use the "panning" technique.

[@martindenyer4907]

@@JerryTLai Thank you, that's very helpful.

[@sale83]

70-200 2.8 here.

[@mimonbarakagamingvevohd1317]

just ordered a EF 70-200 f2.8 III USM :D for 2k€ which is like 2.4k USD. cant wait to shoot Kreisliga :D

[@JerryTLai]

You're going to love that lens! Great choice!

[@mimonbarakagamingvevohd1317]

@@JerryTLai update: it arrived! but due to hard covid restrictions in germany no spectators are allowed in the stadiums. and the low league football (soccer as u americans call it^^) has off season. so i took some action photos of our neighbours dog and the AF is fast as f*** and the bokeh is as nice as it could be :D looking forward into a less covidiy 2022^^

[@marioserrano3868]

Hello, my son plays soccer receational i just want to take photos of him and his teammates playing , im not thinking of doing this as a profession… thanks for your videos

[@JerryTLai]

And that's perfectly fine! Not everybody needs to be (or wants to be) a pro and do this for a living. Take amazing photos of your son! Those years will fly right by!

[@marioserrano3868]

@@JerryTLai sorry i didn’t explain my self haha, what lense do you recommend for just recreational im not looking for something professional, thanks

[@photographedbyther3878]

My first big lens was the 200 f2.8 back in 93 i still have it, i also got the 70-200 f2.8 ,my goal one day is the 400 f2.8 its hard tho i only freelance

[@JerryTLai]

My first "pro" lens not surprisingly was the 70-200. Bought it in the early 2000s. I did eventually work my way up to a used 300, then sold it for a used 400 by the late 2000s. If you don't get the newest versions, you can often get a reasonable deal. At the time I had bought the Canon 400 non-IS mark II (but at that time, I believe there was a IS version and eventually a IS mark II that was far more expensive).

[@photographedbyther3878]

@@JerryTLai thank you for your reply, how can i send you some of my action shots. Thank you

[@JerryTLai]

If you go to the about me page on my channel, you can find me email address and I’d be happy to review some pics.

[@davidstraub9373]

Good job dude !

[@JerryTLai]

Thank you David! I appreciate the kind comment and hope you find these videos helpful. Thanks for watching!

[@davidstraub9373]

@@JerryTLai I appreciate your tone and the content as well as how.you treat it. No need to be a 1million KZbinr to be relevant. Makes me want to take the leap and finally express myself on the platform

[@JerryTLai]

My sentiments exactly. I actually have been meaning to do a video series for many years now... back since at least 2015 and never got around to it (so many different excuses!). Then every year that passed by, it was like, ok it's too late to begin - but of course that's just another excuse. Giving back to the photo community that gave so much to me when I was a beginner was motivation enough to finally get going though, and I'm glad I did. More to come! Thanks again!

[@naijafootballphotographer]

I going for Nikon 200-500mm

[@JerryTLai]

That's actually a good option as well, that I thought of including in this video, but the Sony and Canon equivalents have different zoom ranges (Sony is 200-600 and Canon is 100-500)

[@bjornjohansson8731]

70-200 4,0

[@kaziyaz]

Yes 70-200mm, thx!

[@JerryTLai]

Lenses come and go - are bought and sold - but the 70-200 2.8 is forever. Thanks for watching Martin!

[@upinthemix2.083]

places where light goes to die. lol

[@randomnetizen7980]

was alittle painful to watch because he wasn't looking at the camera and it felt very awkward

[@JerryTLai]

Sorry! This was one of my early videos and I definitely wasn't as polished with the delivery. The more recent videos in the past 6 months are much improved, and don't have background sound. Hope you stick around, as there's lot of good info in these videos. Thanks for watching anyways!

[@randomnetizen7980]

@@JerryTLai ah, sorry didnt realise this video was old, but it did help me make a decision and I recently bought a 70-200 for myself