The BEST LENS for Sports Photography

What Lens Do I NEED for Sports Photography? It is the 70-200. It is the best first lens for starting out in sports photography and it has a great range with has many different price points to fit your budget. It is a must have lens for any sports photographer.
0:00 - Intro
0:25 - Why you need a 70-200
1:35 - Sample Images
1:50 - 70-200 with a Crop Sensor
2:39 - How much is a 70-200
3:49 - Image Stabilization vs Non-Image Stabilization
4:30 - F/2.8 vs F/4
5:18 - 70-200 is a Must Have Lens for Sports Photography
Follow along on Instagram @paulrutherford_
Check out my images at www.paulrutherfordphotography.com
As always, leave any questions in the comments!

[@Paul_Rutherford]

It's been love at first sight since getting the 70-200. I don't think the honeymoon phase will ever go away!

[@nbigman11]

mine to! lolol. I just wish I can run around lol.

[@Twobarpsi]

Love my 70-200 2.8 IS III

[@bwhite661]

I just found your channel today and will be binge watching more of your videos. Your content is definitely different than a lot of what I've viewed. Your videos are more taylored toward the beginner or amateur trying to improve their skills. I started shooting sports because of my kids. Now I've started voluntarily shooting our high school sports. My older shots look really bad and my existing ones are just bad - maybe a few that are ok. Fortunately they are all better than what any parents can shoot so everybody loves them. I'm weird in that I grew up on Pentax and am still shooting Pentax. In hindsight I wish I would have converted long ago. Question: So I have a crop sensor with my 70-200/2.8 which is nice because I effectively have a 300mm lens. I'd still love to have more reach for soccer and football. THere's no way I can afford something like a 400/2.8. Wondering if a zoom with a variable 4.5-5.6 would have a shallow enough depth of field. Also not sure if it would let in enough light for night games. The thing I hate about high school field sports is all of the junk that ends up in the background! Great content and look forward to viewing more if it!

[@Paul_Rutherford]

Thanks for watching and commenting! I'd say the variable 4.5-5.6 will make it tough for night games. During the day you'd be ok and the depth of field won't be as nice as a 400/2.8, but I started out using a 400 5.6 and it did the job during the day. I think its better to have the lens get closer than cropping in. If the background is really far away on the fields then the depth of field really won't matter much. Keep shooting and keep improving!

[@bquinn722]

Love the 70-200 f2.8. I’ll also pair a 1.4 teleconverter with mine to give me extra reach when I need it and I am still at f.4

[@Paul_Rutherford]

Teleconverter is another great option to add onto this lens! I havnt used it before so I didn’t want to speak to it, but with the tele it can be great for field sports and then take it off when you head inside.

[@NKolakovic]

Great video! I started with the f/4.0 and it worked for a bit, once I got a couple paid gigs I got the f/2.8

[@Paul_Rutherford]

Thanks for sharing!

[@rblast1]

High school sports bad lighting conditions for night football or basketball games 2.8 a must. You could also look at the Tamron 2.8 70-200 it’s has IS.

[@Paul_Rutherford]

So many third party 70-200's that work well too!

[@angelogarciajr5356]

That is exactly correct. It can fit with most all sports. It should be everyone's first choice getting started. My dream lens I will probably never own is a 400 f 2.8. Next would be the 24-70 f2.8 or now I guess there is a RF version with f2.

[@Paul_Rutherford]

400 f2.8 is amazing and I do use it all the time. I found mine used a few years back. Def a next step up.

[@Twobarpsi]

I love my Canon 70-200 2.8 III !!

[@Paul_Rutherford]

It's a great lens!

[@nbigman11]

I love my 70-200mm 2.8. I love playing with 200-400mm. Unfortunately I cant really run so I tried being in middle of field unless some call happen or TO. hehe

[@Paul_Rutherford]

I've only used the 200-400 once and it worked decently well, but I didn't like the image quality I had from the rental. Must've been my particular lens because I know a lot of ppl that love their 200-400.

[@nbigman11]

@@Paul_Rutherford yeah thats fair. The rentals must abused a lot. lol. Rodney Chen lets me use his owned one at times and he knows I love playing around with it. (also knows how to carry it when I walk around with it). Scott Roeder borrowing the 300mm which is fun to use to twice so far.

[@ChristianHernandez-ls8jr]

You mentioned the crop sensor body for the 1.6x reach. Would you consider the digital 1.6 crop on the full frame R series bodies? I enjoy Sigma’s EF 70-200 2.8 on my R6 and I’ve had the chance to shoot with Sigma’s EF 120-300 2.8 with great results. The problem is that it slashes the resolution of the images to about 8 megapixels from the original 20 on the R6. Take the R5 on the other hand, starting at 45 megapixels, the 1.6 crop images are still 18 megapixels - only 2 MP shy of a 1DX iii. Also, that 120-300 that I mentioned would be a 192-480 🤯 You could get a new R5, a new Sigma EF 120-300 2.8 and an EF to RF converter for two-thirds of the price of a single Canon 400 2.8. Decent resolution, more reach, variable focal length and for much cheaper. I’m sure there’s a drawback somewhere, but I’m not seeing it.

[@Paul_Rutherford]

I've used the digital crop on the R5 a few times. It works well, but sometimes it is better to shoot without the 1.6 crop on and then crop it after the fact. I haven't used the sigma 120-300 to compare the image quality, but I'm sure it would be a great set up!

[@markhoffman1186]

i got a r5 and put a sigma 50-100 f1.8 dc lens it works ok but you can see it in the crop but not bad for super low light action -bull riding sports rodeo. i to am looking at the sigma ef 120-300 f2.8 over the 300 f2.8 used price is not to bad . i use a 90d too so it would work grate with 120-300 and a 72-200 on the r5 is my plan. i am looking at a 105 f1.4 as to for low light action but if it dont work out i got a grate porret lens lol

[@naijafootballphotographer]

I am a Nikon guy and I want to buy the old Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Although it is not Vibration Reduction. Would you still recommend it for sports photography during the day time

[@Paul_Rutherford]

I never have my image stabilization engaged for sports photography, except for maybe a slow shutter shot. So you'll be fine without it. I didn't have it on my first 70-200, but upgraded when I started shooting more indoor events where I do use it.

[@stacyadiaz]

If you shoot against glass or a fence (hockey or baseball) skip any external zoom lens. I love how clear and fast the RF 70-200 is but the external zoom and long zoom travel (ring and lens tube) is annoying.

[@Paul_Rutherford]

Yea, I've never been a fan of those, but I've heard good things about the RF 70-200. Great point about using the extending ones up against fences and glass!

[@austinjackson1649]

What lens are you using on this? 70-200?

[@Paul_Rutherford]

For the video I use a 16-35. But the video is about the 70-200.

[@DAVE_WHITE]

I prefer the nikon 80-200 lol never liked the 70 -200

[@Paul_Rutherford]

Interesting. Sharper images with the 80-200?

[@DAVE_WHITE]

@@Paul_Rutherford cheaper and no VR which is not needed for sports. :)

[@DAVE_WHITE]

@@Paul_Rutherford plus in the nikon world where the 80-200 resides there is no focus breathing crap like the old Vii nikon 70-200 had most were wanting their ver 1 70-200 back as soon as the new v1 were released :) ( these were the f mounts not the new Z mounts)

[@Paul_Rutherford]

It's all about the gear that works for your needs. I've got a couple lenses that are the cheaper and used versions and they work perfect for me!