The BEST LENSES you should BUY FIRST for Sports Photography

[@Paul_Kretz]

Hey, Rob! How important is 70mm you consider in sports like football and other outdoor ones? Do you tend to use more of the longer end than shorter one? I'm asking because I preferred to buy *EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM II* instead of 70-200. It is absolutely perfect optically, sharp from corner to corner even wide open, lightning fast AF (especially with focusing distance limiter), while being way cheaper, lighter and smaller than fast zooms. Its only shortcoming is the lack of zoom and IS (would really make difference at such range, but could be compensated by IBIS in modern bodies). I realize it is possible, but is it adequate to shoot sports with just 200mm prime?

[@martinbyrne6643]

The 400 28 is the daddy of them all, you can walk into any situation nobody will dare ask you where you are going , it’s as sharp as a bag of razor blades and as heavy as an elephant 🥸

[@pascalkesselmark7529]

You‘re are absolutely right. It really depends on the sports you want to shoot and the location. This year with getting the 16-35mm f/2.8 I finally got the f/2.8 „holly trinity“ together with the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. I even use the 16-35mm for basketball and it‘s always in my bag, if there is space left. Also as a remote camera behind the goal it’s great. So my 24-70 gets used much less because of that wider lens. I either want to get really close to my subjects or want to have a wide angle view. But I must admit, I shot basketball only a few times. You’re the pro there… Having a 400mm f/2.8 is I think the ultimate goal for most sports photographer. But maybe financially not to be done in one step. I’m currently using, as you did, a 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x extender (almost equal to your crop sensor 7DM2). So I have outdoors a 420mm f/4 lens and indoors a 300mm f/2.8 lens. Or when it gets darker, I can remove the extender and still have an ok reach on the football field. Even I really want to make the upgrade to the 400mm, I’m quite happy with the 300mm which is much cheaper to get. I‘m not even sure if I will trade it in for an 400mm.

[@ThatGingerPhotographer]

Oh man I love the 16-35, my new favourite lens! I use it on nearly every job I have now!

[@RobSambles]

The 16-35 is lovely. I didn't get into wide angle options on this one. It definitely takes a while to build up to that 400mm. Often it's not as urgent as people think

[@angelogarciajr5356]

70-200 f 2.8 I agree. A little small for football but great all around lens for most sports.

[@angelogarciajr5356]

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is now discontinued. So is the Canon 300 f2.8.

[@PramodBarwar]

My question is I have KZbin channel for live streaming Kabaddi tournament I have been using my mobile until 10k subscribers but now I would like to buy camera for live streaming with minimum gear

[@fish7798]

nice and clear

[@kayparrott6664]

I shoot 99% sports and my Canon 70-200 f2.8 never comes off my camera. I recently cracked the ii so now own the iii. Love this lens!

[@thenexthobby]

I’m situations where you’d be at the long end of a 70-200, you could instead use the EF200mm 2.8; either I or II version. About the same size and weight as the 70-200 f/4 :)

[@michelleclutterbuck7327]

I have a tamron f3.5-6.3 lens on a canon body, I can’t get the aperture below 6.3 for sports photography any idea why

[@kingweddingmedia]

I found the focus breathing fairly distracting in this video particularly early on - not something I’ve noticed in your other videos, was this one done with a different lens? Maybe go for manual focus for the next one?

[@V1PERB3ATZ]

Good video but even the very first lens is not very budget and beginner friendly 😂 I understand photography is expensive but I just can’t seem to find a video that states the best or some of the best lenses up to let’s say 500£ for most sports mainly football or good light sports.

[@Loshotit]

Good lens recommendation for shooting indoor track and also indoor basketball?

[@JackBeasleyMedia]

Hey Rob, good video and explanation.

[@SportfotografieAeschimann]

I fully agree!

[@bbandura76]

Can ask if you think the 24-70 would be a good choice for photographing JiuJitsu

[@Adrian-ww2jj]

I’m very disappointed to hear that Canon stopped the production of Canon 400mm f5,6/L. It was a high quality lens, easy to carry, with the best auto focus at its time, to an affordable price. Too good for its price to be profitable for Canon. 😢😢😢

[@juelraun]

I shoot the 300mm f4 on a 7D2. Still more reach would be nice 😜 Tend to drop lenses that are discontinued though.

[@RobSambles]

The 5.6 is a great lens for the price but you'd struggle in anything other than good light

[@robertkelly9476]

When tracking a moving subject ie Quarterback, do I hold down the back button focus button while he's moving?

[@acardena13]

I do for motorsports and the 5D Mark IV does a great job keeping things in focus. Usually shooting with a 100-400mm lens

[@LuisCarlosSolano]

Very useful and right to the point information, thank you very much.

[@johnmallett2217]

Funny I was only thinking this week Rob I haven’t taken my 70-200 out the case for a couple of months. I guess with the restrictions at the cricket at the moment pretty much everything needs the 400 and 24-70 for General ground views. Of course in football mode I never put the 70-200 down

[@andersonboy620]

Do you use crop sensor or full frame camera? Cause thats an important starting point for deciding wich lenses to use.

[@Stran8n]

Sigma 70-200mm DG OS HSM Sports is around $1300 US (I have one - great lens). The 70-200mm EX DG (older) might be at that 350UK mark you mentioned.

[@RobSambles]

Yeah that lens is great. Mostly talking used prices here and yeah the 350 one I saw was ghe EX DG

[@Stran8n]

@@RobSambles sorry, I didn't finish watching the video before I opened my mouth and inserted foot. I just reached the part later where you brought up the Sport. :-)

[@RobSambles]

@@Stran8n No one gets judged for positive comments don't worry! 😎

[@Photosbybb]

What about a 180-600 zoom but an fstop of 6.3?

[@RAWrightza]

Hi Rob I'm a little confused about who this blog is directed towards is it lens capability/purpose or price ? I think including example images would add a lot of value Regards Rob

[@RobSambles]

Pretty much just focal length v subject. IQ isn't really relevant here because we're talking about all different models and it could be any camera body

[@colingtarobyn4364]

look, i'm a starting photographer and have a camera that i can use from my parents. I have a canon 1100D EOS and have a 75-300mm ultrasonic lens. My budget is very, but very tight and can't afford a 1.200 dollar lens. is that lens also OK for sport photography if you really starting out? and then i have one last question. I don't really know what the diffrence is between a regular black lenses and the white lenses

[@RobSambles]

To start out you should just use whatever you can afford. The white lens are just the bigger L series lenses

[@colingtarobyn4364]

@@RobSambles thanks for the help!

[@nestormorales443]

What do you suggest for Body building events and pictures or videos within a gym or outside the gym…

[@RobSambles]

It depends how back you are but I imagine a 70-200 would do you well or 24-70 if up close. When it comes to bodybuilding portraits then lights and stuff are normally necessary too to create the muscle definitely etc

[@aznycts]

You don't tell Poeple what to buy . Amatures don't have that kind of Money . They can use Any Csmera Brand or lenses in the Beginning . Learn Firts spend Money when you Start making Money . 😆 You talking about $12000. P.s iv bern Photographer for over 46 years . I never Tell my Student to buy Anything .

[@hwangsangbae]

표정이 마음에 드는 사람. !!! 잘 배우고 갑니다.

[@KidtipsyEthn]

Question what would you recommened I am looking to shoot indoor gymnastics daughters club events. Canon EF 85 1.8 $300 or would you gran a sigma 70-200 DG OS HSM non sport $500. I currently have a Sigma 17-50 OS F/2.8, Canon STM 18-135, Cano 50mm 1.8, 24mm F2.8 and Canon STM 55-250 IS all on a Canon M5 body. Would you grab one of the 2 dump one or 2 lens. My uses are Vacation, Indoor Sports, Some Portraits and Family Outings at the cottage etc.

[@chisangasiame2096]

Great stuff

[@Johnnyboy_584]

Great video, as always. Thanks for the good work!

[@bobbymarsh1]

Can you also give US currency

[@raymika2804]

The mark iii lens would that work on my canon 600d?

[@Gko316]

Hello there my name is George and I'm just curious about one thing do you have a 70 to 200 Mark 1 that you're not using

[@dbenedict357]

50mm on crop sensor = like 85mm lens!

[@Lovisman]

Im looking for a lens for a 7d mark ii, and shoot mostly football. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is sadly out of my budget, but I´m looking more for the 70-200 f/4 or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. What would you recommend?

[@RobSambles]

The newer sigma is beautiful (the one a commenter mentioned above). The f4 is still a great lens too

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

For outdoor sports with natural light Canon 70-200 F4 L non IS is a great budget lens. It outlasses older Sigmas/Tamrons (even 2.8), it's sharper, AF is faster and it's more portable. You can get one for about 300 pounds used. If you're looking for new one, think about 70-200 F4 IS II L, it's very sharp, has got really good stabilization (for sports it's not so important, but help you a lot with stills or panning), it costs about 1000 pounds. I had got one and it was great, now I've 70-200 2.8 non IS, also it's good, but not so sharp like F4 IS II. Of course 2.8 helps in indoors a lot (especially with 7d2) so I've not to bump iso around 6400 (now 2000-3200 is enough ;)). Earlier on Pentax I've got 300mm 4.5 and and 16-50 2.8, it was also interesting setup (in Canon you could get 300 f4 IS for about 800 pounds used) but i was quite hard go get photos when action get really close. Another very affordable option is Canon 200 2.8 prime lens - used ones are for about 300 pounds. They've nice sharpness, good reach and 2.8 but it's a similar problem like with 300mm, when player get to close you've to step away to frame him and sometimes there is no time to do that. Still shooting sports with primes is very interesting experience (and probable makes you better photographer because you think more about framing).

[@wanneske1969]

I have like 15 lenses from 15 to 300 mm, fixed focal length and zoom but the one I use the least is the 50 mm f1.4, don't know why.

[@amagnier]

Sad that Canon does not offer something "cheap" like the sony 200-600mm.

[@djtonkanyc]

Thanks for sharing

[@LeonKotze70]

There is only ONE 70-200 2.8, and that is the Canon. Sorry, the rest is not close to being in the same class.

[@MikeAnthonyPhotography]

now that the new lens came out that is 35-150mm f2.-f2.8 ....how would that lens rank now for sports since u can get wide and long shots ?

[@chrise4835]

Hi Rob, quick question. I've got the R3 coming this week along with the 300mm 2.8 L IS USM (version 1). Will the R3 drive the AF of the lens as fast as a 1DX II or III and will I get the 30 fps/195fps e-shutter modes at max shooting rate on the R3? Cheers.

[@77.88.]

Sorry Canon is out of the price range for many people how about the mid ranged price lenses?

[@michaelnorthwood5981]

Hello Rob, I want to shoot sheep dog trials. I have the 2.8 Canon 70-200mm. Some of the trials start at 7 and go on to 8 O'clock at night, so varying light. I have a 2 x converter but never tried it. Is it worth trying or should I get a longer lens. If so what would you suggest. Light can vary from dull to brilliant sunshine. the sheep and dogs will be 400 plus yards away and come within 30 yards. Thank you, Mike

[@RobSambles]

Definitely worth trying the extender then you can move onto a longer lens if you don't like the result

[@Richardlfc]

Hi Rob, was the 120-300mm Sigma you mentioned using the DG OS Sport? I've been thinking of making the move to that lens (instead of getting a Canon 300mm 2.8 or 400mm 2.8), I can see one available for around £1500. My plan going forward would be to have the 120-300mm 2.8 with my 7D II + buying a 1DX or possibly the Canon R6 to go with my Sigma 70-200mm DG OS Sport which is the lens I own already. That would give me a crop body + 120-300mm and a full-frame + 70-200mm setup. All for Football!

[@mactionpix]

Got the sigma 120 300. Bit on the heavy side but covers all my football .sharp as a tack ,will certainly build up your muscles

[@Richardlfc]

@@mactionpix Thanks for the reply! What body do you use it with? Do you use it with a monopod too or just handheld?

[@mactionpix]

@@Richardlfc canon 7d mk 2 plus monopod.too heavy for handheld on any game,or I'm too weak

[@kolawoleogunnusi1841]

Can I use a Sony zv -e10 with 18-50 lense to start football photography

[@RobSambles]

You could but you'll struggle with the reach of 50mm

[@Iamernestp]

What do you think of the Ef 300 f4 is ? A good start?

[@hikingk9s]

How about disc dog or even dock dogs ? Almost like catching a bullet lol

[@Whoanly9]

I used my Canon 70-200 f2.8 with my 7D Mii at an indoor volleyball game two nights ago and WOW! First time I've used that lens indoor and it was awesome. Used it a couple weeks ago at an evening rodeo and got great pictures then, too. Beautiful, beautiful images from that lens.

[@bennyhoang5980]

Hey what mm did you use for volleyball?

[@Whoanly9]

@@bennyhoang5980 Depending on the gym and where I could shoot from, I used the full range of the lens to get whatever pictures I wanted. I was shooting my granddaughter's high school and TEAM volleyball games. Terrible lighting in those gyms! I actually wanted to buy the 24-70 f2.8 for closer shots, but Covid hit during her second and third years of playing and the schools wouldn't allow grandparents to come watch the games, so I didn't buy the lens. Just used the 70-200 during her fourth year and now she has graduated.

[@ThatGingerPhotographer]

Great video! I’ve never owned anything longer than a 100! Do you have any experience of sigma?

[@RobSambles]

I used the sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport. Great lens

[@kirstypawley366]

I absolutely love my f4 70-200, the f2.8 version is still slightly out of budget for me

[@RobSambles]

Yeah still a great lens

[@kirstypawley366]

Plus I’d rather save up and have the 24-70 f2.8. Then at some point it’ll be time to upgrade my camera body, but as my 1dx mark ii is still going strong there’s no rush as want to invest in the lenses at the moment

[@rossbarton5900]

Hi Rob. Excellent video as always - thank you. Perhaps a good follow up video might be for a Prime Lens Shooters kit for sport. (Unusual, but I have seen pro basketball togs shooting with primes). Myself I have shot basketball with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM on my EOS 7D Mark II with great results (in fact it is my go to lens for REALLY low light situations - but if the light allows it I go to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8). A lot of folks would be able to use a 24 or 35 for wide angles and either the 50, 85, 135 or 200 primes for action further away. A video covering the use of primes for sport might be really interesting.

[@amtheaudience2457]

Sir , can you please suggest - if I have to capture 16x28m ground as well as players which are running back and fro with full speed and amazing stunts (flying dive)barefoot on grassless ground /slippery clay soil . I want to capture the movement when players suddenly stop and soil get rooted off from that placed with their fleet . Please reply sir . Thank you very much .

[@RobSambles]

Probably a 70-200 unless you mean the whole at one time then maybe 24-70

[@terdymoreno8796]

is 70-200mm f/2.8 also advisable for cropped sensor camera? when positioning near the three point line for basketball.

[@RobSambles]

For cropped sensor I found the 70-200 to be too tight. Try a 24-70, another great one for crop is the Sigma 18-35mm

[@juelraun]

Rob, for indoor handball will a 300mm f2.8 on full frame be good? Is it too much reach on 7D2? For outdoor it will be fine like you mentioned in the video.

[@pascalkesselmark7529]

I assume the size of a handball field is not much different than a basketball field, since it’s also played in the same halls… I tried the 300mm f/2.8 on basketball, but it has too much reach. So the 70-200mm was much better.

[@juelraun]

@@pascalkesselmark7529 A handball field is 20 x 40 meters, while a basketball field measures 15 x 28 meters. So a little more reach is needed 😜

[@RobSambles]

@@juelraun I've not shot handball but I would imagine 300mm on a crop sensor might be a little too tight. Pascal is probably right with the 70-200

[@ThePixeluser]

@@RobSambles It depends on what you want to shoot, if it is to make portraits of the coach or to show the goalkeeper defending his goal then 300mm is not too long even on the 1.6 crop.

[@juelraun]

@@RobSamblesOK. I've seen pros with a prime tele and 70-200 on full frame. Some older pictures - couldn't figure out what lens... juelraunfoto.smugmug.com/Private/Pros-at-work/n-VrfJ2K

[@lordbyron0850]

Is 85mm 1.8 good for sports photography?

[@Icemane1995]

The 100-400? I can’t find it. When I google it, comes up with 4,000 dollar lenses

[@RobSambles]

That's probably the newest model. Get onto eBay, older models for well under £1000

[@erik5024]

Rob, I shoot all kinds of sports....basketball, baseball, track, cross country, American football, and soon to be shooting soccer, volleyball, wrestling, etc. I have a 70-200mm 2.8 II and a 400 2.8, but for American football, I find the 400 too long for a lot of it, and the 70-200mm 2.8 too short. I can crop if my lighting is good, but as we get into fall and night games, I don't think it'll be as nice. I'd love a 300mm 2.8, but on the used market, they are $2500+. The f/4 version is less than a third of that on the used market. Would the 300mm f/4 perform for field sports?

[@richardpcrowe]

When I shot with Canon gear, my poor-man's sport combination was a pair of Canon 7D Mark-2 cameras paired with the 300mm f/4L IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. Sure, f/2.8 lenses would be a lot better but, for selective sports - the f/4 versions would decently.

[@richardpcrowe]

Occasionally, I would use the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens. For sports like boat and or auto racing.

[@sabaali8635]

70-200 is not good lens for sports photography

[@RobSambles]

Dude - this is 1000% incorrect

[@sabaali8635]

@@RobSambles i think 200-500 is more than batter

[@1960mcferran]

Which is better a 50 mm 1.8 or a 50 mm 1.4

[@m.a.3571]

What are the differences betweem mark I, II and II of 70-200? Thank you

[@1964karlos]

The mark I is not very good, the mark II is much better and the mark III is a tiny bit better than the Mark II. The mark II is the one that gives best value for money.

[@danieltarango6484]

What do you think about the Nikon 16-80 mm 2.8 for sports?

[@RobSambles]

I don't know the lens but that focal length would work in doors for basketball for example. Not for fields sports

[@erxcdecker]

Here's the question I've been wrestling with: I have an R5, and I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8 but I am lost as to what I should buy for a focal length above 200mm. The long RF lenses are crazy expensive. What would you recommend?

[@mactionpix]

Sigma 120 to 300 with 1.4 converter. Ideal for football, rugby.

[@whatmeworry2006]

Your advice is spot on. I am the team photographer for a high school lacrosse team in the US. I use a Nikon D500 (crop sensor) so when I have good light I start out with Nikon 70-300 AF-P. When the light goes down I switch to 70-200 f2.8 with 1.5 tc. When I lose sunlight and have to rely on inadequate field lights I remove the tc. I have 300mm & 500mm fixed lenses, but I prefer to use zoom lenses so I can adjust as players move up and down the field. I anticipate moving to Nikon mirrorless when they come out with the Z9 and 100-400. Your advice about shooting your kid’s sports with Canon’s 100-400 was perfect. In the end, it depends if you are shooting full frame or crop sensor, the sport you are shooting, the lighting conditions, and number of cameras you will be using.

[@RobSambles]

Thank you - lovely setup there

[@jjmoyles]

Excellent vlog, I now use a Nikon D6 with a Nikon 300mm f2.8 with a 1x4 teleconverter which I find just right for me, get nice sharp images and on my D5 I use the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 this lens is so very good, I love the G2 Tamron lenses. With the excellent low light on my D6 I hardly take the teleconverter off.

[@RobSambles]

Sounds like a decent combo

[@_systemd]

I shoot fotball with 200-400f4 attached to z6ii for video while I have d6 on 70-200 and old d5 on 600f4. Sometimes I switch the 70-200 for 400 2.8. Usually have my wife's d5 with 500 5.6 in the bag too but that's mostly her weapon, only if I my hands are tired already or the light is superb, she has to accept the 300f4 with 1.4tc, as the rest is just too heavy for her. We also have a d850 for our daughter with another 300f4 as its super light and she can play with it (she's 4). Still she prefers to sit on a multi-axis rotating chair with a gymball head, which makes sense, she can;t handle her toy d850 for long. I ve just ordered another d850 as she doesn't like sharing hers and sometimes those 45mpx files are what we want. In general we prefer to have a body per each lens, changing lenses is a hassle. The kindergarten football team kiddos and their parents love the photos this setup gets them.

[@paulfrancis7207]

GReat Video . Thanks Rob

[@JoseMartinez-zx7wp]

Great video

[@chrisrussell6580]

I like the way you describe the different lens needed to cover the range good video

[@RobSambles]

Thanks Chris

[@nicholas248]

I already have a 24-70 and a 70-200, what would you pick between the 300 f4 and the 400 5.6? I was thinking about buying the 400mm but F5.6 can only be used during the morning/afternoon.

[@RobSambles]

If you ever think you might be in anything other than great light then the 5.6 might be tough going for sport

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

Also you can buy 1.4 extender and you've got 100-280 F4 from 70-200 2.8. It's a more portable option (and cheaper too).

[@nicholas248]

@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 I was thinking about a teleconverter but Jared Polin just posted a video in which he says to not buy them because there is too much loss of quality and autofocus performances.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

@@nicholas248 Now I've seen that video. He's right, don't put TC on slow lens, because it will not work. So if you have 400 5.6 - putting x2 to it is a wrong idea. Generally speaking x2 TC are worsening image and AF work on all lenses. But x1.4 extender is only a 1 stop of light and you're putting it on 2.8 lens - so it will be F4. He says on the film that F4 is okay and many people in industry do that, there are lenses with even built in TC 1.4 (but never x2 TC). So just stick with 2.8F lenses and put only 1.4 extender and you'll be fine :).

[@ThePixeluser]

Is this a screw in Lens Hood with the 70-200?

[@RobSambles]

Yes a rubber one. It's required for some basketball leagues

[@GaryForster]

Really useful. Thanks Rob.

[@RobSambles]

Cheers Gary

[@SteveChick02]

Great Video Rob and great advice. I currently have a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and a sigma 100-300mm f4. I have a feeling that the 70-200mm f2.8 is a hair sharper and I am going to experiment with comparing the 70-200mm with a 1.4 teleconverter against the 100-300mm f4.

[@RobSambles]

Cheers Steve. I used the 100-300 sigma for about my first year shooting football. It's still a nice lens

[@vreeke777]

NO zoom ! you will have no time to zoom