rugby union lens

R

rogep

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everybody i mainly shoot rugby but also thinking of a little wildlife as well, currently use a 50 d and a 70-200 f4 thinking of upgrading to sigma 120-300 2.8 ,sig 300 2.8 or if i,m a very good boy canon 300 2.8 anyone using either of the above lenses and camera combinations, really looking to justify the purchase ,so any advice guidance or general experiences,of the above would be very welcome.





Mod Message
Paul - please don't ask the same question across a range of forums. All it does is make work for someone who has to tidy them all up into one thread.
cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the many different distances of your subjects the versatility of a zoom lens would be a massive advantage. Also if your talking about the new OS Sigma 120-300 lens it takes a convetor very well to give you a 600 @ f5.6 for the nature shots.
 
Last edited:
Thanks andy thats an option thats well worth a good look before i part with any hard earned !
 
I'm finding the 100-400L works well for rugby (and cricket come to that).

Here are some I took recently:

First half shots so these are probably ISO800/1600, I was shooting the home team (in black) attacking towards me from behind the try line,

IMG_6057.jpg


They were around the 22 yard line at the opposite end of the pitch for this one

IMG_6070.jpg


IMG_6077.jpg


IMG_6108.jpg


Second half shots at ISO1600\3200

IMG_6133.jpg


IMG_6134.jpg
 
I think Mark (Demilion) has the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 and really rates it.
 
rogep said:
Hi everybody i mainly shoot rugby but also thinking of a little wildlife as well, currently use a 50 d and a 70-200 f4 thinking of upgrading to sigma 120-300 2.8 ,sig 300 2.8 or if i,m a very good boy canon 300 2.8 anyone using either of the above lenses and camera combinations, really looking to justify the purchase ,so any advice guidance or general experiences,of the above would be very welcome.
Click to expand...

The 120-300 mm Sigma is a great lens for your rugby photography also the 100-400mm IS Canon is a good lens for sport as well. But the 120-300 Sigmas as the headge being F 2.8
 
Thanks Russ some nice shots there , Hadnt really thought about the 100-400 due to aperture but for reach alone might be worth a look
 
rogep said:
Thanks Russ some nice shots there , Hadnt really thought about the 100-400 due to aperture but for reach alone might be worth a look
Click to expand...

No problem :)

It's only really during December/January where I struggle but I think even a constant f2.8 would require serious ISO bumpage!

Considering I'm only taking the pictures for love/hobby I certainly couldn't justify spending thousands on a fast prime.

IMO the 100-400L is a good comprimise :D
 
Thanks guys the sigma was one of the lenses which i really liked the look of after i met up with another photographer whilst i was covering a junior rugby league tournament last season,he really rated it and was getting nice images with it.
 
i really need to get a look at the two primes as well just to get a rounded view of all my options now before i decide which route to take i think
 
You'll end up wanting 400mm for rugby as well, so make sure that whichever 300 you get takes an extender with minimal degradation.
 
Demilion - sorry but you shouldn't need a 400mm for rugby unless you're miles from the touchline. I used to use a 300mm on a 35mm film camera and never noticed any advantage when I swapped to a 400mm, and that's without the crop factor.
 
If you are happy with crowd shots a 300's fine, but a 400 is better especially from behind the dead ball line.
 
Same as Gary says .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used and use different version of 300 2.8 lenses for wildlife and find them a great compromise of speed, weight and length (when combined with TC's).

So not know about rugby but for wildlife I would say to go for it.

A great lens to go for if it is within your budget is the new Sigma 120-300mm OS.
 
sorry didnt mean to confuse the thread or create extra work thought it was posted to different people in a different branch of photography newcomers mistake ill try not to repeat
 
I’ve recently bought a used 120-300mm (non OS) to use as my primary lens instead of the 70-200 f/4. I’ve used it for two football matches so far with mixed results.

When I’ve used it as 2.8 for football the conditions have been bad and in low light, and the results haven’t been great. Probably 80% of the images just haven’t been in focus. This may be my technique (this lens is a bit of a beast!)...but using it at 2.8 in better light has produced some good results.

Raising the f number to 3.5 has produced much better results in low light for me though. The lens has focussed quickly (quicker than the 70-200), accurately and produced some good results.

In short, at f/3.5 I really like it so far…at 2.8 the jury is still out. I don’t regret buying it (having 300mm whilst being able to zoom is great for me) and I think it’ll prove to be a great lens.

If you want some sample shots go to my website in the signature.

• the match on 31st Jan is with the Sigma (mostly f/3.5 at iso 6400),
• match on 22nd Jan is with Sigma all at 2.8 (various iso, up to 5000)
• the rest of the matches with Canon 70-200 f/4 (non IS)

Also, I needed to micro adjust the lens with the 7d. I don’t know if you can do this with the 50d or not, but something to keep in mind.
 
Thanks for the response seems that the sigma offers quite a varied performance which keeps sending me to the Canon prime i thought I'd be opting for the sigma but i keep reading very mixed reviews it offers great flexibility which is why it appeals so much I still don't know quite wot to do but thankyou again
 
I think the newer OS vresion is supposed to be very good bit comes at a price £1700-£2K.
 
I'm willing to pay for the lens and that was sort of the budget maybe a little more for the Canon but I'm trying to read as much about peoples experiences as I can before taking the plunge lol thanks rob
 
Okay…I feel like I need to add this after my last post on this thread. Previously I had mentioned that at 2.8 the lens wasn’t focussing quickly enough when trying to capture movement. However the fault was mine and not the lens.

A couple of weeks ago I increased the speed at which the lens/camera looks for another target in AI Servo mode to ‘fast’ on the 7d (I can’t recall exactly what this is called) and the results have been so much better. I’ve done 3 matches since that point and the lens has performed brilliantly…I love it!

In short, I would highly recommend this lens. It’s awesome.
 
Last edited:
Andy - are you using some weird keyboard ??
 
Er, not sure what happened there! I wrote the reply on my phone and then copied it in…so not quite sure what was going on. All fixed now though! :)
 
:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top