r/sportsphotography

I realize there are other posts about this but wanted to be specific. I started shooting sports with a gifted d7000 this spring. I bought a used Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70–200mm f/2.8G ED VR and have had good results. The main problem seems to be with the autofocus, no matter what I tweak (back button focus, one point vs 9, etc). I like the price and the DX crop of the z50II (to continue to use my current lens with the adapter rather than getting a longer lens), but I am worried about the lack of IBIS (for video) and would prefer the low light performance of an FX body. But, I don’t know if I really need to worry about these limitations.

Hey folks!

Hoping for some guidance because I’m honestly a little lost. I have an R6 Mark II, which I absolutely love. I use my 85mm for indoor sports and love it, I can usually get close enough that I’m doing very minimal cropping.

I’ve recently started trying outdoor sports, and this is where I’m stuck on which direction to go. I used my 24–105mm kit lens and actually got some good shots. Most people thought they were great, but of course I can see where they could be better. My biggest issue is that I definitely want more reach.

Part of me wants the 70–200mm f/2.8 and then an extender if I find I need more reach. The other part of me wants the 100–500mm, but I’d be sacrificing aperture to get that extra reach.

For reference, when I used the 24–105mm, I was shooting at the full 105mm, f/7, 1/1000 and ISO 640. It was cloudy, but not fully overcast.

I’m renting a lens tomorrow to try this weekend, but honestly, I don’t even know where to start. I have a feeling I’ll love the 70–200mm but wish I had more reach, or love the 100–500mm for the reach but wish I had the wider aperture and subject separation.

I’m also trying to cover all my bases. The 70–200mm would obviously be useful for outdoor sports, but I could also see myself using it indoors. And maybe that’s just trying to fill an unrealistic order.

Cost-wise, the two are fairly close, only a couple hundred dollars more for the 100–500mm, so unfortunately that isn’t making the decision any easier.

I’m also completely open to going with an EF lens to save some money, especially if there’s good EF glass that makes sense on the R6 Mark II with an adapter.

Help! What would you choose and why?

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I’m looking to get into cricket photography and was thinking of getting the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM as my first telephoto lens. Ps- I don't want to spend too much money to start please.

I’m currently using an R6 Mark II with the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1. I mainly do weddings and events.

Would the 100-400 be a good starting lens for cricket? I’ll mostly be starting with local/club cricket for now.

If you’ve used it for cricket, I’d love to hear your experience. Is there anything else around the same budget I should consider?

Thank you in Advance

Being down here in Disney for an end of summer vacation with the family got me thinking about all you photographers who shoot football or baseball or any outdoor sport here in the sunshine state do y'all just suck it up? Or do you guys wear cooling vests or Cooling devices around your neck?

Hi! Let me start off by, I am no professional. I have a Canon EOS 4000D. I only have the standard 18-55mm lens and I recently purchased a EF-S 55-250mm lens. I need help figuring out best options to get some good shots at my daughters volleyball games..

Also recs on better lens for sports? I can’t get one immediately but eventually would like to get one that would be best for indoor sports.

Thanks for any and all for any advice

Anyone have experience with team and individual photos for youth. What do I need at the bare minimum other than my camera.. I have an r6 mark ii and 24-70mm 2.8. Do I need other gear? How should I pose them? Any help would be great lol

Hey all, looking for some grounded advice from people who’ve actually used these lenses long-term.

Background: I’m a retired wedding/commercial photographer. I’ve been slowly saving up for a 400 2.8 for a few years now — not because I need it professionally anymore, but because it’s something I want to own for myself, for personal work. No deadline, no client pressure, just want to make the right call.

A while back I stumbled into a manual FD 400 2.8L (the old FD mount version) and picked it up almost by accident. I wasn’t expecting much going in, but after the first real session with it on my R6, I was honestly shocked at how good the glass is. Rendering, contrast, sharpness wide open — it completely exceeded what I expected from a decades-old design.

What surprised me most: I assumed the lack of autofocus would be the limiting factor, but it really wasn’t. For static/semi-static subjects, manual focusing on the R6 (focus peaking + magnification) has actually gone better than I expected — I’ve been landing focus consistently. The thing that actually got in my way was the weight, not the AF.

So now I’m weighing two options for going AF/modern:

1. EF 400 2.8L IS II — currently found one for sale around $5,000 USD equivalent. Great price historically for this lens.
2. EF 400 2.8L IS III — roughly $9,000-10,000 USD equivalent, better IS system and reportedly better corner performance, but basically double the price.

There’s also the question of whether to just wait 1-2 more years and either save toward a III, or see where things land with the RF 400mm f/2.8 ecosystem (I shoot R6, so native RF would eventually make sense, but I know the current RF 400 2.8 is a serious investment on top of everything else).

My biggest actual concern isn’t image quality — it’s long-term serviceability. I don’t want to spend real money on a II or III and then end up with an expensive paperweight in 5-10 years if parts/repair support dries up. Since I’m not shooting professionally and don’t need this lens “right now,” I have the luxury of waiting for the right window, but I don’t want to wait so long that I miss a good copy or a fair price.

Given all this — no urgency, prioritizing long-term usability over having the absolute latest tech, but wanting something serviceable for years to come — would you go with the II now, hold out for a III, or wait for RF? Anyone dealt with repair/parts availability issues on the II specifically?

Appreciate any real experience, especially from people who’ve owned more than one generation of this lens.

I’m EU based if this matters at all, however travelling around to the UK and US sometimes, but please keep in mind that customs do apply to those big white lenses.

I primarily shoot sports and lifestyle/portraits. Photography is my main focus, but I occasionally do some graphics and video as well.

I’m trying to decide how to name/brand everything. Would you:

A. Use [Name] Media for everything
B. Use [Name] Photo for everything
C. Use [Name] Media for sports and [Name] Photo for lifestyle/portraits

What would you choose? Does it even really matter as long as my portfolio makes it clear what I do?

I own a Canon EOS 80D. I used to dabble in photography over a decade ago so I have basic photography knowledge, though very much out of practice.

Last year, I dusted off the camera to try and get photos of my kids during their football games. I quickly realized my current lenses (18-55mm, 50mm, and 75-300mm) weren’t going to cut it. The lighting varying field to field, the fast paced movements, and the distance from the bleachers to the players left me with more blurry, grainy photos than I would prefer. I’m sure there’s a learning curve to sports photography that I have to work through, but I also think a zoom lens would help tremendously.

I want to invest in a good lens, but looking for insight before splurging. Since I won’t be using this for professional photography, I won’t be recouping money spent anytime soon. However, I like the idea of potentially turning it into a professional gig at some point, so I’m trying to find something that will still provide good quality incase I decide to build a portfolio one day.

I'm a semi-professional sports photographer and currently have an R3 as my main camera and R6 MII as a secondarly/backup camera. I want to upgrade the R6, and I'm going back and forth between another R3 and an R1. The R1 is about $2,000 more through the used site I am planning on purchasing from. I've borrowed the R1 from Canon and love it, especially the faster autofocus, but I'm trying to convince myself it's worth another $2k.

Some background: sports photography is a second job for me — I don't make a ton off of it, but I do make money off of it and most of that money goes back into gear/expenses. I have the money saved to be able to buy either camera, so that's not really an issue, though obviously one leave me an extra $2,000 to spend somewhere else.

I primarily shoot major junior hockey in the winter (OHL) and youth hockey, and in the summer I shoot motorsports (regional late model short track series). I also do some portrait work, team photos, media days, things like that, primarily for youth hockey teams.

What would you do if you were in my shoes?

1. Stick with the R3 and the R6 MII that have worked OK, though the R6 has some drawbacks
2. Get another R3 — two of the same camera, perfect backup if something goes wrong with one
3. Jump on the R1 — better autofocus. Other additional features. Current R3 is a solid backup for an R1.
4. Forget the R1 and R3 and get an R5 Mark II — more megapixels, cheaper than the R1. Downfall is rolling shutter on electronic shutter, which I use almost exclusively.