Lenses for kids' sports and performances

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m trying to figure out how to outfit my SL2-S for kids’ sports and performances—youth soccer, school plays in dark auditoriums, etc. My kids are young now, but that won’t last long; the soccer fields will get bigger!

Right now I have the Leica 24-70, which I like a lot as an everyday zoom. I don’t have to keep it, though, and am happy to trade it for something else. Having photographed a few soccer games, it’s clear that I need more reach. One of the challenges I’ve encountered as a very novice sports photographer is that the action is sometimes very far away and sometimes very close. So it seems like I need both wide and tele ready to go. This could be accomplished in a couple of different ways, including using an M for the wide: in addition to the SL2-S, I have an M10-R with 21, 28, 35, 50, and 90.

How would you proceed? I’ve spent lots of time contemplating the 24-90, the 90-280, the new Sigma 28-105, the Sigma 70-200, various tele primes (including R mount)…. I've photographed stage performances using prime lenses in the past, but my guess here is that for sports zooms just make more sense. Cost is not a huge issue, as I’ll be selling some gear, but the bigger problem is that I'm uncertain about what focal lengths I should be looking for and what working methods I should adopt. The two options I'm most drawn to are the 28-105mm as a one-lens solution (accepting insufficient reach on the long end), and a 70-200 with a 35mm on my M as a two-body solution. But perhaps there are approaches and factors I'm overlooking.

And the romantic, M-photographer part of me just wants to buy a 180mm prime, or a 135, with some character, and force myself to use it on the SL2-S, paired with a 35mm on the M.

Thanks for any insights. Here's a photo from today's game, of my son going after the ball, taken with the 24-70, cropped:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 8, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[frankchn]

For field sports, I would consider the 90-280 on the SL with a 35 on the M. As you said, soccer fields get pretty big and you want lots of range. I shot NCAA D1 sports (football, soccer, etc...) for a couple years with 400 and 600 primes and sometimes I felt even those are too short when the action is across the field.

The other question is if you are willing to consider another system. The SL autofocus is decent, but Canikony AF is a lot better for sports and fast moving objects (I shoot both Leica SL and Canon RF)

[frame-it]

4 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

One of the challenges I’ve encountered as a very novice sports photographer is that the action is sometimes very far away and sometimes very close. So it seems like I need both wide and tele ready to go.

 

why get one of these? https://shop.panasonic.com/products/fz2500-digital-camera-f2-8-4-5-lens

[jaapv]

The Sigma and now Leica 70-200 has the fastest AF. 

[LocalHero1953]

I shoot a lot of performance: drama, dance, musical performance, mostly indoors. I use the SL2-S with the 24-90SL zoom for 75% of the time, and occasionally the 90-280SL and medium primes: Summilux-SL 50, Apo-Summicron-SL 75, Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN (and occasionally Apo-Summicron-SL 35). See my website (paulashleyphotography.co.uk) for examples. Much of the dance and drama resembles sports photography, but none of my stuff is on as big a stage as a football pitch, so I have no experience to pass on there.

Many here will tell you that you need another system for better AF, and that there are better lenses for AF than the 24-90 and 90-280. They may well be right - I'm not going to argue with them, because I haven't tried other systems and lenses. However, I have rarely felt limited by the AF capability of my system, or that better AF would get me better images. I have two real-world limitations.

The first is handling the poor quality of indoor light and stage lighting (especially when managed by amateur techs). It is often made up of notch frequencies, is often overlapping green and magenta, and may be dim: ISO 25,000 is not uncommon. This is where the exceptional low-light capability of the SL2-S comes to the fore, combined with modern AI denoise tools. Its Auto WB is also very good at picking the best compromise setting.

The second and most important limitation is just in my skill at seeing and grabbing a good photo out of the action in front of me: expressions, eye-contact, non-verbal communication, positioning of heads, arms and legs, use of colour, and isolation of the subject from the mess that's going on around them in any performance arena.

AF comes down the list of limitations compared to these. AFAIC it is good enough in the SL2-S.

Edit. After a photoshoot of a performance, I may delete 60% for compositional reasons. Perhaps 5-10% will be deleted because of incorrect focus: two thirds AF failure and in one third I have focused on the wrong person.

Edited September 8, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[JoshuaR]

@LocalHero1953, many thanks for your detailed response! What you're saying about composition and moment feels familiar to me; most of my difficulties have to do with anticipating and understanding the action, rather than with gear.

Also, what you say about the SL2-S is also why I chose it, instead of going for a body with more resolution. I figured that it might be useful in low and bad light.

I'm not too concerned about autofocus. My thinking is that I'm not being paid to "cover" these events—I'm just looking to take pictures for my own happiness. So it's okay if some of my shots don't turn out; all I want is to document this part of my kids' life with some beautiful photographs.

A big part of me just wants to solve this problem by buying the Leica 24-90 and 90-280. That's partly because it would give me top image quality, partly because it would just end the gear quest, and partly because the zoom ranges of the lenses seem to be the useful to me of all the options: 24-90 feels right for the small-ish outdoor fields on which my kids play now; 90-280 seems like it will be ultimately more useful than 70-200. But the truth is that I don't need that level of image quality, and the total outlay for both of the zooms, even used, seems drastic when I think about the fact that I could add a 70-200 to my 24-70 for relatively little money and have a kind of baby version of the 24-90 and 90-280. And maybe those shorter lenses will work well for me in the end!

Edited September 9, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@frankchn, thanks for your reply! 35 + 90-280 makes a lot of sense to me... As for switching to another system, I've thought about that as well, but I like being able to adapt my M lenses to the SL2-S.

What is it about the 90-280? Would a 70-200 or 100-400 do just as well?

[frankchn]

19 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

@frankchn, thanks for your reply! 35 + 90-280 makes a lot of sense to me... As for switching to another system, I've thought about that as well, but I like being able to adapt my M lenses to the SL2-S.

What is it about the 90-280? Would a 70-200 or 100-400 do just as well?

In general I like the mix of length and aperture in the 90-280. The 70-200 can be limiting for field sports (esp with 24 MP in the SL2-S) and the 100-400 can be pretty dark in indoor settings (gymnasiums, theater, etc).

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

What is it about the 90-280? Would a 70-200 or 100-400 do just as well?

It's one of the finest telephoto zooms ever made.

You should have a look at Panasonic's 70-300 zoom. It has a smaller aperture, and it probably isn't quite as sharp, but it's very reasonably priced, quite light, and fast enough for daylight soccer games.

A 100-400 would work too, but it's bigger/heavier, and I would rather have 70mm at the short end to cover action closer to me.

[jaapv]

The 70-200 is an impeccable lens at a reasonable ( for Leica) price. The Sigma donor lens is of comparable quality at a highly competitive price. The 70-200 lenses have the fastest and most accurate autofocus of the bunch. 

[JoshuaR]

Thanks for the help, everyone. I've just ordered a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and will experiment from there. I figure I'll give it a go for this fall, see how I do, and then decide if any further upgrades are necessary. 

[ALScott]

On 9/9/2024 at 7:39 AM, BernardC said:

A 100-400 would work too, but it's bigger/heavier, and I would rather have 70mm at the short end to cover action closer to me.

I love, love, love my Vario Elmar 100-400.  I use it for baseball and worried that 100 would be too long but it isn't - ever.  The 400 end is incredible for outfield shots, way better than 200.  Maybe consider reverse zooming with your feet.  I have to admit I am fighting GAS as hard as I ever have when I saw this announcement as I had a Canon 70-200's for 30 years in various iterations so it seems like I "must" have another.  I hate to admit it but I want it because it's a gorgeous lens.  I see people posting about picking this lens or that because of how the lens itself "looks" and have thought that was silly until this one.  Now I get that a bit but know it's purely GAS if that's my gut reaction.  The 100-400 has actually been better than a 70-200, especially due to 400, and the 100 end gives me all I really need up close.  Massive sensors like the SL3 are all new to me in the last few months so I am having to learn that 2.8 is not necessary anymore and focal length can be my primary concern now.

Edited September 11, 2024 by ALScott

[BernardC]

6 hours ago, ALScott said:

love, love, love my Vario Elmar 100-400.  I use it for baseball and worried that 100 would be too long but it isn't - ever.  The 400 end is incredible for outfield shots, way better than 200.  Maybe consider reverse zooming with your feet.  I have to admit I am fighting GAS as hard as I ever have when I saw this announcement as I had a Canon 70-200's for 30 years in various iterations so it seems like I "must" have another.

It's very sport-dependent as well. Kid's soccer (aka football in UK English) usually allows you to get right up to the sidelines. Hockey and basketball are similar, the players are almost close enough to touch. Baseball happens a bit further away.

That's why a lens like the 60-600 makes sense for a professional. Granted, it's huge and heavy, but it will take care of your telephoto needs in almost every circumstance. Add a wide/standard zoom on another body and you are all set.