WTB: Camera for indoor hockey photos

I'm looking to get into a entry/mid level setup for shooting indoor hockey pictures. I am having no luck with basic cameras, most likely due to the low lighting in some cases and fast movement.

I'm looking to spend around $500-$1000 maybe more depending on what is needed.

If someone could recommend a decent setup that would be great! LMK

Canon G15 is great for low light (f1.8-f2.8) is a fantastic $500 crossover from point and shoot to dslr.

Otherwise, you will need a DSLR and lens rated at f1.4 or f1.8 ideally.

Something like Canon T4i + 28mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or 100mm f2.8 (needs more light) or 135mm f2.0 ($1000) depending on how close you are to the action and how wide you want to shoot.

If you need more telephoto than 135mm, you are looking at big bucks for a low light (f2.8) tele lens ($1500+)

You could do a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens if you do not need real low light and want more flexibility.

For $1700 you could do a Canon T41 or 60D and a Canon 17-55mm IS USM f2.8 which has a stabilizer.

If I had to pick a system sight unseen, I would do a 60D+ 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.0 and go from there.

($799+99+999=$1900 retail)

You can buy the 60D with 18-135mm for $999 and add a 50mm for $100 so $1100. The 18-135mm is not low light, but it is worth $400+ so for $200 great value as walk around lens outside of hockey.

I would say the MINIMUM focal length you would want is 100mm, anything less is too wide for hockey. I shoot hockey with Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II and it is unreal!

You will find though the range you will need is probably 135mm+, otherwise you will be cropping like crazy and losing quality IMHO.

Originally Posted by 328iGuy

I would say the MINIMUM focal length you would want is 100mm, anything less is too wide for hockey. I shoot hockey with Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II and it is unreal!

You will find though the range you will need is probably 135mm+, otherwise you will be cropping like crazy and losing quality IMHO.

^ Agree.

There's a Canon 200mm f2.8L that's cheaper than the 70-200 but you sacrifice the zoom. It can be had for ~$800ish. Try to buy used if you can.

Otherwise, as has been said, get a Canon G series camera and call it a day.

A P&S or entry level SLR is not going to keep up with the speed of hockey. The shutter lag will be too long, and you will miss nearly every shot.

Pick yourself up a used Canon 1DmkII/mkIIn, and start with an EF 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 lens. The 8.2MP file size will give you more than enough resolution for up to 13*19 prints. The 8.5fps will give you the frame rates needed to capture the perfect action shots, and the AF system in the 1-series will actually keep up with the action on the ice. Don't get caught up in the MP race. Pros were printing full page spreads with lowly 4.2MP 1D and D2h bodies long before the current high-MP cameras came out.

Small local hockey rinks are very dark, and I doubt you will have access to strobes. Try ISO 800, and keep your shutter speeds at 1/500 to freeze action. This means you'll be shooting wide open with the two lenses mentioned most of the time. Meter off the ice, so your photos aren't all underexposed. Set WB and exposure manually, so your settings don't change under the mercury vapor lights.

Buying everything used, you can pick up a decent condition 1DmkII for about $500-600, and one of the 85mm or 100mm Canon EF lenses for about $350. If you are going to be shooting team photos also, you can get away with something slower - as you can use a flash, and/or longer shutter speeds. I have a 28-105 USM II, and it's a terrific, horribly underrated lens. You can pick one up for about $150 used. Just make sure you get the one that says 'Macro' on the barrel, and not the one that has a picture of a flower- that one is crap. Try to shoot from the benches if you can, so you're not shooting through glass.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by 328iGuy

I would say the MINIMUM focal length you would want is 100mm, anything less is too wide for hockey. I shoot hockey with Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II and it is unreal!

You will find though the range you will need is probably 135mm+, otherwise you will be cropping like crazy and losing quality IMHO.

^I have heard good things about this models as well. Thanks

Thanks for everyone's input. I'll be searching tonight online for prices while i'm working....

Originally Posted by E46er75

^I have heard good things about this models as well. Thanks

Er, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II alone is over $2,000.

If you're throwing budget completely out the window, buy a 1Dx, and a 135L.

I will stick with my recommendation

60D with 18-135mm (can sell lens if you want for $300-$400)
50mm f1.8
135mm f2.0


$1000+$100+$900 = $2000

good for walking around, portraits, low light, indoor tele

sell the 18-135 and its $1600-$1700

I am still trying to stick within a budget. As with everyone, I'm trying to get the most bang for the buck.

Originally Posted by E46er75

I am still trying to stick within a budget. As with everyone, I'm trying to get the most bang for the buck.

Buy a camera and a new 135mm f2 then.

The OP ideally wants to spend between $500-1000. The lens alone that you're suggesting is almost at the top end of his budget. Good luck taking any photos without something decent to mount it on.

OP, your best bet is to get some pro gear that is a generation or two behind (ie: what I recommended), then upgrade what you need to, as you are able to.

Originally Posted by Adamo99

The OP ideally wants to spend between $500-1000. The lens alone that you're suggesting is almost at the top end of his budget. Good luck taking any photos without something decent to mount it on.

OP, your best bet is to get some pro gear that is a generation or two behind (ie: what I recommended), then upgrade what you need to, as you are able to.

Do you really think that you can not take decent hockey pictures with an L lens at f2.0 on 60D ?

I understand you FF guys are in a different league and all, but a 60D is not a joke of a camera.

$500-$1000 maybe more depending on what is needed.

BTW OP, If you find a good deal on an "L" lens, you will get 80-90% of your money back if you need to sell it down the road. "L" lenses are more of an investment than any other gear would be. So, If you go $1000 over budget to buy an "L", just know that at any time you could get $800-$900 of it back pretty easily.

It is not like throwing $1000 into a vacation or old electronics or even a car. "L" lenses defy depreciation.

item 251183288020 just sold for $964 USED on ebay. The lens is $989 new at B&H Photo. lol.

Originally Posted by GlockMan

Do you really think that you can not take decent hockey pictures with an L lens at f2.0 on 60D ?

I understand you FF guys are in a different league and all, but a 60D is not a joke of a camera.

Not arguing with you, but the 1DmkII/mkIIn aren't full frame cameras. They are APS-H sensors, so approx 1.3x crop.

If you think the AF system on a consumer body like the 60D is anything remotely comparable to an older 1-series pro body, you have obviously never shot extensively with one. There is much more to capturing sharp sports images than frame rate. For stationary images, or subjects moving slowly, sure- use a Rebel XT if you want. Any sport at a higher level, where action happens quickly, you need responsive and accurate AF tracking. It doesn't matter if you can shoot at 6.5fps, if your keeper rate is 20%. I'd rather have a 1DsII, with the 1-Series AF, and only 4fps frame rate over a consumer body with mediocre AF and a higher frame rate.

While I agree that the 135L is definitely the premier lens of choice for indoor sports, it leaves the OP with no money left to buy a body. The best compromise is a decent fast prime, like the 100mm f/2, and a proper pro body. Bump up the contrast in post, and I'm willing to bet 99.99% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between the images anyway.

The OP won't need the robust build or weather sealing of the L lens, as s/he will be shooting indoors, in a dry hockey arena- where there is no salt spray, sea water, fine desert sand, etc.

I bought a 7D a while back, hoping to use it as a backup to the 1DmkIII I had at the time. It was practically useless compared to the 1DIII. The 7D is a phenomenal camera, with an excellent AF system, that offers tremendous customization- but AF performance (initial lock and tracking) were not up to the standard of the 1-series AF, which have dedicated separate Digic processors for AF and image processing.

Borrow one for a day if you can- you'll see what I mean.

Check out these places for a used body and or lens

http://www.keh.com/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.adorama.com/

Originally Posted by Adamo99

Not arguing with you, but the 1DmkII/mkIIn aren't full frame cameras. They are APS-H sensors, so approx 1.3x crop.

If you think the AF system on a consumer body like the 60D is anything remotely comparable to an older 1-series pro body, you have obviously never shot extensively with one. There is much more to capturing sharp sports images than frame rate. For stationary images, or subjects moving slowly, sure- use a Rebel XT if you want. Any sport at a higher level, where action happens quickly, you need responsive and accurate AF tracking. It doesn't matter if you can shoot at 6.5fps, if your keeper rate is 20%. I'd rather have a 1DsII, with the 1-Series AF, and only 4fps frame rate over a consumer body with mediocre AF and a higher frame rate.

While I agree that the 135L is definitely the premier lens of choice for indoor sports, it leaves the OP with no money left to buy a body. The best compromise is a decent fast prime, like the 100mm f/2, and a proper pro body. Bump up the contrast in post, and I'm willing to bet 99.99% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between the images anyway.

The OP won't need the robust build or weather sealing of the L lens, as s/he will be shooting indoors, in a dry hockey arena- where there is no salt spray, sea water, fine desert sand, etc.

I bought a 7D a while back, hoping to use it as a backup to the 1DmkIII I had at the time. It was practically useless compared to the 1DIII. The 7D is a phenomenal camera, with an excellent AF system, that offers tremendous customization- but AF performance (initial lock and tracking) were not up to the standard of the 1-series AF, which have dedicated separate Digic processors for AF and image processing.

Borrow one for a day if you can- you'll see what I mean.

Interesting. I am no expert, just happy with my 60d.

Originally Posted by saxual328ci

Check out these places for a used body and or lens

http://www.keh.com/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.adorama.com/

Thanks!

shot a Hockey Game last night for a buddy I work with - 7D + 70-200 2.8L IS. worked awesome. I have never used a 1D series camera, so I cannot compare, but I had no issues following and tracking players - I only went through half my photos last night when I got home and they seemed to be sharp, only disadvantage is high ISO noise on the 7D.

I also learned that shooting hockey is a lot harder then I thought it was going to be, I was shooting from the players bench, so a lot of the shots are from behind, which sucks. the rink was not equipped with "camera holes" at the corners so I had to make due.

Originally Posted by TayloMade[07]

I also learned that shooting hockey is a lot harder then I thought it was going to be, I was shooting from the players bench, so a lot of the shots are from behind, which sucks. the rink was not equipped with "camera holes" at the corners so I had to make due.

Yup, same here. I'm trying to get pics at one of the worst rinks in existence..

Id also look at Sigma HSM II 70-200. IS or OS in sigma is not really necessary with shutter speeds of 1/500+. The 2.8 is necessary for sure. Sigma goes for around $600 and thats hell of a deal for a sharp lens. This allows you to go into 60D or even 7D thats slightly used...
I use 7D and Sigma in indoor soccer, the results are awesome!