Does anybody know if there are lenses out there that are high quality, but three inches or less in length? I'm looking for a good indoor lens to be used for hockey, but I need the length to not exceed three inches. I wasn't sure if there was a 70-200m f/2.8 lens, or something similar, that size out on the market.
Thanks.

Shark

Originally Posted by Shark Does anybody know if there are lenses out there that are high quality, but three inches or less in length? I'm looking for a good indoor lens to be used for hockey, but I need the length to not exceed three inches. I wasn't sure if there was a 70-200m f/2.8 lens, or something similar, that size out on the market. Thanks. Shark

Since neither your post nor your user profile lists what camera you intend to use the lens on, we need that information to provide any meaningful recommendations.

Originally Posted by Shark Does anybody know if there are lenses out there that are high quality, but three inches or less in length? I'm looking for a good indoor lens to be used for hockey, but I need the length to not exceed three inches. I wasn't sure if there was a 70-200m f/2.8 lens, or something similar, that size out on the market. Thanks. Shark

If I remember correctly, you are canon shooter. Is the three inch limit when the lens is fully extended? Or the three inch limit measured when the lens is at the shortest? Either way, you are limited in your choices.

I would go with primes.
85 mm f/1.8. The f/1.2 version is too long
50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or f/1.2
24 mm f/1.8
15mm fish f/2.8

The 135 mm is also too long at 4.4 inches. I probably would not go with a siggy or tammy choice (other than the siggy 50 mm f/1.4) since I find the AFs to be a tad bit slower and AF needs to be fast for hockey.

it is a shame that your not a minolta or sony shooter as i have a 28-200 UC....ULTRA COMPACT it is in the 3" range....tack sharp and was used for wedding shooting and portraits and is still used when I do not want to lug my 70-210 around or I am going to limit myslf to just once camera on an outing.......I just went to the Sigma Lens page and did not see anything designated as a UC lens.....too bad as those were great lenses..........

Hockey is fast, and I think shutter speed will be critical, particularly if won't be able to setup any remotely triggered flashes. I would recommend a 50mm 1.4, or faster if funds permit. Then set ISO to lowest allowing you a min 1/500 (preferably faster) shutterspeed. Shoot at highest resolution, or RAW, and crop final images. Analyze some test shots to confirm if shutterspeed is fast enough.

Originally Posted by aj986s Hockey is fast, and I think shutter speed will be critical, particularly if won't be able to setup any remotely triggered flashes. I would recommend a 50mm 1.4, or faster if funds permit. Then set ISO to lowest allowing you a min 1/500 (preferably faster) shutterspeed. Shoot at highest resolution, or RAW, and crop final images. Analyze some test shots to confirm if shutterspeed is fast enough.

Shutter speed AND focusing speed as mentioned before. This is where most non-Nikon or non-Canon gear just won't make the grade, sorry to those die hards who thing it's the top of the world but when you need fast sports in low light, there's only a few primes out there to handle this type of situation.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Since neither your post nor your user profile lists what camera you intend to use the lens on, we need that information to provide any meaningful recommendations.

Oh, I never thought about that, sorry. I shoot with a Canon 50D and 40D.

Shark

Originally Posted by aktse If I remember correctly, you are canon shooter. Is the three inch limit when the lens is fully extended? Or the three inch limit measured when the lens is at the shortest? Either way, you are limited in your choices. I would go with primes. 85 mm f/1.8. The f/1.2 version is too long 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or f/1.2 24 mm f/1.8 15mm fish f/2.8 The 135 mm is also too long at 4.4 inches. I probably would not go with a siggy or tammy choice (other than the siggy 50 mm f/1.4) since I find the AFs to be a tad bit slower and AF needs to be fast for hockey.

Thanks. Wow, you remember what I shoot with huh? I can't remember what I did over the weekend. You are right though, I shoot with a Canon 50D and 40D. I have the 85mm lens already that I use. It's a great lens, especially for hockey. But I was wondering if there was a zoom lens of any kind out there that is three inches or less, for times when you are farther away from the action than normal, like when you are at an NHL game.

I went to a game Sunday, and we were 17 rows up from the ice. So after I pick out the shots I like and edit them, they will be considerably smaller because of the cropping that needs to be done in order to get close to the actual shot I was taking.

Originally Posted by Shark Thanks. Wow, you remember what I shoot with huh? I can't remember what I did over the weekend. You are right though, I shoot with a Canon 50D and 40D. I have the 85mm lens already that I use. It's a great lens, especially for hockey. But I was wondering if there was a zoom lens of any kind out there that is three inches or less, for times when you are farther away from the action than normal, like when you are at an NHL game. I went to a game Sunday, and we were 17 rows up from the ice. So after I pick out the shots I like and edit them, they will be considerably smaller because of the cropping that needs to be done in order to get close to the actual shot I was taking.

Sorry -- the lens that you want does not exist. The good news is that you have a lens that works for your needs. And you should be able to get some really good photos with that lens!

I find that most sports photographers (well... most photographers) whine in general about their situation and fall into the mental trap -- i don't have field position, i don't have a media pass, i don't have credentials, my lens is too short, my lens it too slow, i couldn't use the strobes, i don't have the money to buy something, the venue is too dark, security was an issue, I don't have access to the camera hole along the boards, etc. My XXXXXX is keeping me from getting THE SHOT!

Instead, think out of side the box. Remember, you can still get decent and interesting hockey shots with a lens less than 3 inches in length without breaking any rules sets by the venue.

1. If you can't go tight-tight, go wide! Fisheye (less than 3 inches) - Taken at a San Jose Sharks game, no media pass.


2. If you can't get close enough during the game, skip dinner and get there early! I can show up at warm ups and get those tight, up close and personally shots. I'm limited to six inches or less, but I mainly use a lens with a length of 4.4 inches and I usually find to too long when I'm at the boards. The 85mm would be perfect.


3. You need to know the situation, the environment and your gear inside and out. I wished that I sat on row 17. I'm on the very last row of the HP pavilion; i feel like i can touch the ceiling beams! I just know where I can shoot and where I won't get a usable frame... It's called experience and all about picking your shots wisely... I know that you shoot for living and you're a professional photographer. You will be able to get good stuff with that 85mm and your two bodies You just need to where you can shoot.


Post some results I love hockey pictures!

edited: fixed broken linky

Aktse is right, your best bet in the Canon world is the EF 85mm, f1.8 USM or EF 100mm, f2 USM. I would recommend the 100mm lens and a separate teleconverter, the EF 1.4x, which you would attach at the event. That will give you effectively 140mm, f2.8. Then you'll need to pump up the ISO to have any chance to stop the action. Not perfect by any means.

Actually, you need to try to get a press pass if at all possible. The press get preferential treatment and the privilege to bring good equipment and they also get to be closer to the action.

I'm not sure I'm following this. 3 inches = 7.6 cm = 76 mm

So I thought to myself, "No lenses over 76mm will be less than 3 inches long."

But then I went and looked at my 28-75mm Tamron, and it's way longer than 3" at 75mm. I never noticed or thought about this before... but I always though that the focal length of a lens was the distance from the front element to the film/sensor plane. Obviously I'm wrong about that... so what *does* focal length actually signify? Is it just an equivalent field of view to a single element lens at that absolute length? I'm totally confused now.

Originally Posted by Tim Kamppinen I'm not sure I'm following this. 3 inches = 7.6 cm = 76 mm So I thought to myself, "No lenses over 76mm will be less than 3 inches long." But then I went and looked at my 28-75mm Tamron, and it's way longer than 3" at 75mm. I never noticed or thought about this before... but I always though that the focal length of a lens was the distance from the front element to the film/sensor plane. Obviously I'm wrong about that... so what *does* focal length actually signify? Is it just an equivalent field of view to a single element lens at that absolute length? I'm totally confused now.

In "simple" 1 and 2 element lens designs the lens' rated focal length and dimensional focal length (from the element to the focal plane) should closely match when the lens is set at infinity.

With more modern and complicated lens designs, especially zoom lenses, the different lens groups will add up to a "functional" focal length, but, as you found out, the physical length does not coincide.

If you have a Canon 500D close focus diopter you can actually test the hypothesis and indeed focus from the lens elements (it is a 2 element design) to the focal plane at very close to 500mm, which is why it is called a 500D, where the 500 is the focal length in millimeters and the "D" stands for "dual" elements.

Thanks, Ziggy. That makes sense.

Originally Posted by aktse 1. If you can't go tight-tight, go wide! Fisheye (less than 3 inches) - Taken at a San Jose Sharks game, no media pass.

This photo owns, I've never seen that!

I think you should try Sigma, they seem good, I have 1.

Originally Posted by aktse Sorry -- the lens that you want does not exist. The good news is that you have a lens that works for your needs. And you should be able to get some really good photos with that lens! I find that most sports photographers (well... most photographers) whine in general about their situation and fall into the mental trap -- i don't have field position, i don't have a media pass, i don't have credentials, my lens is too short, my lens it too slow, i couldn't use the strobes, i don't have the money to buy something, the venue is too dark, security was an issue, I don't have access to the camera hole along the boards, etc. My XXXXXX is keeping me from getting THE SHOT! Instead, think out of side the box. Remember, you can still get decent and interesting hockey shots with a lens less than 3 inches in length without breaking any rules sets by the venue. 1. If you can't go tight-tight, go wide! Fisheye (less than 3 inches) - Taken at a San Jose Sharks game, no media pass. 2. If you can't get close enough during the game, skip dinner and get there early! I can show up at warm ups and get those tight, up close and personally shots. I'm limited to six inches or less, but I mainly use a lens with a length of 4.4 inches and I usually find to too long when I'm at the boards. The 85mm would be perfect. 3. You need to know the situation, the environment and your gear inside and out. I wished that I sat on row 17. I'm on the very last row of the HP pavilion; i feel like i can touch the ceiling beams! I just know where I can shoot and where I won't get a usable frame... It's called experience and all about picking your shots wisely... I know that you shoot for living and you're a professional photographer. You will be able to get good stuff with that 85mm and your two bodies You just need to where you can shoot. Post some results I love hockey pictures!

WOW, those are some great photos. I hear everything you were saying, but as far as getting there early, I couldn't do that. I live four and a half hours away. This is my favorite hockey team, been following them since 1972, and my first home game, so I was a little excited. GO BRUINS!!!! I went with the flow of what I had. I didn't even realize that people were standing down by the glass during warmups until it was too late. I was like a little kid looking around. Like I said, I did the best I could, but the final sizes of my shots are considerably smaller than normal because of the cropping I had to do. Maybe I will post some of my better shots. But they pale in comparison to what you showed. Great job. By the way, that fish eye lens shot of the arena is awesome. Thanks for your help.

Shark

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Aktse is right, your best bet in the Canon world is the EF 85mm, f1.8 USM or EF 100mm, f2 USM. I would recommend the 100mm lens and a separate teleconverter, the EF 1.4x, which you would attach at the event. That will give you effectively 140mm, f2.8. Then you'll need to pump up the ISO to have any chance to stop the action. Not perfect by any means. Actually, you need to try to get a press pass if at all possible. The press get preferential treatment and the privilege to bring good equipment and they also get to be closer to the action.

I think I'm probably SOL, but I thought I'd check anyway. If there was anything out there, I knew everybody here would be able to lead me in the right direction. At local sporting events I'm allowed in special areas, but not at a Boston Bruins game. That would be awesome though. I'm going to try to go to a game next year, and I will remember a few of the things I was unaware of, and learned from this year. Like DEFINITELY getting down near the glass during warmups.
Thanks.

Shark

Originally Posted by Tim Kamppinen I'm not sure I'm following this. 3 inches = 7.6 cm = 76 mm So I thought to myself, "No lenses over 76mm will be less than 3 inches long." But then I went and looked at my 28-75mm Tamron, and it's way longer than 3" at 75mm. I never noticed or thought about this before... but I always though that the focal length of a lens was the distance from the front element to the film/sensor plane. Obviously I'm wrong about that... so what *does* focal length actually signify? Is it just an equivalent field of view to a single element lens at that absolute length? I'm totally confused now.

I can't answer your question, but I do know that my 85mm lens is right at about three inches.

Originally Posted by aktse

If you don't mind me asking, can you tell me what kind of camera you used, and the settings you had it on, and what lens you used when you took this shot of Crosby. It's a great photo.
Thanks.

Shark

Originally Posted by Smith This photo owns, I've never seen that! I think you should try Sigma, they seem good, I have 1.

Thanks for the kind words. I posted that specific photo before and re-posted to illustrated a point. You do not need credentials, media pass, long glass, etc. to take meaningful and interesting photos even at a professional sporting event.

And that photo was taken with a 8mm sigma fish. I suggested a faster fisheye for the OP (Shark) because he seemed to be interested in only action shots.

Originally Posted by aktse And that photo was taken with a 8mm sigma fish. I suggested a faster fisheye for the OP (Shark) because he seemed to be interested in only action shots.

semi off topic:
I LOVE my Sigma 8mm fisheye. It's an amazing lens!