Lens Question

Shark · May 5, 2009

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

ziggy53 · May 5, 2009

Shark wrote:

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.

aktse · May 5, 2009

Shark wrote:

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.

Art Scott · May 5, 2009

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..........

aj986s · May 5, 2009

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.

catspaw · May 5, 2009

aj986s wrote:

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.

Shark · May 5, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

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

Shark · May 5, 2009

aktse wrote:

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.

aktse · May 5, 2009

Shark wrote:

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

ziggy53 · May 5, 2009

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.

Tim Kamppinen · May 5, 2009

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.

ziggy53 · May 5, 2009

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

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.

Tim Kamppinen · May 5, 2009

Thanks, Ziggy. That makes sense.

Smith · May 5, 2009

aktse wrote:

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.

Shark · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

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

Shark · May 6, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

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

Shark · May 6, 2009

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

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.

Shark · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

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

aktse · May 6, 2009

Smith wrote:

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.

catspaw · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

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!

aktse · May 6, 2009

Shark wrote:

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.

If that's the best that you can do, then that is what matters; you can't do any better than your best...

Remember. Your first priority was to watch the game and not take photos. And I bet you have some good memories of the journey up, the festivities and most importantly, the game itself. Also, with the 40D and 50D, you should be able to crop quite a bit and still obtain some usable files. Post!

The other thing to realize that a good viewing seat isn't necessary the same as a good photography seat.

Shark wrote:

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

I honestly don't remember, but you can check the EXIF for the exact exposure. It was taken either with a 20D or a 40D, 135mm probably at f/2.0, a SS around 1/1000 or faster, and ISO of 800/400 with a custom white balance using a phoxle.

Before each game, I decide the type of shots that I want to take and try to work on one thing... The other thing to keep in mind is that warmups are predictable. The players will be shooting into the net, shooting on the goalie, doing various drills. For warmups, I personally like to isolate players because it's the only time that I can do so. I also study the lineup (do they shoot left/right, what position, any new injuries, or new cut & bruises, etc) and position myself at a specific position along the boards or above on the other level.

If a want a photo of a player skating on an edge, I want to be at the corners because I want to be at an angle to the skater.
1. Thomas Pihal on his edges. He was coming out of a turn near the blue doing a cross over generate speed - look at his skates... completely on the edge

If I want a concentrate on people shooting on the goalie, I try to find a spot to the side of the goalie.
2. Christian Erhoff shooting on the goalie

If I want to show the flex of the stick, I don't go to the boards but go up top instead.
3. Mike Fisher of the Sens with a nice stick bend.

And some players practice certain skills during warmups. Crosby, Ovechkin like bouncing a puck off the stick.
4. Brian Campbell (now with the blackhawks) does the same thing.

5. The players will drop speed after they take a shot and curl into the corners. This is the time to get close-ups.

Goalies are easy to isolate. You know where to find them --- in the crease!
6. Nabby taking a breather between shots.

The 135 mm is a bit long for warmups along the boards and I think your 85mm would be perfect. I try to limit myself to one lens unless I'm trying to capture something specific (like T&S).

Most of my hockey photography tips are listed in this thread

You have seem to have the correct lens for hockey and a good camera body. Just CWB, think a little, and you should be good to go... :ivar

Shark · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

Remember. Your first priority was to watch the game and not take photos. And I bet you have some good memories of the journey up, the festivities and most importantly, the game itself. Also, with the 40D and 50D, you should be able to crop quite a bit and still obtain some usable files. Post! The other thing to realize that a good viewing seat isn't necessary the same as a good photography seat.

I honestly don't remember, but you can check the EXIF for the exact exposure. It was taken either with a 20D or a 40D, 135mm probably at f/2.0, a SS around 1/1000 or faster, and ISO of 800/400 with a custom white balance using a phoxle.

Before each game, I decide the type of shots that I want to take and try to work on one thing... The other thing to keep in mind is that warmups are predictable. The players will be shooting into the net, shooting on the goalie, doing various drills. For warmups, I personally like to isolate players because it's the only time that I can do so. I also study the lineup (do they shoot left/right, what position, any new injuries, or new cut & bruises, etc) and position myself at a specific position along the boards or above on the other level.

If a want a photo of a player skating on an edge, I want to be at the corners because I want to be at an angle to the skater.
1. Thomas Pihal on his edges. He was coming out of a turn near the blue doing a cross over generate speed - look at his skates... completely on the edge

If I want a concentrate on people shooting on the goalie, I try to find a spot to the side of the goalie.
2. Christian Erhoff shooting on the goalie

If I want to show the flex of the stick, I don't go to the boards but go up top instead.
3. Mike Fisher of the Sens with a nice stick bend.

And some players practice certain skills during warmups. Crosby, Ovechkin like bouncing a puck off the stick.
4. Brian Campbell (now with the blackhawks) does the same thing.

5. The players will drop speed after they take a shot and curl into the corners. This is the time to get close-ups.

Goalies are easy to isolate. You know where to find them --- in the crease!
6. Nabby taking a breather between shots.

The 135 mm is a bit long for warmups along the boards and I think your 85mm would be perfect. I try to limit myself to one lens unless I'm trying to capture something specific (like T&S).

Most of my hockey photography tips are listed in this thread

You have seem to have the correct lens for hockey and a good camera body. Just CWB, think a little, and you should be good to go... :ivar

The 85mm lens was recommended by a photographer on one other site I used to be on. This guy was a fantastic photographer. He didn't do sports, but when I asked what a good sports action lens would be, he suggested that one. I'm happy with it.

Definitely my first priority was to watch the game, and I did. I've been a Bruins fan for a very long time, and this was a dream trip for me. But, being a photographer, I also wanted to get some photos in. I have some great memories of the journey, the noise, the electricity of the crowd, my childhood team, the Stanley Cup playoffs, the whole thing. It was awesome. The only thing missing was a win. But we both had alot of fun, so that was accomplished.

Both cameras take large photos, but being where we were, in order to isolate the players that I shot, cropping chopped them right down to where the sizes are near 1000, at times a little below. I don't think any of my photos would be able to be used for anything over 5x7's.

We were up just high enough so that viewing play down in the other end wasn't obstructed, and it wasn't a neck wrenching experience. I put a little bit of research into the seats, and what I thought would be the best to see the game. And the seats were great.

I like the few tips you gave that you think about before you go to a game, I am going to hang onto them and utilize them. I shoot alot of local high school & college hockey games, and maybe I can use the tips at those games. I am going to check out that area where you said you posted tips, maybe I can get some more help from there.

I have been shooting at hockey games for about five years now. Using everything from my old Sony Cybershot to the Canon Rebel, and now the 40 & 50 D's. It really is hard around here to get a rink that is well lit enough to get photos like yours. Alot of them are pretty dark. I fiddle with the settings, and I like some of my photos, but there is nothing stellar about them. There are some parents who think otherwise, and at times, purchase my photos, but I don't know if you agree with me or not, that doesn't make me feel better about my shots. It's basically just parents who love the photo of their little Johnny, and want to have it. And there is nothing wrong with that, but as a photographer, I want to be satisfied with my work, and many times I'm not. I don't do this for a living (good thing), it's just a hobby that I love. And when I sell photos along the way, hey, that makes it alot more fun. All of my best hockey photography can be found on my site if you'd like to check a little of it out. (It's not knockout stuff, or even anywhere near it) Just a warning.

Thanks for the tips, and I will try to post what I have. One last thing, what does T&S and CWB mean? I've been wracking my brain trying to figure them out without asking, but I can't come up with anything.
Thanks.

Shark

cmason · May 6, 2009

Have you considered the Canon 70-300 DO IS? It is a smidge over 3 inches, but it definitely does not look like a zoom lens. If someone is measuring with a tape measure, it wont get in, but it is the same size as my Tamron 28-75 and looks like a 'normal' lens.

aktse · May 6, 2009

cmason wrote:

Have you considered the Canon 70-300 DO IS? It is a smidge over 3 inches, but it definitely does not look like a zoom lens. If someone is measuring with a tape measure, it wont get in, but it is the same size as my Tamron 28-75 and looks like a 'normal' lens.

Good suggestion. Actually, a very, very good suggestion, but that lens is closer to 4" than 3" when full closed (3.9"), and much, much longer when fully zoomed out (over 6 inches in length).

I've discovered that venues have been checking the length when the lens extended, not closed. For the HP Pavillion, where the San Jose Sharks play, it's six inches total. They use the long side of the tickets scanners as a ruler and other places use the short side of the device to measure glass. There are times when you'll get a security person that won't know the rules, but there will be unlucky times when you'll get caught. I've known some really pissed off friends with their 18-200s and they get extremely mad at the security using the justification that they brought the lens in before. I just shrug my shoulders and point them to the rules... Rules are rules even if they're not always enforced (thinking driving on the freeway -- how often do you drive the speedlimit?). If you bring in an illegal lens (and many people do), just be aware that it can be taken away. Contacting the venue would be the safest thing to do....

If the limit was 6", the 70-300 DO would be safe because there is a mid-way locking point in the zoom mechanism that will keep it below 6".

I've considered buy this lens just to take into the Sharks' games, but after some decisions, decided the price tag was too high for the optics to justify having that lens for one purpose. However, I do think about that lens often

Who knows? it might end up in my collection.

Shark · May 6, 2009

cmason wrote:

Have you considered the Canon 70-300 DO IS? It is a smidge over 3 inches, but it definitely does not look like a zoom lens. If someone is measuring with a tape measure, it wont get in, but it is the same size as my Tamron 28-75 and looks like a 'normal' lens.

I'll look into that one. Thanks.

aktse · May 6, 2009

Shark wrote:

Both cameras take large photos, but being where we were, in order to isolate the players that I shot, cropping chopped them right down to where the sizes are near 1000, at times a little below. I don't think any of my photos would be able to be used for anything over 5x7's.

Honestly, I wouldn't have tired very hard to isolate players during the game with the limitations on the gear. For photos, I would have focused on fans, the people around me, grabbed some bigger moments, like goal scoring, celebrations, etc. and just watched the game. A good sports photo isn't always tight-tight.

If you still want to isolated players, change your expectations of the results.... I nearly positive that you got some great photos, but shoot with the expectation that you can not blow them up to poster size. Be happy with what you have :-) After all, you were at the game!

Shark wrote:

Thanks for the tips, and I will try to post what I have. One last thing, what does T&S and CWB mean? I've been wracking my brain trying to figure them out without asking, but I can't come up with anything.

The 85mm f/1.8 is a good sports lens, but for general hockey in the dark local rinks, i like the 135 f/2.0, 70-200 f/2.8, or 300 f/2.8, etc. for the reach.

CWB -- custom white balance. I think it's beneficial even if someone is shooting RAW, especially for indoor sports. In a pinch, the ice or jersey works, but there is value in an engineered tool. Check my post about hockey tips -- i've linked about five dgrin discussions on white balance in that post and the reasons for my current choice.

T&S (or TSE) -- tilt and shift. It's not known as a sports lens, but it can bring a different look/details to sports.

Chase Jarvis, Walter Iooss and Vincent Laforet are three that has done many great things with T&S. My fascination with this method began a few years ago when I first saw this from the New York Times: Sports Shots via T&S by Vincent Laforet Laforet shot some major events with the T&S including Pipeline Masters, US Open Tennis, World Series, Kentucky Derby, Superbowl, etc.

And I haven't forgotten about those images since I saw them and the lessons that I took away from it. I, and any other peon, can shoot interesting sports images from the stands without a media pass or big glass... it just takes some thought, creativity and determination

I might not get it the first time, or second, but I know that I will get my dream shot one day. However, that day yet to arrive and the San Jose Sharks are out of the playoffs. I guess I try it again next year!

One other thing to note: i'm nothing more than a regular hobbyist. Please feel free to disregard my suggestion... I'm just writing what I've learned and the mistakes that I've made over the years.

kdog · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

If the limit was 6", the 70-300 DO would be safe because there is a mid-way locking point in the zoom mechanism that will keep it below 6".

Actually, the lock keeps the lens fully retracted. At least that's the way it works on mine. I recently broke down and got this lens because my 100-400 just draws way too much attention out in public. People think I'm a paparazzi or something with it. It's also a hassle to lug around. The DO is a sweet little lens!

-joel

Shark · May 6, 2009

I posted some of the shots I took at Sunday's game. They can be viewed in the Sports section. Check them out if you'd like.

Shark

Shark · May 6, 2009

aktse wrote:

I nearly positive that you got some great photos, but shoot with the expectation that you can not blow them up to poster size. Be happy with what you have :-) After all, you were at the game!

Chase Jarvis, Walter Iooss and Vincent Laforet are three that has done many great things with T&S. My fascination with this method began a few years ago when I first saw this from the New York Times: Sports Shots via T&S by Vincent Laforet Laforet shot some major events with the T&S including Pipeline Masters, US Open Tennis, World Series, Kentucky Derby, Superbowl, etc.

And I haven't forgotten about those images since I saw them and the lessons that I took away from it. I, and any other peon, can shoot interesting sports images from the stands without a media pass or big glass... it just takes some thought, creativity and determination I might not get it the first time, or second, but I know that I will get my dream shot one day. However, that day yet to arrive and the San Jose Sharks are out of the playoffs. I guess I try it again next year!

One other thing to note: i'm nothing more than a regular hobbyist. Please feel free to disregard my suggestion... I'm just writing what I've learned and the mistakes that I've made over the years.

Oh, believe me, I am very happy that I was at the game. The decision to bring the camera in was somewhat of a last minute thing. I enjoyed the game fully, and fired off shots when I could. I didn't spend the whole game looking through the lens, and I'm glad that I didn't do that. Enjoying the whole experience was first and foremost in my mind.

I plan on checking out the three photographers you mentioned, and see what I might be able to learn there. I too am looking for that dream shot, and someday maybe I'll get it. But for now, I just enjoy doing what I'm doing.

I never disregard any suggestions. I feel if someone has gone to the lengths of giving me insight from what they have learned, I will listen and absorb what I can. I may choose to not do things the way they are suggested at times, but that's what makes us all different. I really appreciate everything that you have told me today, and I will explore the avenues that you led me to, and see what I might be able to learn there. I have a feeling I might be getting ahold of you in the future for one thing or another if you don't mind.

Thanks again for all your help.

Shark

Justiceiro · May 9, 2009

That was a great tutorial on how to shot hockey. I would love it of other people would post it for sports that they shoot. Thanks for the insight.

Lens Question

Comments