Sports Shooting
Happy New Year!
I am trying to get some information on the right lens to shoot my son's soccer games. Primarily they are at night under stadium lights.
I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel XT. My current lens is 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6. I was thinking about getting a :
Canon EF 70-300 f/5-5.6 IS or a
Canon EF 70-200 f/4.
I wondered if anyone can provide some wisdom and expertise on what might work the best.
Thanks
I am trying to get some information on the right lens to shoot my son's soccer games. Primarily they are at night under stadium lights.
I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel XT. My current lens is 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6. I was thinking about getting a :
Canon EF 70-300 f/5-5.6 IS or a
Canon EF 70-200 f/4.
I wondered if anyone can provide some wisdom and expertise on what might work the best.
Thanks
0
Comments
For my son's American football games I wound up using a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM on a Canon 1D MKII body for my best results. Any of the Canon 1D series bodies will yield the best AF results when used with a sports lens.
You really do need both a lens with a constant aperture of f2.8 or better, which also has Ring-USM AF motor technology, and a camera with a very fast AF section in order to gain control.
Understand that I too tried to use a Canon XT/350D when I started. It wasn't until I got both the faster lens and faster body that night sports photography became feasible. The 1D series bodies are at least twice as sensitive in AF sensors and the AF, compared to the XT/350D, is around 3 times faster overall. The f2.8 lens is important because the center AF point is activated to be more precise with lenses of aperture f2.8 or larger.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
"Most time its not the gear that makes the shot"
IMO anything other than a 2.8 is going to be a disappointment. Most of us have been there. We purchased a lens that was good but not good enough for our needs. Later we sold it at a loss to get what we really needed for a satisfying photographic experience. In the end it costs more. Think of it as a long term investment. Once you have a 70-200/2.8 you have got about 85% of shooting situations covered.
"Most time its not the gear that makes the shot"
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Cr8ingWaves-Photography/119946782908?ref=ts
Yup.similar to my situation, except I bought a 200/400 f4 to find out it didn't work in low light. It was an expensive lesson.
I have the 85 1.8 and think it would work, but expect to run a lot. It may whip you into shape following the action
Any point in looking at an extender?
- How far are you trying to reach across the field?
- How's the lighting where you are shooting? Is it consistent all over the field?
- What is the max ISO for your camera?
- What shutter speeds are you shooting? At least 1/500 is usually needed to freeze play.
- How much $$ are you willing to pay?
- What else will you use the lens for? Football, basketball and baseball?
According to most reputable sources the 70-200/2.8 is one of the best outdoor sports shooting lenses for Canon.
I used to shoot HS football with a Canon XSi and EF 70-200/2.8 L IS combo. Since I couldn't afford a 300/2.8 I added a Canon 1.4 teleconverter (TC) to get the extra reach (really needed when shooting a large playing area like a football or soccer field). Unbeknownst to me the 1.4 TC forced my f-stop to bottom out at 4.0 not the 2.8 of my lens. A 2.0 TC will bottom out your camera's f-stop at 5.6!
The f-stop limit combined with the XSi's ISO limitation (it maxes out at 1600) meant that my shots were perpetually 1 or 2 stops underexposed (depending on the lights on the field - endzones here are always darker than the rest of the field). All this with shutter speeds (SS) no higher than 1/250-1/300 resulted in lots of blurred and underexposed throwaways. Adding a solid monopod decreased the amount of blur and added a few more keepers at the lower SS but it could not overcome the combined f4.0/ISO1600 limit. I had better results removing the TC but then I could only reach from the sideline to the closest hash marks. If the play went away from me forget it. Obviously the IS on the lens was a waste with a solid monopod.
I tried using Lightroom (for exposure correction) and Noise Ninja (for noise reduction - NR) to compensate to the quality of the pics and had moderate luck.
I was able to borrow a 5D MKII and that combined with my 70-200/2.8 meant I could get more keepers - the MKII has a FPS of 6 (compared to the 3FPS of my xSI) and the useable ISO was about 3200-4000 which in turn meant I could get 1/500 under the same lighting conditions.
The 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens for sports photography but to really get the reach you will need at least a 300/2.8 if you want adequate cover capability. Or, you could go with the 70-200/2.8 and and a 1.4 TC and a camera with better ISO capability (e.g. a used MKIII or 7D) at the higher f4.0. I opted to bite the bullet, shot for 3 years with the XSi and saved my $$ for a MkIV. I am shooting HS and college basketball with the same challenging lighting conditions of last season's football. Having the MkIV means that I can use my 70-200/2.8 and 1.4 TC without worrying much about the lighting for the stuff I shoot. I can't wait until football season starts.
Again, it all comes back to how much $$ you want to spend and how much is the added capability worth to you for the conditions you are shooting.
Good luck!
> My SmugMug website
> Inside Dakota Sports
Another limitation is that most hot shoe flashes limit the quantity of frames per second you can shoot with the flash depending on the body you are using. If your camera is limited by the flash be ready to deal with lots of underexposed shots which in turn would mean more shooting to offset the throwaways.
If you're serious about shooting sports you really can't avoid the cost of faster glass and better camera bodies.
> My SmugMug website
> Inside Dakota Sports
Flash and football don't play well together, period! Around here even with the dark holes we have called "football fields" flash does nothing to the photo but give the players red eye. Better off most of the time to underexpose, shoot raw and hope you can bump something out of it in post.
You can use a flash successfully with football, but you have to get it off camera. The usual technique is to attach it to a monopod upside down 2-3 feet down connected via a flash cable.
Provides light under the helmet so you can see faces/eyes, generally doesn't have an issue with odd shadows on the field (because the light is directed up), and no red eye.
It's not how I shoot football, but have seen it work well for others.
Tried it, several times. Dark caves it does nothing for... but still causes red eye. Go figure.... And that was with a Canon hotshoe cable fully stretched to get the flash as far off camera as I could.
Agreed. Night time, stadium lights, you need 2.8 if not faster. Anything else is a waste of money and of effort. If money is tight there are two alternatives. One is the 200/2.8. Its much cheaper than the zoom 70-200/2.8. And frankly, 95% of the time you will be at full-zoom anyway. The zoom is NOT necessary, but the REACH is.
The other alternative is to simply buy photographs, assuming the games are covered by a pro. You can buy a lot of pics for the price of a lens and also be able to WATCH and enjoy the game.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I shoot with an Oly 510 with a Sigma f 2.8 70-200mm lens, and I still have a heck of a time trying to shoot evening soccer games. To be honest, I know I need a better body, but shooting at ISO 1600, still does not help in getting a fast enough shutter speed.
Reality is - with good stadium lights you're looking at f2.8 and ISO 3200. With poor stadium lights you need f2.8 and 6400. The XT doesn't have ISO 3200. So that's a big problem.
Let's set that aside for a moment to discuss other options - namely a 70-200 2.8. You need to realize distance is critical - especially in low light. The working distance of 200mm is around 25 yards - in good light. In low light with an older body (less capable focus system and more noise) - probably about 20 yards. So, that's a LOT of money to spend for very short reach. It's OK as long as you're willing to live within the limitations.
Now, as others mentioned - flash is an option. I'm not sure why one poster is having problems. I shoot football with flash is some dismal stadiums with the setup suggested (flash mounted below the camera on monopod) and have no problems:
BUT, you need to understand a few things about flash and Canon before you try that route. First, you need to realize that one benefit of flash is the focus assist beam - red light on the flash that shines while you try and focus - it helps the camera achieve focus. With Canon that beam doesn't operate when you're using AI-Servo focus (necessary for tracking moving subjects). And, an f4 or f5.6 lens doesn't let in a lot of light and the focus system on the XT isn't very good - all of which means even if you use external flash you're going to have problems focusing with slow lenses on that camera - unless you switch to single shot. That is probably a decent option although it's tough to say what the keeper rate will be. But you need an external flash (built in is far too weak). And there are other drawbacks:
flash must re-charge - better flashes(like 580exII) with external battery pack will recharge faster. Flashes like the 430exII take longer to recharge.
you also have to be careful - you can burn out a flash - literally if you're constantly trying to machine gun it - don't expect to take 2,0000 photos in a game without risking burning out the flash.
And then there's the exchange of batteries (another reason an external battery pack is good).
I'm not saying you can't get shots - I'm just trying to point out it's a very difficult task - football is easier as you can be closer to the action - soccer has too much action taking place further away. And, as I've eluded to, the focus system on the XT isn't the greatest. So there aren't a lot of great options - the ISO limit on your camera makes a 2.8 lens of questionable value - unless you've got an incredibly bright field.
Gentle observation for the original poster - an issue with this shot is the amount of dead space around the subjects. A tighter crop would improve the shot but of course worsen the noise. A 300/f2.8 (or bigger) and a 5DMKII would provide a tighter shot to accentuate the emotion and action and retain the otherwise excellent qualities in the pic.
Generally speaking...what does everyone else think is the most difficult (equipment-wise) HS sport to shoot at night? Baseball? Soccer? Football?
I would have to say soccer with football a close second.
> My SmugMug website
> Inside Dakota Sports
I guess it was just a judgment call...
Depends on the light...all other things being equal, I find soccer the most difficult, though I have no experience at baseball. (I don't much like the sport.) Some pro stadiums are not too bad, but for the U12-18 fields the lighting is atrocious!
Your initial call was the right one, the first version is a sweet shot.
> My SmugMug website
> Inside Dakota Sports