The answer is: it depends. What level of play? Are you on sidelines or outside fence? Are they day or night games? The ideal setup is 2-camera: one with 400mm 2.8 and the other with 70-200 2.8. Most of us cannot afford ideal. So we have to make compromises. 200mm is good for about 25 yards of coverage - not very far. 300mm about 40 yards and 400mm about 50-60 yards. In addition to the above questions, what brand camera are you using? That will dictate what lens choices you have.
The answer is: it depends. What level of play? Are you on sidelines or outside fence? Are they day or night games? The ideal setup is 2-camera: one with 400mm 2.8 and the other with 70-200 2.8. Most of us cannot afford ideal. So we have to make compromises. 200mm is good for about 25 yards of coverage - not very far. 300mm about 40 yards and 400mm about 50-60 yards. In addition to the above questions, what brand camera are you using? That will dictate what lens choices you have.
What Lense does everyone you when shooting football games?
If you are just starting out, and are using a Nikon DX, then try 70-300mm, which will effectively give you 105-450mm since it is a FX lens. This works well for daytime, but not night and it is relatively inexpensive. AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED around $600.
<table class="data-table filter-table" id="category-filter-table" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="even data-table-row" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"><td class="pdp-link">
</td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The answer is: it depends. What level of play? Are you on sidelines or outside fence? Are they day or night games? The ideal setup is 2-camera: one with 400mm 2.8 and the other with 70-200 2.8. Most of us cannot afford ideal. So we have to make compromises. 200mm is good for about 25 yards of coverage - not very far. 300mm about 40 yards and 400mm about 50-60 yards. In addition to the above questions, what brand camera are you using? That will dictate what lens choices you have.
Well advised.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
I use a Nikon DX format. I am on the sideline and the games start with sun and end under the lights. Level of play is highschoool.
There are several of options that you could consider:
Nikon 70-200 2.8 + 1.7x teleconverter (178.5 - 510mm)
Sigma 120-300 2.8 (could serve as an all-in-one sports lens)
Nikon 300mm 2.8 or 400 2.8
There is an associated cost to all of these but would give you enough range considering your crop factor. While I've never used the Sigma lens, I've read pretty good reviews on it & Scott Sewell stated a while back that it was his initial lens for full field sports.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
the sigma 70-200 2.8 is a nice lens. I shoot one. I'm not sure if it is quite as sharp as the nikon though. As was mentioned before though, you don't have as much reach. Right now I can use my nikon 300 f4 for the first quarter then switch. In a few weeks I'll be using the 2.8 only because of it getting dark earlier.
**If I keep shooting, I'm bound to hit something**
Dave
Just wanted to add an issue to the crop factor that I believe is a mistake. I have been saying the same thing though questioning the truthfulness of the statement. Does the crop factor change the reach of the lens? True answer is No. Think about how a lens works is there and additional lens in a cropped body giving you additional reach, like adding an extender? NO! We have been sold a joke and bought into it. The effective reach of a 200mm lens is not 320mm on a 1.6 crop camera. Your reach is still about 20 yards. The difference is the sensor is smaller than a full frame sensor. A crop body is a cropped sensor producing a cropped photo from 35mm it did not increase the useful range of the lens. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble. I did some testing couldn't afford a 400mm lens for field sports so I purchased a 50d took some shots at 40+ yards thinking that was the way to go and the picture was no clearer than my Mark III at 40 yards as would have been expected because of the crop factor. The fact is the real estate of the sensor is smaller producing a smaller picture not adding reach. If you don't like what I wrote please tell me. Then explain how without adding additional lenses you get more reach with a cropped sensor? You get only a cropped picture.
Just wanted to add an issue to the crop factor that I believe is a mistake. I have been saying the same thing though questioning the truthfulness of the statement. Does the crop factor change the reach of the lens? True answer is No. Think about how a lens works is there and additional lens in a cropped body giving you additional reach, like adding an extender? NO! We have been sold a joke and bought into it. The effective reach of a 200mm lens is not 320mm on a 1.6 crop camera. Your reach is still about 20 yards. The difference is the sensor is smaller than a full frame sensor. A crop body is a cropped sensor producing a cropped photo from 35mm it did not increase the useful range of the lens. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble. I did some testing couldn't afford a 400mm lens for field sports so I purchased a 50d took some shots at 40+ yards thinking that was the way to go and the picture was no clearer than my Mark III at 40 yards as would have been expected because of the crop factor. The fact is the real estate of the sensor is smaller producing a smaller picture not adding reach. If you don't like what I wrote please tell me. Then explain how without adding additional lenses you get more reach with a cropped sensor? You get only a cropped picture.
Cram more pixels into the same space and you gain the ability to crop tighter while retaining a similar resolution. Crop bodies do basically this. It works with some limitations. Smaller pixels on the sensor means a reduction in sensitivity, so they don't perform as well at higher ISO. This also makes the assumption that the lense being used projects an image on the sensor that is clean enough to produce the higher resolution image and that the operator can adequately use the equipment. Failure to understand certain mechanics of photography can also result in poor results. There are a number of explanations for your difficulties, but a crop body does something very similar to a teleconverter in that is selects a smaller portion of the image or reduces the angle of view being captured. As a result, the multiplier is an accurate method of describing the results of using a cropped censor.
Cram more pixels into the same space and you gain the ability to crop tighter while retaining a similar resolution. Crop bodies do basically this. It works with some limitations. Smaller pixels on the sensor means a reduction in sensitivity, so they don't perform as well at higher ISO. This also makes the assumption that the lense being used projects an image on the sensor that is clean enough to produce the higher resolution image and that the operator can adequately use the equipment. Failure to understand certain mechanics of photography can also result in poor results. There are a number of explanations for your difficulties, but a crop body does something very similar to a teleconverter in that is selects a smaller portion of the image or reduces the angle of view being captured. As a result, the multiplier is an accurate method of describing the results of using a cropped censor.
I would agree with your statement totally. The point I am only trying to make is that you can't put a 200mm L on a cropped body (320mm with the cropped factor) and put a 300mm L on a full frame and get the same results even if the abilty of the sensor were the exact same. If you are taking a football photo at 35 yards the 300mm lens on the full frame is going to be the better picture being you are closer to the action. The 200mm on the 1.6 crop is not going to get you to 35 yards and get the same or similar quality photo you will be stopped closer to 25 yards. There is a rumor going around that a cropped body will get you the same quality photo with a less expensive lens meaning you could purchase a 300 L instead of say a 400 L due to the crop factor the 300 is really getting you out to 480mm this is not true it is still getting you to 300mm distances the image is just cropped so that it would be similar picture real estate size wise to using a 480mm lens.
In response to the original question, for football (lacrosse, soccer, rugby) I use a 400mm f/2.8 on one body and a 70-200mm f/2.8 on another. 90% of the time I'm shooting with the 400mm.
Kent "Not everybody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs."- Ansel Adams Web site
I would agree with your statement totally. The point I am only trying to make is that you can't put a 200mm L on a cropped body (320mm with the cropped factor) and put a 300mm L on a full frame and get the same results even if the abilty of the sensor were the exact same. If you are taking a football photo at 35 yards the 300mm lens on the full frame is going to be the better picture being you are closer to the action. The 200mm on the 1.6 crop is not going to get you to 35 yards and get the same or similar quality photo you will be stopped closer to 25 yards. There is a rumor going around that a cropped body will get you the same quality photo with a less expensive lens meaning you could purchase a 300 L instead of say a 400 L due to the crop factor the 300 is really getting you out to 480mm this is not true it is still getting you to 300mm distances the image is just cropped so that it would be similar picture real estate size wise to using a 480mm lens.
I think you're on shaky ground here. Let's see some proof.
Ideal doesn't apply in my household due to limited financial backing from my wife's checkbook. A 400 lens isn't in my foreseeable future so... I am trying to make due with what I can. I have a Nikon 70-200 VR II 2.8 and I just picked up a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4X TC.
Don't want to hijack this thread but today will be my first shoot with the TC. Anyone have any experience with this TC for night football? Anything I should be aware of?
I will be shooting with flash so I should be able to have the higher aperture and be OK for freezing the action.
Nikon D4, 400 2.8 AF-I, 70-200mm 2.8 VR II, 24-70 2.8
CBS Sports MaxPreps Shooter http://DalbyPhoto.com
Actually, in my experience, I have to agree that a crop sensor doesn't equate to shooting things at longer distance. In my experience you simply run into more focus inaccuracies. When I switched from an xxD (1.6 crop) to a 1d (1.3 crop) I didn't "lose reach" - the focus system, if anything, allowed me to have a tiny bit more reach. Again, can't speak for other sports shooters but that was my experience.
I shoot with a Canon 7D and a 70-200 F/2.8 II because I cant find a 300mm 2.8 I can afford
Nor will you if Canon keeps bumping their stupid prices... The new cost of the 300/2.8II and 400/2.8II are WAY out of reach, even for those of us who do this full-time. Just to be "In line" with Nikon pricing is a bunch of BS. They could had kept prices down and sold more... but nope, raise prices on all the new II glass, sucks!
Comments
That's the straight scoop.
If you are just starting out, and are using a Nikon DX, then try 70-300mm, which will effectively give you 105-450mm since it is a FX lens. This works well for daytime, but not night and it is relatively inexpensive. AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED around $600.
<table class="data-table filter-table" id="category-filter-table" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="even data-table-row" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"><td class="pdp-link">
</td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
Well advised.
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
There are several of options that you could consider:
Nikon 70-200 2.8 + 1.7x teleconverter (178.5 - 510mm)
Sigma 120-300 2.8 (could serve as an all-in-one sports lens)
Nikon 300mm 2.8 or 400 2.8
There is an associated cost to all of these but would give you enough range considering your crop factor. While I've never used the Sigma lens, I've read pretty good reviews on it & Scott Sewell stated a while back that it was his initial lens for full field sports.
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
Dave
Cram more pixels into the same space and you gain the ability to crop tighter while retaining a similar resolution. Crop bodies do basically this. It works with some limitations. Smaller pixels on the sensor means a reduction in sensitivity, so they don't perform as well at higher ISO. This also makes the assumption that the lense being used projects an image on the sensor that is clean enough to produce the higher resolution image and that the operator can adequately use the equipment. Failure to understand certain mechanics of photography can also result in poor results. There are a number of explanations for your difficulties, but a crop body does something very similar to a teleconverter in that is selects a smaller portion of the image or reduces the angle of view being captured. As a result, the multiplier is an accurate method of describing the results of using a cropped censor.
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
I would agree with your statement totally. The point I am only trying to make is that you can't put a 200mm L on a cropped body (320mm with the cropped factor) and put a 300mm L on a full frame and get the same results even if the abilty of the sensor were the exact same. If you are taking a football photo at 35 yards the 300mm lens on the full frame is going to be the better picture being you are closer to the action. The 200mm on the 1.6 crop is not going to get you to 35 yards and get the same or similar quality photo you will be stopped closer to 25 yards. There is a rumor going around that a cropped body will get you the same quality photo with a less expensive lens meaning you could purchase a 300 L instead of say a 400 L due to the crop factor the 300 is really getting you out to 480mm this is not true it is still getting you to 300mm distances the image is just cropped so that it would be similar picture real estate size wise to using a 480mm lens.
Kent
"Not everybody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs."- Ansel Adams
Web site
I think you're on shaky ground here. Let's see some proof.
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
I shoot primarily with the Nikon 200-400 f4. I use a lot mounted flash for night games.
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
Don't want to hijack this thread but today will be my first shoot with the TC. Anyone have any experience with this TC for night football? Anything I should be aware of?
I will be shooting with flash so I should be able to have the higher aperture and be OK for freezing the action.
CBS Sports MaxPreps Shooter
http://DalbyPhoto.com
Agreed.
http://www.knippixels.com
Actually, in my experience, I have to agree that a crop sensor doesn't equate to shooting things at longer distance. In my experience you simply run into more focus inaccuracies. When I switched from an xxD (1.6 crop) to a 1d (1.3 crop) I didn't "lose reach" - the focus system, if anything, allowed me to have a tiny bit more reach. Again, can't speak for other sports shooters but that was my experience.
http://www.youatplay.com
Nor will you if Canon keeps bumping their stupid prices... The new cost of the 300/2.8II and 400/2.8II are WAY out of reach, even for those of us who do this full-time. Just to be "In line" with Nikon pricing is a bunch of BS. They could had kept prices down and sold more... but nope, raise prices on all the new II glass, sucks!