Teleconverter for Football. Worth it?

kbevphoto

Just read a bunch of threads on this, and wanted to see what the "latest" thinking was on this. I am going to have the opportunity to shoot on the sidelines for a D1 football game in 2 weeks. I am considering buying a teleconverter. I have a D300 and D700. I plan on using my 70-200mm Nikon lens.


I haven't shot football before and am not sure if 200 is enough reach. I could pop it on the D300 (i usually keep a 17-55mm on that) to get a little more pixel density and digitally zoom at home. I do know that is NOT the same thing as having a truer reach though.

Anyway, I was curious to know what you all thought about buying one of the Nikon teleconverters for the game. Is it worth the investment? I have read that a TC costs me a stop or two, but in that kind of lighting, I am guessing I won't have too many issues.

Is 200mm enough reach on a 300/700 body? Thanks. If not, which TC should i be thinking about for it?

lfortier

I use the 70-200 w/ the Nikon 1.7 TC and it works very well. You may find that the Nikon 2.0 TC may give you additional reach but the AF may slow down too much for your needs.

73Rocks

I tried using a 2X teleconverter for my Sigma f2.8 (with a Canon 50D) and I too found that the focusing was slow and very hard to zero in on what I wanted to focus on. Another thing to consider (which I discovered the hard way) is that when you use a teleconverter your f# is increased . . . thereby defeating the purpose of using a low light lens for poorly lit football fields.

My suggestion - if you are shooting daytime games, give it a try. But if you shoot mainly night games at small town fields, pass on it.

kbevphoto

Thanks guys. This will be a televised D1 game, so lighting would be good. I posted the same msg on another forum and got the advice that when the actions gets close, the TC will be hard to manage. Plus, since it'll be my first football game, I should stick with what I know for now.

Oh well. No goodies for me. 8- (

73Rocks

kbevphoto wrote: »

Thanks guys. This will be a televised D1 game, so lighting would be good. I posted the same msg on another forum and got the advice that when the actions gets close, the TC will be hard to manage. Plus, since it'll be my first football game, I should stick with what I know for now.

Oh well. No goodies for me. 8- (

Well if the money is burning a hole in your pocket . . . let offer a little more advice. After selling my Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 and the 2X teleconverter I took the plunge and purchased a Canon 70 - 200 f2.8 IS (about $2400). This is the 1st season using it for football and I am amazed at the results. I don't know all the technology behind it but with the image stablization of the lens it lets me freeze the action without using the high speed sync on my Canon 430EX flash.

Here is what I suggest - I believe the equivilent of the Canon IS lens is the Nikon Nikkor lens. With the lighting at the fields you will be at the Nikkor lens will let shoot within your flash's range. I am sure there must be someplace in Chicago that will let you rent the lens before you buy it.

Hope this helps you out some.

torags

I've been real happy with my Nik 70/200 2.8+ 2X EIII, but for night/stadium shooting it might not be fast enough @5.6

For the record, I have a Sigma 2X for my Siggy 300 2.8. It is without a doubt a POS. The 1.4 is fine

The EIII TC has an aspherical lens, a much better product.

photodad1

I shoot football with the 70-200mm f2.8 at the beginning of the game and as the sun starts to set I will start off with the 1.4 converter and then once the sun goes down I take off the 1.4 converter to make sure I get the speed that the F2.8 provides. Shooting with the converter changes your f-stop from a F2.8 to F4.0, thus requiring you to increase your ISO.

MDalby

I have stopped using mine. The shots just aren't as sharp.

coltphotography

i have a 70-200mm f2.8 and 1.4 converter. i mostly shoot soccer during the day but i am going to my nephew's football game on thursday night. i will try some with and without the converter but am i totally SOL without a flash? got lights but not sure how good the HS field lights are.

i think i am setting myself up with low expectations so i will be excited if i get some good stuff.

jhefti

kbevphoto wrote: »

Thanks guys. This will be a televised D1 game, so lighting would be good. (

I shoot televised night games in pro stadiums all the time, and the lighting is never good enough to shoot with anything slower than an f/2.8. I know that it looks really bright on TV and in those good stills you see from pro shooters, but that's because they have the equipment to make it look like that.

ARKreations

Instead of buying a TC, why not put the 70-200 on the D300 and rent a 300 or 400 f/2.8 for the D700? Then you're set for low light up close and far away.

kbevphoto

All - The game was great and the 70-200 was just fine. The photos are here:

http://www.kbevphoto.com/Sports/Stanford-30-Oregon-53-Nov-11/20277993_Qzt5WC#1603213805_h4Nz73C

Thanks for the tips and help.