Options
Total NooB Questions
gratefulJED
Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
I love photography and am getting better but am still in the confused state. I have been designated soccer photographer, and the lens that I have and use with my Nikon D7000 is the 18-200 3.5 zoom. I have found that I want a little longer than 200 for those shots in the land of farfar away. So my questions - Ken Rockwell fan here and he say that the 70-300 4.5 is no good for sports - not fast enough. I guess that would also rule out the 80-400 4.5 as well. While the 70-200 2.8 is obviously a great lens I don't get any longer than what I already have but I would get better pics than with my 18-200. Money of course is a consideration so that rules out a 400mm 2.8.
I am showing my ignorance, but can my camera make up any difference between 4.5, 3.5 & 2.8? Maybe I should just run up and down the field like the kids. Thanks and please don't fall out of your chair laughing.
I am showing my ignorance, but can my camera make up any difference between 4.5, 3.5 & 2.8? Maybe I should just run up and down the field like the kids. Thanks and please don't fall out of your chair laughing.
0
Comments
Alternately, unless you're shooting night games, f4.5 should be fine.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
There are a couple other things to consider regarding lenses. It isn't just the sharpness or aperture of the lens that matters, it's also the focus speed. Not all lenses are created equal in that regard. I'm not a Nikon guy so I'm not completely up to date on what their lens offerings are below the obvious pro lenses. But I'm guessing you're not going to be buying a 300mm 2.8. Sigma used to make a 100-300 f4 that was a fantastic lens. They've discontinued it though. 5 years ago, the 120-300 2.8 from sigma was a GREAT bargain - I got mine in canon mount for $1800 new. Sadly, they've really hiked up their prices over the years and their new OS version isn't that great of a bargain anymore. You really do want 300-400mm of lens to shoot full field soccer. If it's your main sport, spending money on a 70-200 2.8 probably isn't a great choice UNLESS you also need to shoot under the lights in which case you'll definitely need 2.8
Regarding how much of the field you can cover, it's my experience that the number of keepers I get from the far field is more limited by non-lens factors: players in the way, heat waves coming off turf fields in the hot sun, etc. I would guess that 90% of my keepers come from the near half of the field, and probably >75% come from the closest third of the field--especially near the goal.
If you're looking to do a cost benefit analysis, I might suggest that you lean towards shorter glass (200mm) with fast focusing speed, rather than a longer lens that gives you the reach, but not the speed or image quality.
Lastly--and most importantly--really get to know the timing of the game so that you can anticipate the shots and have your camera pointed at the action before it actually happens. Like every other area of photography, skill is by far the most important component of getting a good shot.
ON, and BTW, your idea of running up and down the field is not a bad one. I used to do this, and not only got some good shots but got some exercise as well. It's a little hard to do with a 400/2.8. In pro games, we are not allowed to move around during the game.
Soccer probably comprises 75% of my photography (this is strictly as an interested parent, which I'm guessing is what you have been "designated" - but correct me if I got that wrong).
I use (own) a Nikon 70-300, and have rented a 70-200 f/2.8 once or twice. My thoughts are
a) the 70-200 is heavy. i get tired of it unless i have it on a monopod.
b) focusing speed of these lenses is not that different on my non-pro camera (a tired Nikon D80).
c) the extra reach of a 70-300 isn't often useful, because the further the action is from your shooting position, the more likely some uninvolved player will be between you and your subject. 300mm isn't long enough to get action at the other end of the field (even on crop body), even when there are no obstacles.
The only soccer photos I have been happy with were taken in bright, sunny weather. A newer body will give me higher usable ISO (for overcast days, at least. maybe even for a while after sunset). If you can live with being limited to daylight hours, I think you can do a lot with the 70-300 (which is considerably less expensive). My SmugMug (brucejordan.smugmug.com) site has a slideshow with two dozen photos - approx 1/2 are soccer - all the sports shots were taken with a 70-300.
So that doesn't really answer your question, but hopefully gives you something to think about.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
I suggest you turn Vibration Reduction Off when shooting sports. Shutter speed fast enough to stop the action will be fast enough to mitigate camera shake - and VR can slow your auto focus.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
What he said! I never use VR when shooting sports.
BTW, one other factor to consider...Most of the comments above were geared towards getting the best shots from a photographer's perspective. However,if you're shooting friends and family at the game, they also like to see important moments even if the shot is not technically or compositionally great; you know, that goal at the far side of the field, or the great save. For people who were at the game, they will generally look past all of the flaws in the shot and just see the actual moment. These captures are important even if they are not the best quality.
With this in mind, I might reconsider my advice to limit yourself to a 200mm tele. I have a 70-300mm lens, Canon but not L-glass, that I use for backpacking and expedition sports because of its size and weight. I get great images from it when I stop it down to f7 or so, and have used it in a pinch at the soccer field with good results. I believe it cost about $600 new, and I'm sure Nikon has an equivalent lens. It might be just what you're looking for. With a crop sensor and a position at the 18 yard line, you can probably capture most of the action. Sure, that great save at the far end of the field will be a bit soft and pixelated to a photographer's eye, but the players and parents will love it just the same.
My $0.02's worth...
John
Know the sport well enough to position yourself for the results you're looking for. Offensive and defensive players and their action take place at opposite ends of the field. With a 3.5, I'd probably scope out the cleanest background first, best sun angle, etc. and plant myself at either end for one half, and then the other end for the other half. Or if they switch sides, just stay where you are and get both ends of the action.
I would practice (on the home field if possible) as much as possible with other teams, then head home and check the results. I wouldn't expect optimum results your first or even second time out. It might take three or four times.
When you practice, bring a note pad with you and write down everything you can think of. Keep the note pad with you when you check your results and keep track of things that worked well and things you might want to change. 'try for a better background' , 'forgot to turn off the VR'.
Action shots are great, but a lot of times what happens after a goal, or a great defensive play can also lead to a great shot. What's a 16GB card hold, like a gazillion JPEGS? Keep shooting. Personally, I have a real hard time with this simple point, but when I do remember I've ended up with some good post goal celebrations.
Remember the Event is more than just the game on the field. It's the coaches, sidelines with muddy players, fans, warm-ups, team meeting, and sometimes the venue can be spectacular. Last year I shot a lacrosse game at Washington High School in San Francisco. The sweeping views of the Golden Gate were awesome.
Shoot shoot shoot and have fun.
http://www.vitaminv.smugmug.com
Very good advice! When I first started shooting I would lower the camera after a goal was scored to see if I got the shot. I would miss the celebration and dejection, and the more human elements of the game. Same for the fans on the sidelines. I realised this was a mistake when I started to think about shooting pro sports and looked at what appeared in the media vis-a-vis photos: most of them are non-action shots of players celebrating or getting angry and throwing temper tantrums. Not my idea of a great photo, but the press eats them up.
If you're shooting youth sports there is ample opportunity to get the good action shots. However, what will keep players and family coming back to your galleries is telling the whole story. For me, this even includes posting some technically flawed shots that nonetheless capture important moments.
Hi,
I just thought I'd add a note. I have a Nikon camera (D700 now) and use an 80-400 f4.5-5.6 for soccer (and other sports) during the daytime all the time. It's not as fast as a prime, but, you can still get good pictures and not have run as much. It's not that heavy so you can still amble up and down the field if you want.
As you said, you can take lots of pictures since it's digital and just toss the ones that don't work.
I have a 70-200 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8, and I prefer the 80-400 for daytime sports just because it's light and sees far (and near). More pictures and more fun!
Anna
Land sports: http://scippix.smugmug.com/
I shoot a lot of youth soccer. I tend to stand 10 yds behind the goal to get photos of players heading in my direction. 200mm is to short for a full sized field. I shoot 300mm, f2.8 on an FX body and often will add a 1.7 teleconvertor if I'm trying to get midfielders and defenders.
You may want to consider the 300mm, f4 AF-s if you cannot afford the 2.8 version. It's a great lens. Sharp wide open and no need to fuss with a zoom. I strongly recommend a monopod at that focal length. Learn to use it properly and your keeper rate will go way up.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/