I currently use a Canon 7D with a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS. Any other lens recommendations to photograph High School football games with? I thought about using a 1.4 extender but I do not want to lose an F-stop.
I currently use a Canon 7D with a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS. Any other lens recommendations to photograph High School football games with? I thought about using a 1.4 extender but I do not want to lose an F-stop.
Your 70-200 f/2.8 will provide good results if you are relatively close to the action; say within 10-15 yards. You're correct about the use of the teleconverter. If you're going to be shooting night games under universally suspect high school stadium lights, you're going to need to be at f/2.8.
Recognizing that this is easier said than done, the best lens for football (all field sports for that matter) is a 400mm f/2.8.
Kent "Not everybody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs."- Ansel Adams Web site
Your 70-200 f/2.8 will provide good results if you are relatively close to the action; say within 10-15 yards. You're correct about the use of the teleconverter. If you're going to be shooting night games under universally suspect high school stadium lights, you're going to need to be at f/2.8.
Recognizing that this is easier said than done, the best lens for football (all field sports for that matter) is a 400mm f/2.8.
I might look into renting a 400 f2.8 unless I can find one at a great price.
Easy answer. 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8. You're right to be leary of losing an f-stop, as HS football is usually at night, under poor lights. This is an expensive sport to photograph correctly.
1) What level do you want to reach with sports photography?
2) How fast do you see yourself getting to that level?
3) What is holding you back?
I have a friend that was limited by his gear. I knew that because he rented a 400 and got awesome shots from it. But with that said, you also need to be realistic and understand that if you want to compete with other sports photographers, you really have no choice but to get better equipment.
I would ONLY go that route if the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon 300/2.8 prime. For field sports, honestly, a zoom is of little value. You will be at full zoom 95% of the time. I once owned the Canon 300/2.8L IS and it was utterly fantastic. I really, really miss that lens and wish I had never sold it. It would have been great for the car racing I did in 2010.
If you can swing the purchase price of a 300/2.8 you will NOT regret owning it. I can only assume the same for the 400/2.8.
If I could get a full time or a good part time job as a sports photographer I would invest in either the 300mm or 400mm lenses. However, photographing for the paper doesn't pay a whole lot as you all know.
If I could get a full time or a good part time job as a sports photographer I would invest in either the 300mm or 400mm lenses. However, photographing for the paper doesn't pay a whole lot as you all know.
True. Stick with the 70-200/2.8. If not enough reach then crop in post. Newspaper doesn't need tons of pixels. If they don't like it then just explain to them the financial realities of the situation. Honestly, I personally would not invest in my own equipment to shoot for a newspaper.
I agree with others here that the addition of a longer prime (300/2.8 or 400/2.8) is the next step in upgrading your kit. There isn't much else you can add that will have a meaningful impact.
That said, I recently shot a professional soccer game (a US Open Cup quarterfinal game) without the use of my 400/2.8. (Long story, but the mounting screws came loose and it became stuck to the body, but tilted so that I couldn't get a decent shot.) What I ended up doing was using just my 70-200/2.8 and I moved around to follow the action. (This is not always possible at pro games, but it was at this one.) My take was just as good as anything I have gotten with both lenses/bodies up and running, albeit with a slightly different perspective. Now, I didn't go out and sell my 400/2.8, but it did make me reconsider its value.
I can't say whether it is worth your money to add a longer prime; it really depends on how happy you are with your present equipment, and what changes you can make in your shooting strategy that may improve your take without having to spend money. What I would say is not to buy a cheap and slow lens just because it is longer. I think you'll be disappointed if you do.
True. Stick with the 70-200/2.8. If not enough reach then crop in post. Newspaper doesn't need tons of pixels. If they don't like it then just explain to them the financial realities of the situation. Honestly, I personally would not invest in my own equipment to shoot for a newspaper.
I couldn't agree more! Photos in the media do not need a lot of pixels, and can withstand more than a few technical flaws and still work fine.
I zoom in and out a lot when shooting from right on the sidelines, as the players come near. That said, I would be thrilled to have a 300 or 400 f/2.8 prime and would gladly work within its constraint. It's just not in the cards. Even though my camera makes enough money for me to buy a used one, at the end of the day it is still ~$4000 that would be irresponsible for me not to put in the college fund. I'll rent one for a paid job or a really important game.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I zoom in and out a lot when shooting from right on the sidelines, as the players come near. That said, I would be thrilled to have a 300 or 400 f/2.8 prime and would gladly work within its constraint. It's just not in the cards. Even though my camera makes enough money for me to buy a used one, at the end of the day it is still ~$4000 that would be irresponsible for me not to put in the college fund. I'll rent one for a paid job or a really important game.
Renting a 400/2.8 is not especially cheap--a few hundred dollars for the weekend at Borrow Lenses I think. However, if you need it for just a few events per year, it certainly makes more sense than buying. That said, do you really make $300 for shooting a single event? Money is not the only issue, of course; you can lose some money initially, but you'll be building your portfolio and this will be very valuable (essential, actually) when you try for that Getty or Presswire gig. How much you spend now, and where you spend it, is really a function of where you want to go professionally.
It would need to be an event where I knew I was going to be paid to cover the cost to rent. Borrowed lenses has the 400mm f2.8 for $235 for series I or $295 for the series II for three days. Taking photos at a sports event and posting photos on a website hoping for people buy action photos is not (from my past experience) is not very profitable.
You're at that difficult point in professional development: You need better equipment to get the bigger gigs, but you need the bigger gigs to pay for the better equipment. Tough call...
My one and only experience in shooting an event and selling online was a youth soccer tournament (8-13 year olds), which I did as a fund-raiser for my daughter's team. I grossed about $4K in sales (net about $2.3K after printing costs and Zenfolio's cut). It was two very hectic 12-hour days, plus the better part of two nights worth of editing. In the end, I probably would have preferred just to write a personal check and take the write-off.
You're at that difficult point in professional development: You need better equipment to get the bigger gigs, but you need the bigger gigs to pay for the better equipment. Tough call...
My one and only experience in shooting an event and selling online was a youth soccer tournament (8-13 year olds), which I did as a fund-raiser for my daughter's team. I grossed about $4K in sales (net about $2.3K after printing costs and Zenfolio's cut). It was two very hectic 12-hour days, plus the better part of two nights worth of editing. In the end, I probably would have preferred just to write a personal check and take the write-off.
What kind of photos sold? Team, individual, posters or action photos. How did you advertise?
I only shot individual and small group action shots, no team photos. Basically, I shot 51 of the 53 teams that participated in the tournament, driving from one field to another in a tightly scheduled and choreographed manner. (My wife put together my itinerary, which was tough because the event took place on eight different fields at different locations.)
The younger kids generated the most sales, but not by a huge amount. Every shot was edited individually (which I am pretty good at because this is what I do for my pro shoots), and I tried to include a mix of shots that captured the game--exciting saves or collisions, for example--that would keep viewer interested in the gallery as they looked for shots of their kids. I also tried to limit the total number of shots in a gallery to those that were actually decent (faces, action, ball, and contact--in focus and well exposed), so that the viewer did not have to flip through a lot of bad shots, like one often sees with tournament photographers just trying to make sales.
I advertised by putting together a one-page flyer that included some good youth soccer shots as well as some of my pro shots in SI, ESPN, and major newspapers. I emailed this flyer to the coaches and managers for each team in advance of the tournament, and had volunteers (players from my daughter's team, who were supporting the tournament anyway) pass out hard copies of the flyer during the tournament. Once each gallery was posted, I emailed the relevant team individually with a link to their gallery. I then followed up a week later with reminders.
As I said, this is the only youth tournament I have shot in its entirety. My understanding from others is that far more sales happen when you post, print and sell on-site. I am not equipped to do this--and have no interest whatsoever in doing this--so I tried the next best thing: a small collection of well-edited shots that I pushed with a lot of advertising!
I only shot individual and small group action shots, no team photos. Basically, I shot 51 of the 53 teams that participated in the tournament, driving from one field to another in a tightly scheduled and choreographed manner. (My wife put together my itinerary, which was tough because the event took place on eight different fields at different locations.)
The younger kids generated the most sales, but not by a huge amount. Every shot was edited individually (which I am pretty good at because this is what I do for my pro shoots), and I tried to include a mix of shots that captured the game--exciting saves or collisions, for example--that would keep viewer interested in the gallery as they looked for shots of their kids. I also tried to limit the total number of shots in a gallery to those that were actually decent (faces, action, ball, and contact--in focus and well exposed), so that the viewer did not have to flip through a lot of bad shots, like one often sees with tournament photographers just trying to make sales.
I advertised by putting together a one-page flyer that included some good youth soccer shots as well as some of my pro shots in SI, ESPN, and major newspapers. I emailed this flyer to the coaches and managers for each team in advance of the tournament, and had volunteers (players from my daughter's team, who were supporting the tournament anyway) pass out hard copies of the flyer during the tournament. Once each gallery was posted, I emailed the relevant team individually with a link to their gallery. I then followed up a week later with reminders.
As I said, this is the only youth tournament I have shot in its entirety. My understanding from others is that far more sales happen when you post, print and sell on-site. I am not equipped to do this--and have no interest whatsoever in doing this--so I tried the next best thing: a small collection of well-edited shots that I pushed with a lot of advertising!
I used two 1D4 bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 400/2.8. For the young kids, I sat on the ground to shoot.
One other aspect I forgot to mention is that I emphasized in every communication that this was a fundraiser, and that all proceeds went to benefit the club. My daughter plays for a well-recognised club (they are sponsored by Adidas, even though they are only 15-16 years old!) and perhaps this helped to get some attention.
I've been shooting local HS rugby for the last 5yrs. Many here have made some good points, ie the 400mm2.8f is definitely the lens of choice, but out of normal reach unless your a full time pro. I use both the 70-200mm2.8 and the 100-400mm 5.6. At first I was using a 2x converter on the 70-200, but found focus reaction time was slow. The native 70-200 is just not enough lens for a normal size field/pitch. The 400mm reaches out, but of course the 5.6 is an issue, but is effective and works well for day games. I've even used it at night games, but more for non or slow action shots (ie scrums, huddles, etc). I also like the ability to zoom out to 100 quickly when needed. Remember that if you shoot a prime 400mm, you should have a 2nd body for the 70-200 for close action.
All in all, the 100-400mm has many limitations, but works well for starting out or while saving for the 400mm2.8.
I don't speak Canon, but as you consider whether to invest in better equipment, decide whether you will likely use it for this professional direction. If you will do a lot of sports, fast, long glass may be worth it. If this is a dalliance but you do other work, you currently have a 3 year old body, and I suspect (but I do not speak Canon so take this with a grain of salt) that for less than the price of a 400/2.8, you can get a body with 2-3 more stops of low light performance. Having gone through that recently in Nikon, my 200-400/F4 is now shooting night action I could not even have considered before the body swap.
Good glass (IMO) is always a better investment for the dollar as it lasts longer than bodies. But it is worth figuring out which one might mean the most for your direction right now.
I shoot with a canon 7D and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is usm in the daylight because I just need my zoom. As the evening rolls in I use my 70-200 2.8. With the crop factor it does the job. With the 70-200 2.8 you simply have to do a lot more moving around and not get down in the dumps when you miss a shot or two. Hey, it's all about the challenge!
Easy answer. 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8. You're right to be leary of losing an f-stop, as HS football is usually at night, under poor lights. This is an expensive sport to photograph correctly.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
I'm going to toss out another idea. Get a used 300/2.8 and just forget about a 400 or longer lens. Will there be times you need more focal length? Probably. But we have such high pixel counts these days that you can crop quite a bit out of an image and still have something more than acceptable for prints. Even for big prints.
When I (briefly) shot youth football back in 2006 or 2007 I had a 20D (8 megapixels) and a 300/2.8. And the guy I was shooting for wanted nearly every photograph cropped in post. (This basically made up for the fact you can't adjust the focal length to frame the photo exactly how you want it, so you remove the extraneous stuff in post). With today's pixel counts this is extremely feasible and a good way to get extra focal length for free.
I would ONLY go that route if the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon 300/2.8 prime. For field sports, honestly, a zoom is of little value. You will be at full zoom 95% of the time. I once owned the Canon 300/2.8L IS and it was utterly fantastic. I really, really miss that lens and wish I had never sold it. It would have been great for the car racing I did in 2010.
If you can swing the purchase price of a 300/2.8 you will NOT regret owning it. I can only assume the same for the 400/2.8.
Depends on how you shoot. Many pros will have a 300 or 400 mm on one camera and a 70-200 on another.
The Sigma 120-300 is a great compromise. It's true you spend most of your time at full length, but its nice to pull back when the action gets close.
If I could get a full time or a good part time job as a sports photographer I would invest in either the 300mm or 400mm lenses. However, photographing for the paper doesn't pay a whole lot as you all know.
Just looked at that again and I'll re-iterate: Keep the 70-200/2.8 and just crop in post for times when you didn't have the focal reach to fill the frame. It don't matter for newspaper. And, at least around here, newspapers don't pay well enough to invest in any glass at all.
I agree with you. However, when I shoot in low light I crank up the ISO to 6400. With this, I see a lot of noise, especially taking photos from the back of the end zone. Is there a way to smooth out the noise in Elements 10?
I agree with you. However, when I shoot in low light I crank up the ISO to 6400. With this, I see a lot of noise, especially taking photos from the back of the end zone. Is there a way to smooth out the noise in Elements 10?
Imagenomic Noiseware for $79 is phenomenal. It's a plugin for Photoshop including Elements. You won't be disappointed!
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
Comments
Your 70-200 f/2.8 will provide good results if you are relatively close to the action; say within 10-15 yards. You're correct about the use of the teleconverter. If you're going to be shooting night games under universally suspect high school stadium lights, you're going to need to be at f/2.8.
Recognizing that this is easier said than done, the best lens for football (all field sports for that matter) is a 400mm f/2.8.
Kent
"Not everybody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs."- Ansel Adams
Web site
I might look into renting a 400 f2.8 unless I can find one at a great price.
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
1) What level do you want to reach with sports photography?
2) How fast do you see yourself getting to that level?
3) What is holding you back?
I have a friend that was limited by his gear. I knew that because he rented a 400 and got awesome shots from it. But with that said, you also need to be realistic and understand that if you want to compete with other sports photographers, you really have no choice but to get better equipment.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would ONLY go that route if the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon 300/2.8 prime. For field sports, honestly, a zoom is of little value. You will be at full zoom 95% of the time. I once owned the Canon 300/2.8L IS and it was utterly fantastic. I really, really miss that lens and wish I had never sold it. It would have been great for the car racing I did in 2010.
If you can swing the purchase price of a 300/2.8 you will NOT regret owning it. I can only assume the same for the 400/2.8.
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
True. Stick with the 70-200/2.8. If not enough reach then crop in post. Newspaper doesn't need tons of pixels. If they don't like it then just explain to them the financial realities of the situation.
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
That said, I recently shot a professional soccer game (a US Open Cup quarterfinal game) without the use of my 400/2.8. (Long story, but the mounting screws came loose and it became stuck to the body, but tilted so that I couldn't get a decent shot.) What I ended up doing was using just my 70-200/2.8 and I moved around to follow the action. (This is not always possible at pro games, but it was at this one.) My take was just as good as anything I have gotten with both lenses/bodies up and running, albeit with a slightly different perspective. Now, I didn't go out and sell my 400/2.8, but it did make me reconsider its value.
I can't say whether it is worth your money to add a longer prime; it really depends on how happy you are with your present equipment, and what changes you can make in your shooting strategy that may improve your take without having to spend money. What I would say is not to buy a cheap and slow lens just because it is longer. I think you'll be disappointed if you do.
I couldn't agree more! Photos in the media do not need a lot of pixels, and can withstand more than a few technical flaws and still work fine.
I zoom in and out a lot when shooting from right on the sidelines, as the players come near. That said, I would be thrilled to have a 300 or 400 f/2.8 prime and would gladly work within its constraint. It's just not in the cards. Even though my camera makes enough money for me to buy a used one, at the end of the day it is still ~$4000 that would be irresponsible for me not to put in the college fund. I'll rent one for a paid job or a really important game.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I totally agree about renting one.
Renting a 400/2.8 is not especially cheap--a few hundred dollars for the weekend at Borrow Lenses I think. However, if you need it for just a few events per year, it certainly makes more sense than buying. That said, do you really make $300 for shooting a single event? Money is not the only issue, of course; you can lose some money initially, but you'll be building your portfolio and this will be very valuable (essential, actually) when you try for that Getty or Presswire gig. How much you spend now, and where you spend it, is really a function of where you want to go professionally.
My one and only experience in shooting an event and selling online was a youth soccer tournament (8-13 year olds), which I did as a fund-raiser for my daughter's team. I grossed about $4K in sales (net about $2.3K after printing costs and Zenfolio's cut). It was two very hectic 12-hour days, plus the better part of two nights worth of editing. In the end, I probably would have preferred just to write a personal check and take the write-off.
What kind of photos sold? Team, individual, posters or action photos. How did you advertise?
The younger kids generated the most sales, but not by a huge amount. Every shot was edited individually (which I am pretty good at because this is what I do for my pro shoots), and I tried to include a mix of shots that captured the game--exciting saves or collisions, for example--that would keep viewer interested in the gallery as they looked for shots of their kids. I also tried to limit the total number of shots in a gallery to those that were actually decent (faces, action, ball, and contact--in focus and well exposed), so that the viewer did not have to flip through a lot of bad shots, like one often sees with tournament photographers just trying to make sales.
I advertised by putting together a one-page flyer that included some good youth soccer shots as well as some of my pro shots in SI, ESPN, and major newspapers. I emailed this flyer to the coaches and managers for each team in advance of the tournament, and had volunteers (players from my daughter's team, who were supporting the tournament anyway) pass out hard copies of the flyer during the tournament. Once each gallery was posted, I emailed the relevant team individually with a link to their gallery. I then followed up a week later with reminders.
As I said, this is the only youth tournament I have shot in its entirety. My understanding from others is that far more sales happen when you post, print and sell on-site. I am not equipped to do this--and have no interest whatsoever in doing this--so I tried the next best thing: a small collection of well-edited shots that I pushed with a lot of advertising!
What camera body and lens did you use?
I used two 1D4 bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 400/2.8. For the young kids, I sat on the ground to shoot.
One other aspect I forgot to mention is that I emphasized in every communication that this was a fundraiser, and that all proceeds went to benefit the club. My daughter plays for a well-recognised club (they are sponsored by Adidas, even though they are only 15-16 years old!) and perhaps this helped to get some attention.
All in all, the 100-400mm has many limitations, but works well for starting out or while saving for the 400mm2.8.
Good glass (IMO) is always a better investment for the dollar as it lasts longer than bodies. But it is worth figuring out which one might mean the most for your direction right now.
I shoot with a canon 7D and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is usm in the daylight because I just need my zoom. As the evening rolls in I use my 70-200 2.8. With the crop factor it does the job. With the 70-200 2.8 you simply have to do a lot more moving around and not get down in the dumps when you miss a shot or two. Hey, it's all about the challenge!
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
When I (briefly) shot youth football back in 2006 or 2007 I had a 20D (8 megapixels) and a 300/2.8. And the guy I was shooting for wanted nearly every photograph cropped in post. (This basically made up for the fact you can't adjust the focal length to frame the photo exactly how you want it, so you remove the extraneous stuff in post). With today's pixel counts this is extremely feasible and a good way to get extra focal length for free.
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
Depends on how you shoot. Many pros will have a 300 or 400 mm on one camera and a 70-200 on another.
The Sigma 120-300 is a great compromise. It's true you spend most of your time at full length, but its nice to pull back when the action gets close.
Just looked at that again and I'll re-iterate: Keep the 70-200/2.8 and just crop in post for times when you didn't have the focal reach to fill the frame. It don't matter for newspaper. And, at least around here, newspapers don't pay well enough to invest in any glass at all.
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
Imagenomic Noiseware for $79 is phenomenal. It's a plugin for Photoshop including Elements. You won't be disappointed!
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook