Very Amature Hockey... + Lens questions

Viking

I photographed some of my friend, while they playd ishockey with some younger people.

Its shot with my Canon 350D with my very cheap lens: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II. They are shoot at ISO 400 and in RAW. I have used Shadows Highlights, color boost and USM. My question is: Will I get better qulity at my shots with a 70-200mm F4 L lens then the sigma I own? I have croped some images too...












and a offtopic on a friend with his konica camera, thats suck!


and another offtopic:

JoeL

You may see a difference but not enough to make it worth buying an f/4 lens.

However what was the Aperture of these images you just posted, it looks like it may have been f/4?

They look really great to me other than a little noise and a little grain from lightening them especially since they were shot at ISO 400, either way they are still really nice shots.

If you are considering buying another lens I would hold out and NOT buy the 70-200 f/4 and wait until you can get a 70-200 f/2.8, that would make the difference in a good shot and an awesome shot plus you can use it for indoor shooting, porttraits etc.

Also for what its worth if you can get an actual Canon lens instead of a 3rd party like Sigma you will get better quality, Sigma and some others make great lens but they still wont be as sharp, fast and clear as an original factory made lens. Just my experience and opinion....



www.actionshots4u.smugmug.com

Viking

JoeL wrote:

You may see a difference but not enough to make it worth buying an f/4 lens.

However what was the Aperture of these images you just posted, it looks like it may have been f/4?

They look really great to me other than a little noise and a little grain from lightening them especially since they were shot at ISO 400, either way they are still really nice shots.

If you are considering buying another lens I would hold out and NOT buy the 70-200 f/4 and wait until you can get a 70-200 f/2.8, that would make the difference in a good shot and an awesome shot plus you can use it for indoor shooting, porttraits etc.

Also for what its worth if you can get an actual Canon lens instead of a 3rd party like Sigma you will get better quality, Sigma and some others make great lens but they still wont be as sharp, fast and clear as an original factory made lens. Just my experience and opinion....



www.actionshots4u.smugmug.com

Hello, and thank you for your reply! I like the Sigma lens, BUT when I use mm over 230 mm it becomes very unsharp. But under 230 its great, with some Photoshop work. Everypicture look bad without Photoshop work for me. :-)

Most of the pictures are shot with aperture of 4 or 5.6.

The dreamlens would be the 70-200 f2.8. But its faaar to expensive for me. And does The damn lens is more expensive then my Camera, a 350d. Maybe I shall get another lens instead. Hmm, this is harder then buy new car.

DavidTO

Viking wrote:

The dreamlens would be the 70-200 f2.8. But its faaar to expensive for me.

It's also a lot heavier. Have you thought of primes? Talk to Gus, Steve Cavigliano, Andy, Pathfinder, etc. about those...

Viking

DavidTO wrote:

It's also a lot heavier. Have you thought of primes? Talk to Gus, Steve Cavigliano, Andy, Pathfinder, etc. about those...

yeah. I dont own a prime lens, maybe I should try the cheap 50mm 1.8f II

JoeL

Im not sure which "Primes" your talking about but all the primes needed to shoot sports are much heavier than the 70-200.

I have a Nikon 300 f/2.8 and Nikon 400 f/2.8 and I assure you they are heavy, LOTS heavier than any 70-200.:cry

All the College Football on my page was shot with the 400 f/2.8 and the Soccer was shot with the 300 f/2.8, the Volleyball was shot with the 80-200 f/2.8.

winger

First off let me say that I LOVE THE SUBJECT.

Ahhhh Pond hockey, where you play for 6 hours, your feet and hands a frozen and you dont stop and sometimes the game is cut shot because some idiot passed the puck into an open hole in the water down the other end of the pond.

Great!

Unfortuantly I dont know much about photoshop to tell you anything there. But in terms of your subject here is a couple of things to think of. If you are going to by the canon 70-200 lens, I would wait to be able to buy the 2.8 ESPECIALLY if you are going to shoot hockey inside. With out the 2.8 you are going to be dead in the water at some indoor rinks (and even with the 2.8 there is still one rink in my league I dont shoot in).

But for outside the 4 should be fine.

Since these are photoshoped I dont know what the orginals looked like. But here is what I would do if I was shooting pond hockey (which would be tough cause I would have to choose to not play!)
a) dress warm
b) custom set the white balance....there is a alot of white there, and if you dont your snow looks blue and people look weird.
c) not bad in terms of actions....I really like. But when I shoot sports keep these things in mind....Faces, faces and faces. I mean its a group of people messing around.....but you might get some great "goal reactions" as one of the kids stuff ones past their dad. People drinking hot chocolate in between periods....the players cool breath in front of them. I was also normally say watch the backgrounds....but I think they totally help set up the scene of the photo.
d) on last thing dont forget you can turn the camera vertical. For up and down hockey action I find its easier to fit what I want in the camera turning vertical. I proably shoot about 70% of my hockey games vertical. One of the main things I dont is often goal mouth action, just because there is so much going on, sometimes I want the 5-6 players in the shot.

So I hope it was helpful.......

But I love the shiny photos!!!!!

Viking

winger wrote:

First off let me say that I LOVE THE SUBJECT.

Ahhhh Pond hockey, where you play for 6 hours, your feet and hands a frozen and you dont stop and sometimes the game is cut shot because some idiot passed the puck into an open hole in the water down the other end of the pond.

Great!

Unfortuantly I dont know much about photoshop to tell you anything there. But in terms of your subject here is a couple of things to think of. If you are going to by the canon 70-200 lens, I would wait to be able to buy the 2.8 ESPECIALLY if you are going to shoot hockey inside. With out the 2.8 you are going to be dead in the water at some indoor rinks (and even with the 2.8 there is still one rink in my league I dont shoot in).

But for outside the 4 should be fine.

Since these are photoshoped I dont know what the orginals looked like. But here is what I would do if I was shooting pond hockey (which would be tough cause I would have to choose to not play!)
a) dress warm
b) custom set the white balance....there is a alot of white there, and if you dont your snow looks blue and people look weird.
c) not bad in terms of actions....I really like. But when I shoot sports keep these things in mind....Faces, faces and faces. I mean its a group of people messing around.....but you might get some great "goal reactions" as one of the kids stuff ones past their dad. People drinking hot chocolate in between periods....the players cool breath in front of them. I was also normally say watch the backgrounds....but I think they totally help set up the scene of the photo.
d) on last thing dont forget you can turn the camera vertical. For up and down hockey action I find its easier to fit what I want in the camera turning vertical. I proably shoot about 70% of my hockey games vertical. One of the main things I dont is often goal mouth action, just because there is so much going on, sometimes I want the 5-6 players in the shot.

So I hope it was helpful.......

But I love the shiny photos!!!!!

Thanks for your reply.
My feets was very very frozen after two hours of looking....