Just fun - Football UMD vs Wake

Phyxius

Well, as posted in the Gear section (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48047) I really need (WANT) a faster lens. This game wasn't a job obviously, since if it was I should be fired! I was meeting up with some friend who still go to Maryland I hadn't seen in a while and another friend who is home on Christmas break from school in Australia.

I was a little late for pre-game and on the wrong side of the field. But, I took a picture anyway

F4 is okay, but not great. However I can't be at F4 at 300mm :cry


As long as they weren't moving too fast I could get "okay" snap shots. This was 300mm, F5.6 @ 1/60. All shots are handheld (obviously :rolleyes )


Oops, where's the ball?
300mm F5.6 1/125, the fastest shutter speed of the night.


Nothing special here either, but I didn't crop because of the fun reflections off the cameras in the background. Same settings as above.


Oh my gosh a face! Now, if only the ref wasn't in the way. Also this was a RAW file, but the program that came with the camera only converts them.
Again 300mm 5.6 and 1/100

Since the pictures weren't working out I went up in the stands to sit with friends. Testudo dropped by and said hi

A couple players took out a photog

He was a little shaken, but alright


Then, bad got worse and Wake scored ANOTHER touchdown.

Moving too fast for me to get anything more than a 1970s era screen capture type shot.

I went back down towards the end of the game, but still couldn't get anything.


So, while I had a fun time with friends the game and photography was pretty bad. Maybe this should have gone in a different category. But what do you guys think, would a 2.8 lens have made all the difference?

dbaker1221

I don't have a 2.8 yet but I woulda loved being on the sidelines!:D

RandySmugMug

for college lights even f4 would have been a big diff

RandySmugMug

yes, 2.8 would allow a faster ss at a lower iso
in that light i'm guessing f2.8, 1/400, iso800

Phyxius

RandySmugMug wrote:

yes, 2.8 would allow a faster ss at a lower iso
in that light i'm guessing f2.8, 1/400, iso800

Yeah, 4x as fast (ss) would have been great. I switched back and forth with the iso from 800 to 1600. The Nikon D50 takes HORRIBLE shots at iso 1600.

In the other thread I linked to DoctorIT suggested the 70-200mm VR.. OHH it's nice! Hopefully I can afford it by February. I have a friend who ice skates and has a big competition in February. It'd be nice to have a 2.8 lens by then! So, I'm saving my pennies now!

dbaker, it was certianly fun to be at a game again! I was a student at UMD a few years ago and I never missed a home game. There's nothing like being close to the action

RandySmugMug

Phyxius wrote:

Yeah, 4x as fast (ss) would have been great. I switched back and forth with the iso from 800 to 1600. The Nikon D50 takes HORRIBLE shots at iso 1600.

In the other thread I linked to DoctorIT suggested the 70-200mm VR.. OHH it's nice! Hopefully I can afford it by February. I have a friend who ice skates and has a big competition in February. It'd be nice to have a 2.8 lens by then! So, I'm saving my pennies now!

dbaker, it was certianly fun to be at a game again! I was a student at UMD a few years ago and I never missed a home game. There's nothing like being close to the action

unless u need vr and for sports it isn't going to add anything consider the sigma 70-200hsm...i've seen used ones got for $500 in mint condition...i doubt anyone would notice the diff in IQ