Hockey night in Minnesota

davev

I tried shooting my nephew's hockey game for the first time with the D Rebel.
I had mixed results. I went with the 70-200L F4 but I should have used
somthing wider. I tried to stay at ISO 400, big mistake, shutter speeds
were to slow so I eventually went to ISO 800. I think I could have gone to
1600 and still been alright.

The boy plays the nets, and did a pretty good job, but they lost 2-1.
Out of about 60 shots, these 4 were the best I got. I think these are ISO 800
The pics have been run through Noise Ninja also.

The next time I think I'll try the Tamron 1.4 converter with my 28-135IS lens.

Making a save.




another save




stick save (it went wide)




Face off.

Steve Cavigliano

Dave,

These are pretty good results for a first time out There's some motion blur in a couple of them, but they are still quite nice.

I'm a bit confused though. You say you needed to bump the ISO up, to 800 and could have gone to 1600, using the F4 70-200mm. So obviously you needed more light gathering capability. Why would you consider using an even slower lens (the F5.6 28-135mm) with a 1.4X TC that will cost you another stop? I don't think you will be able to get decent shutter speeds shooting at F8. Especially, since even with the TC the 28-135 will only get you a few more mm's of reach (fully zoomed) than the 70-200 w/o a TC (at a cost of 2 stops).

IMHO, long lenses are good for hockey, but fast lenses are even better


Thanks for sharing these and I hope your nephew's team got the win


Steve

davev

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Dave,

These are pretty good results for a first time out There's some motion blur in a couple of them, but they are still quite nice.

I'm a bit confused though. You say you needed to bump the ISO up, to 800 and could have gone to 1600, using the F4 70-200mm. So obviously you needed more light gathering capability. Why would you consider using an even slower lens (the F5.6 28-135mm) with a 1.4X TC that will cost you another stop? I don't think you will be able to get decent shutter speeds shooting at F8. Especially, since even with the TC the 28-135 will only get you a few more mm's of reach (fully zoomed) than the 70-200 w/o a TC (at a cost of 2 stops).
IMHO, long lenses are good for hockey, but fast lenses are even better
Thanks for sharing these and I hope your nephew's team got the win


Steve

Hey Steve, thanks for looking.

The reason for the 28-135is with the 1.4 converter is for the wide end not
the long end of the lens. I want to get a few more pictures of the team
rather than just a small area of the ice.
The 70-200L f4 I used the F4 all day. I ended up with shutter speeds of
1/80 to 1/125 at ISO 400. At 70mm with the 1.6 crop factor I have about
112mm at the wide end. With the 28-135is with 1.4 x converter and the
1.6 X crop factor, I end up with about 63mm. On the the long end it's close,
320mm for the 70-200L to 302mm for the 28-135is.

At 28mm to about 47mm, the lens is at F3.5 to F4.0. So adding the 1.4
converter adds a stop, but moving the ISO up one notch, (400-800)
if I'm thinking right, would give me the same shutter speeds that I shot with
on this day. Bumping up to ISO 1600 would cut the shutter time in half.
The other thing I may do differently is use manual mode instead of Av mode,
to keep a constent shutter speed.
I hope I got the math right here, and i hope I explained my thoughts a
little better.

Here's a full frame shot from the second pic above. I would have liked to
have gotten a shot of the kid coming across the blue line, but the lens
wasn't wide enough. This is 70mm.

Steve Cavigliano

davev wrote:

Hey Steve, thanks for looking.

The reason for the 28-135is with the 1.4 converter is for the wide end not
the long end of the lens. I want to get a few more pictures of the team
rather than just a small area of the ice.
The 70-200L f4 I used the F4 all day. I ended up with shutter speeds of
1/80 to 1/125 at ISO 400. At 70mm with the 1.6 crop factor I have about
112mm at the wide end. With the 28-135is with 1.4 x converter and the
1.6 X crop factor, I end up with about 63mm. On the the long end it's close,
320mm for the 70-200L to 302mm for the 28-135is.

At 28mm to about 47mm, the lens is at F3.5 to F4.0. So adding the 1.4
converter adds a stop, but moving the ISO up one notch, (400-800)
if I'm thinking right, would give me the same shutter speeds that I shot with
on this day. Bumping up to ISO 1600 would cut the shutter time in half.
The other thing I may do differently is use manual mode instead of Av mode,
to keep a constent shutter speed.
I hope I got the math right here, and i hope I explained my thoughts a
little better.

Here's a full frame shot from the second pic above. I would have liked to
have gotten a shot of the kid coming across the blue line, but the lens
wasn't wide enough. This is 70mm.

Hey Dave,
I apologize too. I obviously didn't get my point across. Your shots are fine, but if you want to reduce/eliminate the motion blur, you need speeds at least 2 stops higher than you got using F4. IOW, 1/400-1/500 would be pretty ideal for hockey. You could have gotten to 1/200-1/250 using ISO1600 and F4. Still a little too slow to freeze the motion. A 28-135mm, even without a TC, will move you right back to F5.6, ISO1600 and 1/100-1/125, if you use any zoom at all. My point was that you might want to consider some other options. (or not :lol )

For example, if you already have a 1.4X, you could go pick up the $80 50mm F1.8 Mk II and add the TC. That would get you a 112mm FOV with the TC and 80mm's without. So you could get a somewhat wide angle without the TC (32mm's wider than the 70-200mm) and a bit closer with it. Plus, judging by your results, you could shoot at F2.8 and ISO 1600, or even F2.0 and ISO800, and get those faster, 1/500 type, speeds. There are other, more expensive, options available. Like the $350 85mm F1.8, or $400+ 100mm F2.0 or F2.8 macro. These lenses excel at low light action.

If you already knew all this, or didn't want to hear it, I apologize. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just trying to help you get the best results possible :-)

Steve

davev

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Hey Dave,

For example, if you already have a 1.4X, you could go pick up the $80 50mm F1.8 Mk II and add the TC. That would get you a 112mm FOV with the TC and 80mm's without. So you could get a somewhat wide angle without the TC (32mm's wider than the 70-200mm) and a bit closer with it. Plus, judging by your results, you could shoot at F2.8 and ISO 1600, or even F2.0 and ISO800, and get those faster, 1/500 type, speeds. There are other, more expensive, options available. Like the $350 85mm F1.8, or $400+ 100mm F2.0 or F2.8 macro. These lenses excel at low light action.

If you already knew all this, or didn't want to hear it, I apologize. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just trying to help you get the best results possible :-)

Steve

Hey Steve, thanks for the idea's about using a prime lens. I guess I didn't
really consider one before. As for stopping the motion, I'm one of the
weird ones that kind of likes a little blur in action shots.

One more thing, please don't apologize for helping me out, I can use all
the help I can get. Thanks again. dave.

ian408

I like the wide save shot. It almost looks as if the goalie has lost the puck.

I'd say that Steve is pretty right on with regard to the lens/tc combo.
I would also add that if you can use a lower ISO, you could eliminate the
need for any noise reduction. This might help make the pictures sharper.

I like the angle and composition of the shots. Myself, I'm not a huge fan
of motion blur for hockey shots. But in the first shot it sort of works. The
face off is also a good shot though maybe a tad wider so you don't cut
the linesman/referee's (do you two or three man those games?) head off.

If you try to get too much in the frame, like the distance between the
blue line and goal line, I think you'll lose too much of the players. It's a
good shot for TV because you can see the play develop but in a still
image, I don't know that it would work too well.

Look forward to seeing the next batch!

Ian

winger

Oh yeah hockey.
I usually try to get it so I can set the shutter speed around 500, it freezes the puck and you can see the logo. I dont have access to strobes, so I have to use the avialable light in the arenas. My ISO is usually set around 800.

Other things that I have tried that I thought made me hockey photos better, I dont know if the D-rebel does this, but I set the metering to partial, the white ice throws everything off. I usually white balance off the home jerseys, some people like to use Gray cards, personally I like the look better from white balancing off the home jerseys. The ice looks a little off white but you can differenciate between the two easier.

Im sooooo excited there is another hockey person on here!!!
I hope you dont mind me sharing but these are some from wednesday night game.
One with a little motion blur
Our resident tough guy.

I wish he had his head up for this one



And just so you know it get better from here. I actually got my first SLR camera almost a year ago (first was a D-rebel but now I have a 20d) and here are some pictures from the first game I shot with it (picked it up on the way to the game, so I had very little time to figure it out)




Did i mention I am excited there is another hockey person on here!!!!

ian408

Nice!

Too bad it's all adult and very little else out west...unless you count club
hockey.

ian

davev

ian408 wrote:

I like the wide save shot. It almost looks as if the goalie has lost the puck.

I'd say that Steve is pretty right on with regard to the lens/tc combo.
I would also add that if you can use a lower ISO, you could eliminate the
need for any noise reduction. This might help make the pictures sharper.

I like the angle and composition of the shots. Myself, I'm not a huge fan
of motion blur for hockey shots. But in the first shot it sort of works. The
face off is also a good shot though maybe a tad wider so you don't cut
the linesman/referee's (do you two or three man those games?) head off.

If you try to get too much in the frame, like the distance between the
blue line and goal line, I think you'll lose too much of the players. It's a
good shot for TV because you can see the play develop but in a still
image, I don't know that it would work too well.

Look forward to seeing the next batch!

Ian

Hi Ian. After reading your and Steve's comments about stopping the action,
and seeing Wingers great shots, I can see that you guys are right.
I'll have to try moving the ISO up to 800 or 1600 to stop motion. Thankfully,
these are high school kids so they don't have the speed that the pros have.

At this game they used two Ref's, and I'm guessing that's all high school
use's til maybe the the state tournament. The pic with the ref's head cut
off had such an ugly background that I tried to crop it out.

Here's the original, and thanks for the help.
dave.

davev

winger wrote:

Oh yeah hockey.
I usually try to get it so I can set the shutter speed around 500, it freezes the puck and you can see the logo. I dont have access to strobes, so I have to use the avialable light in the arenas. My ISO is usually set around 800.

Other things that I have tried that I thought made me hockey photos better, I dont know if the D-rebel does this, but I set the metering to partial, the white ice throws everything off. I usually white balance off the home jerseys, some people like to use Gray cards, personally I like the look better from white balancing off the home jerseys. The ice looks a little off white but you can differenciate between the two easier.

Im sooooo excited there is another hockey person on here!!!
I hope you dont mind me sharing but these are some from wednesday night game.

And just so you know it get better from here. I actually got my first SLR camera almost a year ago (first was a D-rebel but now I have a 20d) and here are some pictures from the first game I shot with it (picked it up on the way to the game, so I had very little time to figure it out)

Did i mention I am excited there is another hockey person on here!!!!

Hey Winger, great pics. From what Steve and Ian told me, and what you
showed me, I see I need to try to get the shutter speed up.
I don't know if the rebel has a partial metering spot. I think it has a center
mode, but I'll have to read up to figure out how to get it work.

There was a guy there (rooting for the other team) that had a D20.
He said he was shooting at ISO 3200 and was getting 1/500 shutter speeds.
I didn't see what lens he had on, but it was black, and he did ask me if I
was using an IS lens. For some reason I think he was using the 28-135IS lens

Coming from "The State Of Hockey" AKA Minnesota, you have to love the
game or they throw you out of the state. The wild are strike, but we still
have the Gophers and of course all the pee-wee and high school stuff.

Thanks for looking and helping me out, and thanks for showing me what the
pics should look like. Now I have something to shoot for.

dave.

ian408

Dave, I see what you mean about the background.

See if you can tell which car is mine...



Ian

davev

ian408 wrote:

Dave, I see what you mean about the background.

See if you can tell which car is mine...



Ian

Your car isn't in the picture, and that guy is stealing your bike.
dave.

ian408

davev wrote:

Your car isn't in the picture, and that guy is stealing your bike.
dave.

Look more closely

ian

wxwax

Davey, I think you did a great job, especially for your first time. The top two shots are excellent!

Winger, fabulous! How did you get such a good position? And were you shooting through a 'porthole'?

I tried shooting from the stands of a minor league game the other night. My memory card farted, I lost a good number of shots, but I'm not sure that any were keepers. I was using a 300 f4 with shutter speeds around 500, manual, keeping the histogram bulge to the right as much as possible. The auto white balance did a poor job, everything was too yellow. I found that Digital Photo Pro's Fluorescent setting did the best job of fixing it, better even than my manual adjustments.

Even from the stands, I think the 300 might have been too much lens. I'm thinking 200 for the next time, and accept that the shots will have to be cropped. But I'd sure love to have your spot, Winger!

davev

ian408 wrote:

Look more closely

ian

Ok, Ian, I'm going to guess the silver car that you can barely see the front end of.

ian408

davev wrote:

Ok, Ian, I'm going to guess the silver car that you can barely see the front end of.

Nope. I figure'd you might get it from the tags

davev

ian408 wrote:

Nope. I figure'd you might get it from the tags

Ok, it's the GMC in the foreground.
I couldn't read the tag on the blown up pic much less the other one.
And you lied to me, you said car.:D

I've got to ask, what were to trying to get a picture of? Your truck, the guy
with the bike, the background, what? And don't get me wrong, I have a hard
drive full of pics that if someone else looked at them, they would say, Huh?

So tell me what this pic is of.

dave.

davev

wxwax wrote:

Davey, I think you did a great job, especially for your first time. The top two shots are excellent!

Thank's Sid.

dave.

ian408

davev wrote:

Ok, it's the GMC in the foreground.
I couldn't read the tag on the blown up pic much less the other one.
And you lied to me, you said car.:D

5N GAME

davev wrote:

So tell me what this pic is of.

About a week or so, I upgraded the firmware on my 1DMkII to resolve some
focus issues. I wanted to shoot something that was within a range I could
do a 100% crop on to check focus (that's a crop from the small jpeg I
saved with the raw file). Nothing special and a definite throw away shot.

Ian

winger

wxwax wrote:

Winger, fabulous! How did you get such a good position? And were you shooting through a 'porthole'?

Even from the stands, I think the 300 might have been too much lens. I'm thinking 200 for the next time, and accept that the shots will have to be cropped. But I'd sure love to have your spot, Winger!

Most places I shoot from dont have the holes. The only place that does is the fleet and I its not like we have a ton of games there (league tournment and maybe the beanpot if I go) I generally shoot most of the game from the corners, then I can get the team coming into the offensive zone, usually some nice shots of the D from the point, sometimes a goal and of course the celebration.

But I like to change things up, like sometimes I shoot from the concorse level, like that is where this shot came from:

I also shoot up there to try to get some nice goalie saves.

Or I have been trying some stuff from right behind the net:

or this one, which was a little tight, so maybe I should try behind there again now that I picked up a 24-70 lens ( I usually use my 70-200 the whole game) (he ends up scoring the goal)


I also tried some wide angle behind the net.


Wow looking through that game I realised how much I tried. I have been sick lately and I think my photos have been suffering (my hoops have been hurting too)

Yesterday I shot my first game from in between the benches. Different view of the game, you get alot more of the neutral zone. But I think it will still take me a game or two to figure out where the good shots are. Except at my home rink I only get a period in the box to work it out (have to share with the other photographers) where at the rink I was at last night no one else wanted the box. Oh well.

blackwaterstudio

Here's a couple shots from the hockey team I photograph. I'm usually positioned right behind the goal. Only clear glass I can shoot through. I have shot from above which turns out pretty nice.

70-200L
f/4
ISO 800

davev

jds and winger

Great hockey pics. I'll have to try again with faster shutter speeds.
I have to remember not to be afraid of high ISO's also.

Thanks guys.

dave.

winger

davev wrote:

jds and winger

Great hockey pics. I'll have to try again with faster shutter speeds.
I have to remember not to be afraid of high ISO's also.

Thanks guys.

dave.

If you have a rebel you proably will start seeing noise around 800, I dont have any of those noise reduction programs so I dont really know how well they do.
I shot now with a 20D and 800 and even 1600 are totally useable iso's

blackwaterstudio

winger wrote:

If you have a rebel you proably will start seeing noise around 800, I dont have any of those noise reduction programs so I dont really know how well they do.
I shot now with a 20D and 800 and even 1600 are totally useable iso's

I shoot with a Rebel and ISO 800 isn't bad, but it will need a program like Noiseware to help.

winger

jdsphotography wrote:

I shoot with a Rebel and ISO 800 isn't bad, but it will need a program like Noiseware to help.

Where do you stand for games. Does the rink have one of those boxes inbetween the players benches, or do you shoot from the boxes if they are open?

I have been shooting mostly from the corners, behind glass. But on friday the team was away and had one of those boxes between the players benches that was open. So I tried it out. I kind of struggled, may have been my lens was dirty or it was a new prespective of the game, alot more of the transition part of the game. Plus I had to back out alot because play was coming my way and I didnt want to get a stick or puck to the face.

I havent shot from the penalty box at home yet, I think I am going to shoot a period each night this weekend see how it goes. It might be a little better from the PB because I wont have to contend with linechanges from both benches. So I guess I will see.
But at least if I only shoot one period from the box, that still gives me two periods from my normal spots to get some good shots.

blackwaterstudio

winger wrote:

Where do you stand for games. Does the rink have one of those boxes inbetween the players benches, or do you shoot from the boxes if they are open?

I have been shooting mostly from the corners, behind glass. But on friday the team was away and had one of those boxes between the players benches that was open. So I tried it out. I kind of struggled, may have been my lens was dirty or it was a new prespective of the game, alot more of the transition part of the game. Plus I had to back out alot because play was coming my way and I didnt want to get a stick or puck to the face.

I havent shot from the penalty box at home yet, I think I am going to shoot a period each night this weekend see how it goes. It might be a little better from the PB because I wont have to contend with linechanges from both benches. So I guess I will see.
But at least if I only shoot one period from the box, that still gives me two periods from my normal spots to get some good shots.

I'm shooting right behind the goal. Through the glass. Its the only clear one I can use. If it gets messed up then I'll go back to shooting from above which seem to work out really well.

Mongrel

Dave, re: teleconverter.....
I saw that Steve mentioned using a 1.4x TC with the 50mm. It occurred to me that the Canon TC's only work with certain lenses, and I think only from 135mm and up. Before investing in that combination (50mm and 1.4 tc) check it out. The Sigma tc and Canon tc are similar. The Tamron TC *may* work with the 50 as it is designed differently.

I'd say you didn't do too bad with the 70-200 f/4 considering how slow it is for those conditions. As you've already been told, you NEED faster glass to really get those shots. And I would avoid the 28-135 IS for indoor sports shooting altogether.

I'm not sure if you have a 'budget' for this or not, but some of the more reasonable alternatives would be:


Zooms-

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX (f/2.8 would be the slowest glass I'd consider in your situation).

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR (good bang for the buck, fairly fast, and gives you a 44mm 'wide' end for those team shots).

Primes-

Canon 85mm f/1.8 (on the Rebel it's a 136mm crop, and at f/2.0 should produce some really nice shots).

Canon 100mm f/2.0 (on the Rebel it's a 160mm crop, and pretty fast as well. Reasonably sharp and cost effective).

Canon 135mm f/2.8 'Soft Focus' (don't let the 'soft focus' feature bother you. When it is turned off this lens is known to be quite sharp. On the Rebel it's a 216mm crop. Cheap way to get a 200mm f/2.8 lens).

These are just to give you some idea of options for faster glass. There are others as well. It wouldn't hurt to try a fast prime and cropping the shots a little bit. With the 6MP of the Rebel you have some room to play.

Check the exif on your shots to determine what focal length you shot most at. That will help you narrow down your choice of prime. If most of your shots are at 200mm for example, then go with the 135 f/2.8 prime.

Good luck, and as said, it looks like you are off to a great start.

davev

Mongrel wrote:

I saw that Steve mentioned using a 1.4x TC with the 50mm. It occurred to me that the Canon TC's only work with certain lenses, and I think only from 135mm and up. Before investing in that combination (50mm and 1.4 tc) check it out. The Sigma tc and Canon tc are similar. The Tamron TC *may* work with the 50 as it is designed differently.

I'd say you didn't do too bad with the 70-200 f/4 considering how slow it is for those conditions. As you've already been told, you NEED faster glass to really get those shots. And I would avoid the 28-135 IS for indoor sports shooting altogether.

I'm not sure if you have a 'budget' for this or not, but some of the more reasonable alternatives would be:


Zooms-

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX (f/2.8 would be the slowest glass I'd consider in your situation).

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR (good bang for the buck, fairly fast, and gives you a 44mm 'wide' end for those team shots).

Primes-

Canon 85mm f/1.8 (on the Rebel it's a 136mm crop, and at f/2.0 should produce some really nice shots).

Canon 100mm f/2.0 (on the Rebel it's a 160mm crop, and pretty fast as well. Reasonably sharp and cost effective).

Canon 135mm f/2.8 'Soft Focus' (don't let the 'soft focus' feature bother you. When it is turned off this lens is known to be quite sharp. On the Rebel it's a 216mm crop. Cheap way to get a 200mm f/2.8 lens).

These are just to give you some idea of options for faster glass. There are others as well. It wouldn't hurt to try a fast prime and cropping the shots a little bit. With the 6MP of the Rebel you have some room to play.

Check the exif on your shots to determine what focal length you shot most at. That will help you narrow down your choice of prime. If most of your shots are at 200mm for example, then go with the 135 f/2.8 prime.

Good luck, and as said, it looks like you are off to a great start.

Thanks Mongrel for all the ideas for lenses.

For me, these are my nephews high school games. I guess I don't want to
spend the money for a lenses that is more or less only going to be used for
his hockey games.

Another guy at the game I was at had a 20D and was (I think) using a
28-135is lenses. I wish I would have asked, but I didn't. Anyway, on this
rink, he said he getting 1/500 of a sec. shutter at 1600 ISO. So I'm going to
try that next time and see if I can get lucky. The best part for me is that
my nephew is a goalie. I should be able to manual focus on him, and just
shoot.

My equipment is as follows:

Canon D Rebel
Canon 18-55 Kit lens
Canon 28-135is
Canon 70-200L F4
Canon 75-300is (I think that this lens outdoors is pretty good)
Tamron 1.4 converter.

Most of the pics I took that day were 70mm-100mm, but I wanted to go
wider. So I'm still thinkin the 28-135is at 1600 ISO will be my best shot.

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and for their help.

dave.