7D + 70-200II + full size soccer field

jmphotocraft · October 12, 2011

First time shooting a full size field (120 yards). The combo was too short to reach more than half way across the field, but I still got a nice number of keepers. Not sure I'd even want to bother with a 1.4TC, but it would be worth a try next.

1.

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

thanks for looking!

photodad1 · October 12, 2011

Nice shots! I have the same setup and shoot soccer as well. During day games I will use my 1.4 converter and take off for night games so I can use the F2.8. The 1.4 TC will give you another 10-15 yards thus increase your keepers.

jmphotocraft · October 12, 2011

Cool, how do you find the AF performance with the TC? Is it a Mark II or III?

jhefti · October 12, 2011

Very nice shots indeed! Just goes to show you don't need a 400/2.8 to get a good set. I've never used a TC, so have no idea how much that would help. And in any case, you've captured some great moments without a TC.

I might also add that shooting with long glass at a turf pitch on a hot day will result in a lot of really crappy images. The heat waves that come off the pitch really screws up IQ. Even with a 400/2.8, I can't get a decent image past midfield.

jmphotocraft · October 16, 2011

Thanks John!

oceanthrsty · October 26, 2011

To those concerned with using a TC. For full size soccer pitch with a 70-200 a TC 1.4x is pretty much a necessity and in most cases still not enough. But I guess it all depends on how much of the game you're covering at any one time.

The 1.4x II is superb quality and will not effect IQ by any discernable amount and your AF is still pretty fast. The 2x II is garbage. Don't even try it, not worth your time.
Now the 1.4x III and 2.0x III are pretty freaking awesome. Both of these are tack sharp and especially with the 70-200 mkII.

Personally when I hire shooters I'm looking for minimum 300/2.8 for full size soccer. Just provides a cleaner background (bokeh) and better reach. That and the 300/2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon has out. But the ones with 70-200 are great for the littler kids.

jmphotocraft · October 26, 2011

oceanthrsty wrote: »

For full size soccer pitch with a 70-200 a TC 1.4x is pretty much a necessity and in most cases still not enough.

Do my images not prove otherwise? I was not shooting with a TC. Yes, I missed some shots, but I got a lot of keepers.

The 1.4x II is superb quality and will not effect IQ by any discernable amount and your AF is still pretty fast. The 2x II is garbage. Don't even try it, not worth your time.
Now the 1.4x III and 2.0x III are pretty freaking awesome. Both of these are tack sharp and especially with the 70-200 mkII.

How is the AF with the 1.4x III and 70-200/2.8 II?

Personally when I hire shooters I'm looking for minimum 300/2.8 for full size soccer. Just provides a cleaner background (bokeh) and better reach. That and the 300/2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon has out. But the ones with 70-200 are great for the littler kids.

I rented a 300/2.8 for a month last year. I agree the bokeh is in another league, but I would put the sharpness of my 70-200/2.8II up against the 300/2.8 any day.

oceanthrsty · October 26, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Do my images not prove otherwise? I was not shooting with a TC. Yes, I missed some shots, but I got a lot of keepers.

You're images didn't prove or disprove anything. You have some great shots in there.

The sharpness is awesome, great bokeh and good timing not much more you can ask for. Now, for what I do for a living typically requires that I follow specific players. So I don't have the luxury of missing a few shots at the other end of the field. So for what you shoot, seems like the 70-200 is the right one.

Not trying to argue. Just providing insite to the TC non-TC conversation.

How is the AF with the 1.4x III and 70-200/2.8 II?

They are built for each other. AF is like there's nothing in the way. I'd rent one from lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com and see how it does for you.

I rented a 300/2.8 for a month last year. I agree the bokeh is in another league, but I would put the sharpness of my 70-200/2.8II up against the 300/2.8 any day.

70-200II is a beautiful lens, AF is screaming fast and damn sharp. But for me the 300 is my baby. Tack sharp, fast AF, and beautiful creamy backgrounds.

Still haven't had the opportunity to shoot the new 300/2.8II

jmphotocraft · October 26, 2011

Cool thanks!

8ball · October 31, 2011

Those are great shots. What mode are you shooting in on the 7d? AV, TV, M or P?

jmphotocraft · October 31, 2011

Thanks. Mostly M. On a day like this with consistent light, I like to take some test shots in Av and expose for the players, then lock in those settings in Manual. That way the camera doesn't get fooled by changing backgrounds. If clouds are passing overhead or if the players have their backs to the sun I'll switch to Av and play around with exposure compensation. In any case, I shoot wide open, always, for maximum background blur. Another guy-with-camera was there trying to tell me f/5.6 would be better for the colors. Whatever.

coltphotography · October 31, 2011

dunno, ur colors look pretty good.

nice shots

jmphotocraft · October 31, 2011

Thanks. Yeah, not sure what he was talking about, but he was shooting a 1st-gen 70-200/2.8ISL on a 30D.

adbsgicom · October 31, 2011

Googled around on this. Found one mention in dpreview forums where someone was asking about this. The reply basically said this was not true, but may be perceived by some because of the increased contrast/crispness from stepping down some.... Or this guy is just underexposing by a bit and calls that saturation

coltphotography · October 31, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Thanks. Yeah, not sure what he was talking about, but he was shooting a 1st-gen 70-200/2.8ISL on a 30D.

i dunno, i am shooting with a rebel and i don't normally have a problem with colors

13958259_7AMnq#988425356_7SKPg

can't figure out how to get the stupid pic to show up?????/

ChesterJack · October 31, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Thanks. Mostly M. On a day like this with consistent light, I like to take some test shots in Av and expose for the players, then lock in those settings in Manual. That way the camera doesn't get fooled by changing backgrounds. If clouds are passing overhead or if the players have their backs to the sun I'll switch to Av and play around with exposure compensation. In any case, I shoot wide open, always, for maximum background blur. Another guy-with-camera was there trying to tell me f/5.6 would be better for the colors. Whatever.

On such a brilliant day how fast were your shutter speeds @2.8 ?

jmphotocraft · November 1, 2011

ChesterJack wrote: »

On such a brilliant day how fast were your shutter speeds @2.8 ?

Usually 1/3200, 1/2500, or 1/4000.

ChesterJack · November 1, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Usually 1/3200, 1/2500, or 1/4000.

Thanks for the reply. Very nice shots.

jhefti · November 1, 2011

I've never heard that stopping down improves the colors, though with a not-so-great lens it can improve the crispness. The tradeoff of course is adding a lot of clutter to the background. I shoot almost all soccer at f/2.8, day or night, just for the isolation and bokeh.

Bountyphotographer · November 2, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

First time shooting a full size field (120 yards). The combo was too short to reach more than half way across the field, but I still got a nice number of keepers. Not sure I'd even want to bother with a 1.4TC, but it would be worth a try next.

2

3

4

5

6

8

8

9

thanks for looking!

WOW pretty good shot.
I'm about to rent a lens this coming Saturday and am wondering if I should go for a canon 70-200 instead of the 100-400?? I m shooting kids smaller than the one in your pics. Im afraid the the 100-400 will not allow me to shoot the player close to the side line???

Thanks for any feedback
1.

jmphotocraft · November 2, 2011

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

WOW pretty good shot.
I'm about to rent a lens this coming Saturday and am wondering if I should go for a canon 70-200 instead of the 100-400?? I m shooting kids smaller than the one in your pics. Im afraid the the 100-400 will not allow me to shoot the player close to the side line???

Thanks for any feedback
1.

Oh yeah, the 70-200/2.8 II on an APS-C camera is great for youth soccer. I would not bother with the 100-400. I've shot a ton of my son's U10 team, here are some samples:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=206758

Bountyphotographer · November 2, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Oh yeah, the 70-200/2.8 II on an APS-C camera is great for youth soccer. I would not bother with the 100-400. I've shot a ton of my son's U10 team, here are some samples:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=206758

Wow. I just read another thread about shooting with the 100-400 and I have to say that it make sense however after seeing your shots I think that the 70-200 should do it.

Thanks

jmphotocraft · November 2, 2011

It's true that on a U10 size field, shooting from the goal line, you are only going to be able to cover up to about the half line with the 70-200. A little further with aggressive cropping. I used to have a 100-400L, I like the 70-200/2.8II a lot better for many reasons. I've found that shooting action way in the distance does not usually make for the best results. A lot of other players can get in the way, and at 300-400mm it is a bigger challenge to keep your player in the frame. I think some of the best action is to be had on the offensive half of the field, with your team driving towards the goal, and ideally with the sun somewhere in front of them or to the side. If you need to shoot the defense too, then you'll have to move around the field, obviously. Actually it's good to move around anyway, but shooting into the sun isn't as good.

Bountyphotographer · November 2, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

It's true that on a U10 size field, shooting from the goal line, you are only going to be able to cover up to about the half line with the 70-200. A little further with aggressive cropping. I used to have a 100-400L, I like the 70-200/2.8II a lot better for many reasons. I've found that shooting action way in the distance does not usually make for the best results. A lot of other players can get in the way, and at 300-400mm it is a bigger challenge to keep your player in the frame. I think some of the best action is to be had on the offensive half of the field, with your team driving towards the goal, and ideally with the sun somewhere in front of them or to the side. If you need to shoot the defense too, then you'll have to move around the field, obviously. Actually it's good to move around anyway, but shooting into the sun isn't as good.

Sold, thank you

Bounty

rpcrowe · November 3, 2011

Nice Images
I use a combination of the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses on a pair of 1.6x cameras (7D and 40D). Professional sports photographers often use the 400mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lenses on a pair of 1.3x cameras. My combination is the "poor man's version"...

BTW: Here is a neat way to handle a pair of camera/lenses when shooting sports. It speaks to American Football but, the technique would work for any field sports...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMgZ13X_pr4

jmphotocraft · November 3, 2011

Yeah, getting into the realm of the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8, you really have to be a full time pro or very rich. But you might be surprised how quickly you can save up for a 70-200/2.8II by shooting a town sports league for hire. And then you can add a 1.4x TC to that to get 280mm f/4.

Bountyphotographer · November 7, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

First time shooting a full size field (120 yards). The combo was too short to reach more than half way across the field, but I still got a nice number of keepers. Not sure I'd even want to bother with a 1.4TC, but it would be worth a try next.

1.

2

3

4

5

6

8

8

9

thanks for looking!

Wow your shots looks pretty good. Did you use a monopod? Not sure if the lack of experience of players U 10 has a lot to do with the opportunity for great pictures or I don thave the right lens 75-300 4.5 5.6 canon lens and lack of experience on my part shooting soccer but my shots are not that great compare to yours.

jmphotocraft · November 7, 2011

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

Wow your shots looks pretty good. Did you use a monopod? Not sure if the lack of experience of players U 10 has a lot to do with the opportunity for great pictures or I don thave the right lens 75-300 4.5 5.6 canon lens and lack of experience on my part shooting soccer but my shots are not that great compare to yours.

Thanks. I loooove to see monopods at youth games that I am shooting. It means that my shots will be better than that guy's!

That is, most monopod users tend to set them up at standing height. This is not a good perspective on kids. The secret is hidden in plain sight - you need to get down on your knees or be sitting on a small stool. This puts the camera on the kids' level and gives the viewer the perspective of looking at an adult. That makes the kids look like pros. It also will include the horizon in the background, which is preferable to shooting from standing which will often fill the bg with grass. Although a stool quickly becomes impractical as it is important to move around.

Your lens is just ok as long as it is USM, and you will get some keepers that you can sharpen up in post, but unless you are at or near 300mm and filling the frame with your subject, you're just not going to have as much background blur. If the f/2.8 lenses are out of reach, I'd recommend a 70-200/4L.

Otherwise, shoot for faces, conflict, and the ball. There are plenty of opportunities for good shots at the U10 level. Here's some of mine: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=206758. Good luck!

7D + 70-200II + full size soccer field

Comments