Night football games -- Nikon lenses...
Reed Snellenberger
for some high school football games. Since my old point and shoot (a
Pentax Zoom 105R) isn't up to the job, I'll be making an investment in an
SLR...
Some of the particulars:
Most games are at night, under good stadium lighting. The photographers
have to stay between the 25 and 30 yard lines, on the opposite end from
where the action is happening (although we've been known to stray at
times). The film that is used is Fuji's ASA 1600 print film (pictures
are for the booster club, who buy the film).
I've already picked out the Nikon N-80 for the body (I liked the feel of
it better than the Canon Elan). I'll probably use a monopod, but I may
want to try taking some hand-held pictures as well.
I'm looking for ideas/feedback on lens selection. It's obvious that I'll
need a telephoto lens to get any details of on-field action at all, so
I'm tentatively planning to get either the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED AF or
the 75-300 F4-5.6 G AF lens. An attractive point on these lenses is that
they're fairly light and compact -- after the football season is over,
I'll be using the lens for just plain amateur picture taking. I've
thought about getting a used Nikon 75-300 F4-5.6, but it looks pretty big
(in the pictures at KEH).
Since I can't test this combo before I buy it, I'd appreciate anyone's
thoughts about the lenses, or any alternatives.
--
Reed
Dallas
Don't waste your time or money using that equipment to photograph sports
under floodlights. You'll get crap results and despondancy for your
efforts.
I shoot Super 12 rugby matches every year and most of them are under
lights. The only decent shots I got were when I was using f/2.8 lenses
with USM motors. Autofocus for this type of thing has to be quick and
decisive. When you are using lenses with small maximum apertures such as
the ones you mentioned, your camera just won't get enough light to give
you the drive your AF system needs to track focus on moving subjects. This
is especially the case with Nikkors that are focussed using the screw
coupling.
As far as focal length goes, you should be looking at 400mm if you are not
going to be allowed to track the action from the sidelines.
The minimum requirements for floodlit sports are f/2.8 lenses with
motorised autofocus built into the lens. Sorry, not what you wanted to
hear, but for this type of thing professional equipment is an absolute
must.
--
"She blew my nose and then she blew my mind."
~ Jagger / Richards
Do emails fly without wings?
Michael Scarpitti
You need 2.8 lenses or faster, such as the 180mm 2.8. Autofocus is a
waste of time, because the bodies get in front of each other and the
camera can't tell which one has the ball.
Get a manual-focussing camera and a 2.8 lens
Reed Snellenberger
news:pan.2004.03.29...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za:
> Reed Snellenberger said:
>
snip the problem statement...
>
> Don't waste your time or money using that equipment to photograph
> sports under floodlights. You'll get crap results and despondancy for
> your efforts.
>
> I shoot Super 12 rugby matches every year and most of them are under
> lights. The only decent shots I got were when I was using f/2.8 lenses
> with USM motors. Autofocus for this type of thing has to be quick and
> decisive. When you are using lenses with small maximum apertures such
> as the ones you mentioned, your camera just won't get enough light to
> give you the drive your AF system needs to track focus on moving
> subjects. This is especially the case with Nikkors that are focussed
> using the screw coupling.
>
> As far as focal length goes, you should be looking at 400mm if you are
> not going to be allowed to track the action from the sidelines.
>
> The minimum requirements for floodlit sports are f/2.8 lenses with
> motorised autofocus built into the lens. Sorry, not what you wanted to
> hear, but for this type of thing professional equipment is an absolute
> must.
>
Thanks for the response. You're right -- not what I wanted to hear, but
definitely what I needed to find out before I sink money into the thing...
When you say "motorized autofocus", is that equivalent to what Nikon calls
their "Internal Focusing"? For example,
I'll start looking at the 2.8 lenses -- at first glance, looks like I can
only get up to a 180 on my budget, though, so I'll have to limit my
shooting to the half of the game that's at my end.
--
Reed
Reed Snellenberger
news:2fd2ff8c.04032...@posting.google.com:
> Reed Snellenberger <rsnellenberger@-omitthis-houston.rr.com> wrote in
> message news:<Xns94BB3D184580Ers...@24.93.43.119>...
>
> You need 2.8 lenses or faster, such as the 180mm 2.8. Autofocus is a
> waste of time, because the bodies get in front of each other and the
> camera can't tell which one has the ball.
>
> Get a manual-focussing camera and a 2.8 lens
Thanks for the response... the 180mm 2.8 is what I'll be looking at now.
--
Reed
Bob Hickey
"Reed Snellenberger" <rsnellenberger@-omitthis-houston.rr.com> wrote in
message news:Xns94BB3D184580Ers...@24.93.43.119...
best results w/ a manual focus camera. By far. I pick the heaviest camera I
have, motor w/ dead batteries and a monopod leaving the head loose. Not to
start a brand war, but some have an annoying shutter lag, some are amazingly
fast. I used an AF once. That was enough. Nothing but aggravation. I'd go to
some nite events pre season, shoot a few test rolls, determine your best
exposures w/ the same film, and get some practice. Don't forget the lowly
50mm for some sideline stuff.
Sports were being shot long before hi-tek, using nothing but a
knowlege of the game. Bob Hickey
Dallas
> Thanks for the response. You're right -- not what I wanted to hear, but
> definitely what I needed to find out before I sink money into the thing...
Wise move. There's nothing worse than getting stuck with stuff that just
doesn't make the grade.
> When you say "motorized autofocus", is that equivalent to what Nikon calls
> their "Internal Focusing"? For example,
Nikon call this AF-S, or Silent Wave motors. It has to do with the
focussing motors being inside th lens and not driven from the camera - as
is the case with most Nikon lenses. If you go with Canon you would be
looking at getting USM lenses (ultrasonic motor).
> I'll start looking at the 2.8 lenses -- at first glance, looks like I can
> only get up to a 180 on my budget, though, so I'll have to limit my
> shooting to the half of the game that's at my end.
Some impartial advice: look at the EOS system for sports photography.
Nearly all the professional sports photographers I have met use EOS gear.
The reason is because USM is on most of their auto focus pro lenses.
If you are shooting film I would recommend looking at either an EOS 3 or
EOS 1v body (buying used will save you $$$ and there are many pro's
dumping these bodies to go digital so you are likely to get a good deal).
Your ideal lens is a difficult question to answer because I don't know
what your budget is. At the moment I am looking at getting a 70-200mm
f/2.8L zoom, but that's only because my accreditation allows me to shoot
from anywhere along the touchline. In your case you will be limited to
being behind the in-goal area, so depending on how often play takes place
in your range will dictate how many tightly framed shots you are likely to
get.
If you can afford it (who can?) you should be looking at either a 300mm
f/2.8 or a (choke!) 400mm f/2.8. I simply cannot justify the expense
because in my country sports photography is not an easy way to make a
living. The expense of buying that calibre of glass compared to the
returns you get (financially) are poles apart.
The best advice I can give you is to look at the used market for guys who
are either upgrading or who are looking to change systems.
My first game of the season is this Saturday at 5pm (under lights at
twilight) and the fastest lens I have at the moment is an 85mm f/1.8 USM,
which when used on the D60 gives me a massive 135mm!! Needless to say, I
will be focussing on sideline pictures!
Gregg
mm f/2.8 AFS VR)
if you can afford it, then get the 300 mm f/2.8, everything else is a waste
of time and money
forget about slow and dim f/4.5 - 5.6 lenses for night sports
"Reed Snellenberger" <rsnellenberger@-omitthis-houston.rr.com> wrote in
message news:Xns94BB3D184580Ers...@24.93.43.119...
Jerry L.
1. a Nikon F100 body.
2. a AF 80-200mm f2.8D Nikkor zoom lens.
3. a Nikon SB-26 speedlight.
4. a good monopod.
5. and if you have $$$$ remaining,
a AF 300mm f2.8 (D or non-D) Nikkor telephoto lens.
A night game with a slower-than-f2.8 zoom lens is not tooooo good.
= = =
Reed Snellenberger <rsnellenberger@-omitthis-houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94BB3D184580Ers...@24.93.43.119>...
> This coming fall, I'll get the chance to take pictures from the sideline
> for some high school football games. Since my old point and shoot (a
SNIP
Reed Snellenberger
news:dc01ac7.04033...@posting.google.com:
> You may look into:
>
> 1. a Nikon F100 body.
>
Thanks... what would be the differential (for my situation) between the
N80 & F100? I know about the $$$ difference, the interchangeable
reticles (right word?), and the extra shutter release for vertical
pictures (just to give foolishly irrelevant examples between the
cameras).
> 2. a AF 80-200mm f2.8D Nikkor zoom lens.
>
It's a nice-looking lens (from a specs point of view, anyway)...
> 3. a Nikon SB-26 speedlight.
>
I've been told that there's a hearty antagonism between the officials &
flash photography at our games, unfortunately.
> 4. a good monopod.
>
Definitely...
> 5. and if you have $$$$ remaining,
> a AF 300mm f2.8 (D or non-D) Nikkor telephoto lens.
I'm afraid the coin purse screamed in pain half-way through the monopod
purchase...
>
> A night game with a slower-than-f2.8 zoom lens is not tooooo good.
That seems to be the consensus... thanks.
--
Reed
EDGY01
<< Most games are at night, under good stadium lighting. The photographers
have to stay between the 25 and 30 yard lines, on the opposite end from
The restrictions imposed upon you are making this nearly impossible for you to
take good pictures. When I used to do this I was on the field along the
sidelines and used about a 135mm f/2.8 lens and somtimes an 85mm f/1.8 lens on
a Nikon. Our field was so dark we'd start with Tri-X and push it with Diafine
up to about 3200 ASA. You're going to need about a 300-400mm lens with a film
body,--then you might as well shoot from the stadium seats. Being o the field
is more of a disadvantage for you because you're on the same elevation as the
players. It's better to be up higher.
Dan