Lens suitable for Hurling photography

kenwood

I use the Canon 350D Camera and the Canon 70-300mm 4 - 5.6 lens. My main interests are GAA, mainly local hurling and Aviation photography.

I find that I have the zoom distance with the 70 -300 lens but not the clarity, colour and bokeh that I would like.

I have an option on the Canon 70-200 F4 L USM for about €550.00

Is this lens suitable as a replacement?

Many thanks

Denis

Paulw

What you really want is the 70-200mm f/2.8 L. The 70-200mm f/4 will give you more clarity, but doubt it will give you suitable bokeh.

Fajitas!

I'd be going for the IS version, or the 2.8 version... or if money was no object, the 2.8 IS version, if I were you.

The light can get pretty bad, so you'll need as much aid as you can get.

If you wanted more reach, the 70-200 works quite well with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters too.

rymus

losing 100mm off the long end is awful... if I were you I'd get a 400mm 2.8L IS, a gimbal head and a good tripod. Maybe 400 is too long though. Settle for the 300mm. It's clearly the only logical solution.

Borderfox

It would be only during daylight, if it get overcast then the light falls and you have to up the ISO and it will get quite grainy, when you use your 70-300 make sure the aperture is around f8-f10 when using at 300mm and it will look better. If you can put it on a tripod and take shots using the self timer at 300mm and different apertures eg f5.6 f8 f10 and so on and you will see the shots getting better till it goes back to being unclear around f16, then you know the sweet spot of that lens. The 70-200 f4L is a really sharp piece of glass and you could probably crop a lot more and get a better shot at 200mm than the other lens. Focus is very fast on this lens too..

OnLooker

I am going for the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 with the extender when I hit NY in December.

Photo alot of GAA so I think it will give me the most flexibility. The light can be pretty bad in Ireland.

minikin

My tuppence worth - i use both a sigma 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8 for GAA (on a 20d, so 1.6 mag factor)
The zoom is rarely used as it just isn't long enough.

look for a 2nd hand 300mm, you'll really miss the 1.4 stops you lose with a convertor, particularly coming into the winter!
p.s. you'll also find the vertical grip a massive bonus, and you'll need a decent monopod if you go for the prime.

Paulw

If anyone knows where I can get a 2nd hand 300mm f/2.8 please let me know.

minikin

i'll sell you one... for one million dollars... muhahaha

Kenwood,

This might be a good compromise if you're on a budget

minikin

paul,

here's one in limerick on ebay

City-Exile

minikin wrote: »

paul,

here's one in limerick on ebay

You'd get a brand new one from HK for €400 less!

rymus

you'd get a spanking new one from kea for less than what that chancer in limerick is looking for

*SNAP*

positron

I would imagine 400/2.8L or 300/2.8L with 1.4x. And a 70-200/2.8L IS on a second body. And a 17-40 for group shots!

Borderfox

I seen a 300mm f2.8L IS on Adverts.ie for €4100!!!

Paulw

Ok, I was thinking of spending less than €2,500 for one. If I had €3,500 in my pocket, then it would go to Albert.

Mind you, just sent the Limerick guy a message, and said if he dropped his price by 1500 then I might make him an offer. We shall see.

City-Exile

Paul a 300/400mm f/2.8 will change your life forever!
You'll be able to stroll into sporting events without any bother & you'll have chicks hanging off you!

soccerc

City-Exile wrote: »

Paul a 300/400mm f/2.8 will change your life forever!
You'll be able to stroll into sporting events without any bother & you'll have chicks hanging off you!

Doesn't work like that for you so why would it be any different for Paul:D

Roen

kenwood wrote: »

I use the Canon 350D Camera and the Canon 70-300mm 4 - 5.6 lens. My main interests are GAA, mainly local hurling and Aviation photography.

I find that I have the zoom distance with the 70 -300 lens but not the clarity, colour and bokeh that I would like.

I have an option on the Canon 70-200 F4 L USM for about €550.00

Is this lens suitable as a replacement?

Many thanks

Denis

Is €550 your max budget Kenwood?

Try shooting what you normally shoot with your 70-300 set only at 200mm and see how you come off. If you don't like what you're getting then the 70-200 is not for you.

And remember a hurling/football pitch is a nice bit larger than a soccer pitch, I very much doubt the 200mm will be good for anything more than sideline shots.

City-Exile

thimblefull wrote: »

Doesn't work like that for you so why would it be any different for Paul:D

That was only an issue when I was hanging around with you.
Be sure to keep an eye on my portfolio. You could learn a lot!

City-Exile

Roen wrote: »

Try shooting what you normally shoot with your 70-300 set only at 200mm and see how you come off. If you don't like what you're getting then the 70-200 is not for you.

His 70-300mm wont give him 2.8 at 200mm, so that test is hardly accurate.
If he's really interested in sports, then he'll learn how to position himself in such a way, that the 200 will give him enough action coverage.
On top of that, he can always crop images afterwards.

The pros typically use the 400mm f/2.8 to cover GAA, but if our friend has €8,000 to spend, then I'll leave the advice to you, but I fear for his 350D.

Roen

City-Exile wrote: »

His 70-300mm wont give him 2.8 at 200mm, so that test is hardly accurate.

Seeing as he's considering replacing a lens of FL that he's happy with with one 100mm less I'd say it was a valid point. He may be disappointed if he shaves that 100mm off (no smart comments).
I know, as does anyone that can read that his existing lens won't give him a ƒ2.8 aperture, but neither will the 70-200 ƒ4 he's considering buying.

At least if he follows that piece of advice he'll know not to get a lens with a max FL of 200mm instead of 300mm, thus saving him a few quid.

City-Exile wrote:

If he's really interested in sports, then he'll learn how to position himself in such a way, that the 200 will give him enough action coverage.
On top of that, he can always crop images afterwards.

Agreed, but why did you buy the 300mm if that's the case? Soccer pitches are smaller than GAA ones after all.

City-Exile wrote:

The pros typically use the 400mm f/2.8 to cover GAA, but if our friend has €8,000 to spend, then I'll leave the advice to you, but I fear for his 350D.

I know the cost of the lenses used is prohibitively expensive. That's why I asked him if the €550 was his entire budget, the 350D comment you made is very valid, but considering half of the input thus far has been buddy, buddy in-jokes of NO use to anyone I thought I'd pop in and actually try answer the OP. If I'm wrong then I'll put my hand up, but I still think the advice of shooting only at the 200mm setting of the 70-300 will give him an idea of what the lens he is considering buying will do for him.

City-Exile

Roen wrote: »

Agreed, but why did you buy the 300mm if that's the case? Soccer pitches are smaller than GAA ones after all.

I bought the 300mm f/2.8 because it's better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 & I could afford it.
Almost all the pros will have a 70-200mm f/2.8 on their second body & capture some of their most significant shots with it.

Your point about the 70-200mm f/4-5.6 had already been addressed by Paulw.
The OP specifically said that his current lens doesn't give him the bokeh he'd like, so Paulw ruled out the 70-200mm f/4-5.6 for the same reason.

kenwood

Thanks folks for all the suggestions,

I could afford up to € 1000.00 to upgrade the lens. The reason I have the 300mm is that I bought it as a rookie photographer (not knowing this brilliant forum was there) to take these type of photos. Me a culpa!!
It seems the cost of my expectations exceed the budget available or does it?

Some of the photographs I take are taken from the sideline (when I can get in there), and more from outside the bank where I have a bit of height. I feel reading your comments that with the 70 - 200mm either f4 or 2.8, that I would need to be closer to the action.

I will await your further comments as I see that there is a lot of experience to be learned from you guys.

Denis

Oriel

After quickly skimming through this thread: You need an f/2.8 lens, the 300mm is out of your budget, the 200mm should be just within it.
Get a 200mm f/2.8 lens.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-200mm-F-2-8L-USM-70-200-F-2-8-LENS-NEW_W0QQitemZ190165661862QQihZ009QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

City-Exile

Oriel wrote: »

After quickly skimming through this thread: You need an f/2.8 lens, the 300mm is out of your budget, the 200mm should be just within it.
Get a 200mm f/2.8 lens.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-200mm-F-2-8L-USM-70-200-F-2-8-LENS-NEW_W0QQitemZ190165661862QQihZ009QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Before anyone points out that the lens above isn't IS, I don't think that's a problem for sport, as you can use a monopod.
I never use the IS function at games.

Oriel

City-Exile wrote: »

Before anyone points out that the lens above isn't IS, I don't think that's a problem for sport, as you can use a monopod.
I never use the IS function at games.

Exactly. IS/VR is to prevent camera-shake, not motion blur. The two things are completely different.

Covey

No one has mentioned the 400 5.6 L as an option. It comes in at under a grand and is a fine lens for the price.

OK I know you'll be shooting 1600 iso most days and it's not ideal on dark grey days but it will do a job most of the time if you can't/don't want to buy a professional mega expensive 2.8 lens.

Certainly if you're not looking to sell the images it's an option.

IMO a 70-200 is very restrictive shooting hurling.

Some hurling examples;

[IMG][/img]

minikin

Ok, the bestest compromise is this: canon 300mm F4 L
It has the reach, F4 is a useful if not ideal max aperture, it's a Canon L lens, it's under a grand... on your 350d you're getting the equiv of a 480mm F4...

soccerc

minikin wrote: »

Ok, the bestest compromise is this: canon 300mm F4 L
It has the reach, F4 is a useful if not ideal max aperture, it's a Canon L lens, it's under a grand... on your 350d you're getting the equiv of a 480mm F4...

I can't speak for Canon but I started out with a Nikon f4 300mm and it proved extremely limited.

Problems arose once there was low or poor quality light, i.e cloudy, overcast or raining while from Oct - March it struggled from mid afternoon no matter if it was a clear day.

Originally I moved to an f2.8 80-200mm on recommendation of a pro but quickly found it's reach was not sufficient, thus the upgrade to the 2.8 300mm.

I use these two all the time on separate bodies and turn off VR on the 300mm if using monopod.

Bryan1

City-Exile wrote: »

His 70-300mm wont give him 2.8 at 200mm, so that test is hardly accurate.
If he's really interested in sports, then he'll learn how to position himself in such a way, that the 200 will give him enough action coverage.
On top of that, he can always crop images afterwards.

The pros typically use the 400mm f/2.8 to cover GAA, but if our friend has €8,000 to spend, then I'll leave the advice to you, but I fear for his 350D.

Aye, for uptight action photography you need the tele with high F/stop at the longest focal length in this case 400mm. "Slow" lenses that cover the focal range you’re talking about here are going to stop up as you increase the focal length. So at 30mm you’re at F/2.8 which is fast but as you increase to 300mm you may only be able to stop down to F/5.8 which is slow.

kenwood

Covey,

What is the spec on those photo's, lens type etc?


Denis

minikin

20D, Tokina 300mm F2.8 & detail at 100%

GristlyEnd

I went to the Vincents v Ballyboden game in Parnell Park Friday evening. I was on the pitch with the rest of the photographers and 400mm f/2.8 where popular but I was not alone with my 300mm f/2.8 which I found was long enough for the game.

These where taken under floodlight conditions.

kenwood

Minikin and Darrang, these are the types of photos I'm interested in taking. I must say that the clarity is vy good with them and with the backround fuzzy, make for brilliant photos.

Am doing a bit of research on the net, keeping a close eye on this thread, on the Canon EF 300/4.0 L IS USM + EF Extender 1,4x II @ €1545 on AC FOTO, and the Sigma EX 120-300/2.8 IF APO HSM DG @ €2646. This one is a little outside the budget but with Xmas coming could encourage donations.

Denis

Roen

You know the extender is going to lose you a stop of light Kenwood? The 300 ƒ4 will become a ƒ5.6. It will also give you slower AF, and it may mean that you have to manually focus depending on the lens.

I'd advise away from it. You'd be looking to get something wider max aperture with zippier AF, not a narrower one with slower AF.

Also bear in mind that the 350D has a 1.6 crop sensor on it also so the 300mm lens is giving you the equivalent field of view of a lens of focal length of 480mm, which is plenty.

Check out the wiki page on crop factor if you're not fully sure. click here

Paulw

If you shoot sport, and it may be under floodlights or dark conditions, then you certainly need at least an f/2.8 lens. The reach of the lens is up to you - 200mm, 300mm, 400mm. As Roen says, any extender will add a stop (or two) too.

Personally, I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about your crop factor. But maybe that's just me.

So, you're really looking for something like a 300mm f/2.8 lens (with or without IS).

minikin

nice shots there darren, we should all meet up to shoot a match sometime... freak out some third division hurling team
One thing that really bugs me about sports shots is a dodgy horizon... what does anyone else think?


20D again, 300mm, 1/1000th at F4 iso 200, no sharpening applied.
I almost always use manual focussing with the tokina.
Obviously all rights reserved on these images.

Yeah, a 300mm 2.8 is ideal for a 1.6x body but budget is an issue, that's why I suggest the 300mm f4 - I wouldn't waste money on a convertor for action shots. Having said that if anyone has a sigma, i've a completely unused 2x convertor still for sale (wasn't compatible with the tokina 300mm)



Just shows the variety in light quality for one game...

Covey

kenwood wrote: »

Covey,

What is the spec on those photo's, lens type etc?


Denis

Canon 20D Canon 400mm 5.6 L iso 800 around 1/2000 sec and Sunny September Day. Minimal crop

T.

GristlyEnd

minikin wrote: »

nice shots there darren, we should all meet up to shoot a match sometime... freak out some third division hurling team

There's a football match on Monday in Parnell Park which I'll probably be covering. Come along if you want.

soccerc

Here's a sport photo taken today with a Nikon 300mm 2.8 at 1/800, iso 180 (auto)

nilhg

thimblefull wrote: »

Here's a sport photo taken today with a Nikon 300mm 2.8 at 1/800, iso 180 (auto)

I'd think there wasn't much sport for the guy in yellow.:eek:

kenwood

Folks I too the following at a Minor Football match yesterday
eugene clearing.jpg

kenwood

and another:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/90961/46661.jpg

the exif is focal length 170mm, f/5.6 shot in sports mode due to light

Oriel

The quality of those photos is extremely poor.

Paulw

Oriel wrote: »

The quality of those photos is extremely poor.

Always so quick and easy to criticise other people's photos Oriel.

Anyway, to be a bit constructive - ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/4000 at 170mm. Well, what you could do, is to lower the ISO, and also reduce the shutter speed to about 1/400. That might help reduce the noise in the photo. Try using shutter priority rather than aperture priority.

Hopefully that is more helpful than someone just saying your photos are extremely poor.

GristlyEnd

minikin wrote: »

Just realised I know the guy in the Ciaran's shirt. Small world and all that...

kenwood

Thanks Paulw,

Nice to get someone with constructive advice.
I had the ISO at 400 and the speed at 200 on AV mode but they were very dark when I checked them. So bumped up the ISO, possibly forgot to recheck the speed then........

Will keep on trying and looking out for a more suitable lens.

It seems some people never had to learn - they were just always good !!

Paulw

Try setting it on TV, with 1/400 and ISO 400 and see what you get. If needed, then bump up the ISO. You just might have very dark images, and have to brighten them a bit in Photoshop.

Or, set the camera to M with 1/400 and f/5.6 and see what you get. It is really a matter of playing around those areas until you get something bright enough. You might be surprised, in a good way.

It might just be a case that you need a faster lens (f/2.8)

nilhg

The exif for both kenwood's shots is 1/4000, f/5.6, ISO800, and exposure bias -2. If I am not mistaken thats equivalent to 1/4000, f/5.6 ISO3200, no wonder there is noise.
It should be possible to get a cleaner shot at 1/1000 f/5.6 ISO800.

kenwood

Thanks lads,

now for my ignorance - what is exposure bias -2??

King Kelly

Guy's I don't have your technical expertise but I would assume that even for an enthusiastic amateur that the changes in motion, direction, speed etc involved in any field sport would mean that the auto sport settings on the camera would be more suitable. Unless your trying to capture a sport with very definite, slow movement from the same position I can't see how you could be constantly adjusting shutter speed, aperture or ISO and keeping up with the onfield action.

Would the auto settings on my 20d not give as good as and probably better consistant results in sports photography then i would achive myself by experimenting with settings?