[danahauk]

Hi!
I really enjoyed taking pictures of my sons football team this year and am wondering if a different zoom lense would produce better shots. Any ideas on what lense would be right? Please use very simple terms for me I am just learning. Also my daughter plays fastball and I am looking forward to getting some pictures with my camera this year of her pitching and batting. She is also a volleyball player. I don't suppose there would be one wonder lense that would work for all 3 sports!!
Thanks for your help.

[daacon]

Hi!
I really enjoyed taking pictures of my sons football team this year and am wondering if a different zoom lense would produce better shots. Any ideas on what lense would be right? Please use very simple terms for me I am just learning. Also my daughter plays fastball and I am looking forward to getting some pictures with my camera this year of her pitching and batting. She is also a volleyball player. I don't suppose there would be one wonder lense that would work for all 3 sports!!
Thanks for your help.

What lens are you using now ?

Football on a good day (nice lighting) will be easier. As for length depends on how close you can get to the field. Personally I have found 300mm Sideline access has worked well for me and others. 500mm from the grandstands (Bigma) works great as well but all require sufficient lighting. Night games or overcast days make the Bigma challenging. The Biigma is a Sgma lens that ranges from 50mm - 500mm it is huge but can be hand held.

Indoors is a whole new ball game. The new DA* 50-135 might work well, but again depending on your vantage point that might be a little short. I would think for a zoom a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or I think Pentax has a 80-200 f2.8 . These are a good compromise for both sports. These are also difficult to find and will cost south of $1k usually. More options in primes of course but the cost can escalate beyond this mere mortal (300mm f2.8 prime - ouch$$$$)

Some people have had success with slower glass, high ISO and post processing. Some people have dome well with shorter glass (Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and cropping and post processing) - All depends on you , your preference and of course your budget

Ahhhhh many many threads on this subject try the seach for , fast glass, action . indoor sports, football, etc. Here are a few :


Lens for indoor High School Sports
Prime lens for Indoor sports
Help a newbie pick a lens for sports

Many more .. Good luck !

[Lowell Goudge]

Let's start by what do you have at present?

I would guess that for outdoor, you would be looking at something in the 200-400mm range at the top end, probably a zoom.

I have a Sigma APO70-200 f2.8, plus 1.4x and 2x TCs. I use this for nature, and have used it for outdoor sports, as well as theatrical (high school auditorium) performances. Focal length is about right, and with the 1.4x TC it is good and fast. There are other fast and long Offerings from Sigma and others.

Indoor, in a school gym, the outdoor lens may be a little too long, and a 50-135 f2.8 may be better. Note the gym is a lot smaller than a football or baseball field.

Also for indoor, lighting is not great and even with fast lenses you will be shooting at 800-1600 ISO.

You could also consider for the indoor sports, some fast primes, such as a 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.5 since you will get extra stops compared to the constant apature and fast f2.8 zooms. (I have the 50 and 135 and am lookig for the 85 presently for similar reasons). If you can find them the 3 primes mentioned above may also cost less than the zoom,

Given all of the above, I think the answer is no, you will not get a miracle lense, therefore, you may go for one long and relitively fast tele zoom for outdoors, plus either a short fast zoom or collection of even faster short primes.

Regardless of focal length go for speed, fast lenses are your friend for sports, because you need to freeze the action.

ps. Bring lots of cash. I would suspect to cover both, with good lenses, you might need to pay about $1500. While this sounds like a lot, you are getting lenses that would last years, be useful for a lot of different things, and hold thier value fairly well. Think about how these fit into your overall scheme of things, and what else you would do with them,

[danahauk]

I have 2 lenses currently. Lense 1 is SMC Pentax-FA 1:4.7-5.8 100-300mm. Lense 2 SMC Pentax FA 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm. The volleyball pictures seem to turn out better with the shorter lense or if I don't zoom too far with the bigger zoom lense. The freeze of the action isn't bad with either lense but the lighting is way too dark with the bigger zoom. The football pictures from the sidelines with the 300 work really well. The games are all in the daylight, I have had alot of trouble shooting the nighttime games!!

[danahauk]

Thanks for your help Dave. I will check out those posts for sure. The lenses I have now are SMC 1:4.7-5.8 100-300mm and SMC 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm. The shorter lense works best for the indoor shots the larger lense makes the pictures too dark. When I go to 1600 ASA the pictures are quite grainy is that normal? The light is better but it is difficult to crop when they are so grainy. The larger lense works great for daytime football pictures from the sidelines. But I have yet to get a good picture of the nighttime football. Any ideas? The field is lighted but that doesn't seem to help. Thanks again for your time in responding.
Dana

[Canada_Rockies]

Thanks for your help Dave. I will check out those posts for sure. The lenses I have now are SMC 1:4.7-5.8 100-300mm and SMC 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm. The shorter lense works best for the indoor shots the larger lense makes the pictures too dark. When I go to 1600 ASA the pictures are quite grainy is that normal? The light is better but it is difficult to crop when they are so grainy. The larger lense works great for daytime football pictures from the sidelines. But I have yet to get a good picture of the nighttime football. Any ideas? The field is lighted but that doesn't seem to help. Thanks again for your time in responding.
Dana

The grain is a function of the high ISO setting. Use a lower ISO whenever you can. For indoor sports, a bit of motion blur can add to the impression of speed, as long as it is not overdone. The k10d does quite well at 800, but can be a bit noisy at 1600. In basketball, it is surprising how slow a shutter speed can work well if you time the shot for the action peak. For example, a jump shot is momentarily motionless just as the ball leaves the player's hand. With some practice you should be able to pop the shutter just as the shooter stops going up, and has not yet started to come back down.

Night sports are a problem for light. That's why the pros lined up beside the field have those big white bazookas on the cameras. You and I cannot afford that glass - it would take a second mortgage to buy some of those lenses.

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks for your help Dave. I will check out those posts for sure. The lenses I have now are SMC 1:4.7-5.8 100-300mm and SMC 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm. The shorter lense works best for the indoor shots the larger lense makes the pictures too dark. When I go to 1600 ASA the pictures are quite grainy is that normal? The light is better but it is difficult to crop when they are so grainy. The larger lense works great for daytime football pictures from the sidelines. But I have yet to get a good picture of the nighttime football. Any ideas? The field is lighted but that doesn't seem to help. Thanks again for your time in responding.
Dana

I hope this does not sound like a criticism, but both lenses are at least 1 stop slower than what I would try. I have tried indoors with my 70-200 f2.8 and have shot at ISO 3200 with my *istD just to get shutter speed high enough to freeze action. (note this is for Tae-Kwon Do)

Since I find in the gym that 70mm is really too long for most, I am leaning more to the 50mm F1.4. You can get these in manual focus realitively cheap and this gives you 2 stops. That reduces the ISO to 800 from 3200, all else being equal

Your outdoor lens is better but still 1 stop slower than a 300 F4 or a 70-200 f2.8 plus 1.4x TC

As for nioght shots, unless you are really in a pro stadium, I would bet that the lighting is OK to play but not shoot, unless, as others have suggested you morgage your house

[autumnsbliss]

It looks like you got daytime sports covered. It's the indoor and nighttime that has already been mentioned that is really tricky to get a good shot. When it comes to hobby photographers it's about give and take with what we have, what we can afford, and working with what we got. You already got some great suggestions on some good lens that will do what you want but as you can see will be really $$$.

Bumping your ISO will give you more light which you can use for a faster shutter speed to stop motion. Though, like you already have seen you are going to get some noise (grainy) texture. Depending of what camera you have anything passed 800 ISO is going to start to get grainy.

The lenses you have now aren't the best at indoor/nighttime, the maximum aperture you have is 3.5, which is why you got some decent volleyball ones on your 28-80mm. You should get at least try to find f/2.8 so you can get some more light to come through the lens. So you can take down the ISO to get less noise and still have the fast speed you are looking for in stopping motion. The picture below shows the difference sizes of apertures. The bigger the circle, the more light can be collected by the lens to be processes through the camera. So when it comes to poor lighting (indoor light, nighttime stadiums) the best maximum aperture to get is the f1.4. The only negative about apertures is those 1.4-2.8 can get really pricey, specially with increasing distance.


Now you need to look at what is the necessary distance to get your picture. Indoor volleyball you should be able to get fairly close, but for football/baseball you already know you have to get at least 200-400mm.

I would recommend waiting awhile and save up for the lens suggested like the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 or something to that range.

I have gotten by with a f4-5.6 70-300mm lens on some nighttime baseball of my cousin. I went to full manual mode and fine tune the adjustments to get some decent shots with throwing/batting action. Granted I was usually in 1600 or even 3200 ISO at times, some photoshop editing cleared it up pretty nicely. Before the game do some testing shots to get what adjustments is needed to get the pictures you want. I will be doing some indoor track pictures soon and lucky to have some old manual f2.8 lenses to get some good shots.

Just keep learning, and good luck finding what you need.

[momof4]

Hi----I am really, really new to DSLR as well and don't understand most of the terms used here. I bought my K100D Super to take photos of my daughter at dance recitals (no flash) and my son at nighttime football games. For the night football games, I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens (under $150). I stood near the sidelines (on the other side of the fence!) and got some really good photos. I also used this lens recently when some F15E fighter jets were practicing over our mountains recently and once I cropped the photos, the photos were amazing----not always crystal clear, but keep in mind, these planes were just visible to the naked eye and flying really fast. This lens caught the plane flying and you can see their are two heads in the cockpit and a lot of detail, including the letters SJ on the tail. Back to the football---My son is the kicker, so when he plays, he is in the middle of the field. I got some really good photos of the guys on the sidelines and also some good ones of the game in play. I did set the ISO up to 1600 and with a little tweaking in the color from my Adobe photoshop starter edition, the photos are way better than what my point and shoot camera put out. I bought the 50mm F/1.4 lens for dance and hope that goes really well---competitions don't start until March. I was using the kit lens, the 18-55 mm lens today at school in the gym for a teachers vs the 5th graders in a volleyball game and got some really good photos. I put it on the sports setting and I think the ISO was 400. I hope some of this helps-----I can only speak for what I have used and so far I have been happy with the quality of the photos of the 70-33mm lens and the 18-55mm lens. I am in no means a professional, so my eye doesn't pick up things that other people pick up in a photo. If it looks good to me, that's what I care about!

[CJSpangler]

While I have yet to own a higher end "sports" lense, a soom lense like the sigma will get you fairly and very good results in most settings. I own the FA 80-320 which I would imagine is the equivalent of that zoom. From my findings it takes good pictures outdoors of football/nature. The decision basically determines your budget and your preference on how "profesional" you want your pictures to look.

The major difference between the zooms and the prime/semi pro lenses really shows in sharpness of the image at the long end (fixed on the sports lenses) and the ability to stop motion without sacrificing image quality (low ISOs). While it might not be significantly noticable to some if you really try and shoot fast action and there is a lot of detail - I shot my brother surfing right after I got my camera. I thought it was fantastic compared to the point and shoots I had attempted to use before and so did everyone else. Then I looked up some shots from the BIGMA used taking some surfers and it looked like shots I could have pulled out of a surfing magazine.

Thats basically the difference in my opinion.... The normal lenses will get you good results in most senarios and frankly be pretty impressive when comparing to the standard camera. But when you compare it to something you would pull out of a magazine (or one of Tom Lusk's Posts )it might not be just as sharp, have the same "WOW" in the color/contrast or every last detail might be visible.

My advice, see if someone you know has one or if 200mm is the longest you have, try getting a 300mm like the 80-320 FA or the Sigma version and see how you like it. Used they both go for like 150 and if you think you need something better just put it right back on ebay - you may even make a profit, worst case senario you loose 10-20 dollars but have the comfort in knowing your making an educated decision about why your purchasing an expensive lense. You can always upgrade to the FA*s or the Bigma which will set you back 1,000 or so. Personally that is my plan. And I will still have the less expensive 80-320 to take along on vacations or something when I don't want to risk brining a bigger expensive lense.

Momo - the FA 50mm 1.4 is a great lense, just about every picutre I take with that I am amazed at the sharpenss and bokeh.

hopefully I did not ramble to much ...

[Marc Langille]

Most guys I know who shoot sports at the NCAA football games don't go past 300mm. They normally shoot the Sigma 120-300/2.8 or a 300/2.8.

Evidently the 400/2.8 is too long as a general rule, even in the end zone slots. That's from both Canon and Nikon shooters... Me? If I ever managed to get a press pass, it would be with my FA* 80-200/2.8 and the FA* 300/2.8. I'd probably want the new body, though...

Cheers,
Marc

[sluggo913]

Hi guys, I have the same kind of issue my oldest daughter plays basketball and sings in chorus, and my son plays hockey. Normally I shoot them with a sigma 70-300 and have tried iso's from auto to 1600 on my k10d the 1600 was too noisey(grainy) at higher shutter speeds but when backed down to 800 iso and slightly slowed shutter the pictures came out good enough after lightening in PP to be proud of them. However I'm looking at the 50-135 f2.8 to get more light in and be able to use a higher shutter speed, my shots range from aprox. 75 to 225 depending on where they are playing. I won't mind spending $1000 - $1500 for the lens that is going to do the job, trying to find glass and accessories in stock around my area is not easy. If you have a reccomendation or suggestion it would be greatly appreciated. As soon as I crop some shots down I will post them like my son playing at the providence bruins 2 weeks ago.

[CJSpangler]

Look through the posts above....

it seems people recommend the faster sigma 300, the FA* series, or the Bigma if you like telephotos and can't get close.

B+H Photo or one of the amazon sells are pretty reliable as far as ordering online. I forget the exact site, think its bhphotovideo.com . Its pretty much the best deal and you avoid the sales tax which ads up on these types of purchases. The FA* are hard to find other than ebay. Look at the lense review section too - some good info there. The sigmas arent there but the FA*s are.

[Jodokast96]

One thing you can try when shooting at ISO 1600 is to push the Histogram as far to the right as possible. It does wonders for cutting down on the noise levels. A few examples: Slide show