[bobbyscon]

I'm heading to a local high school (American) football game this weekend and figured I'd take the camera (KP) to get some practice with sports photography. It's a very small "stadium" and will not be well lit. Unfortunately, I don't yet own a 70-200 f2.8 lens. My options are:

• DA* 300 f4
• DA 18-135 f3.5-5.6
• Sigma APO DG 70-300 f4-5.6
• DAL 50-200 f4-5.6.

I was originally leaning to just using the 300, but I'm concerned that I'll be too limited in where I'll need to position myself. It's also homecoming, so I may take my FA 50 f1.4 for more of the event/candid shots and then switch to the zoom or telephoto for the game shots.

I've attached an image of the field, with the lights circled in red. If I were around mid-field, I'd think I'd be too close for most shots between the 35 yard lines and maybe not in a great position as they move closer to the end zones. I don't have any experience photographing football, so maybe that placement assumption is incorrect. Should I more strongly consider the Sigma so I can move up and down the field and crank the ISO to 12800 if the lighting necessitates? I'll have a monopod and/or tripod with me. I could either be along the fence line or I could go up into the stands.

With the gear I have access to, what would your approach to this event be?

Attached Images

 

[ramseybuckeye]

300 will get you a nice closeup of the bench on the far side of the field, with maybe 7-8 players/coaches on it. I think your best bet is the 70-300, but it's pretty slow. Since you are practicing, try different lenses if you can take them, and different positions. The 300 might actually pretty good for shots from behind the end zone. My favorite college football photos (taken by pros) came from the end zone, Your 50 might be pretty good for some photos, you'll get more of the scene than close up action. Sports are hard to shoot, and every high school field is different, you already know the lighting is bad. Try different things. Football is a more predicable sport than many since every play is starting from a static position, but that's about it. Decide what you are shooting for each photo, are you shooting the line, following the ball, picking out a player like a wide receiver or quarterback? Decide if you are shooting single shots or bursts. It might be a great place for 9 or 27 autofocus points. My approach would be try different lenses, vantage points, and camera settings, and compositions.

[aslyfox]

I have never tried taking photos at a foot ball game

but the best spot to see a play develop is the end zone

you can see the width of the field and the players moving

however you may miss the interior line play

image the field as a table if you are at the middle of the table you get one view as the players move

at the end of the table, you get the whole width of the table as the players move

consider a run around the end

or a pass play

I hope my explanation is clear

I would use your " fastest " lenses

arrive early and shoot warm up activity to see what readings you get as you do so

and your field of view of the field

be sure to check out various lenses

good luck

[bobbyscon]

300 will get you a nice closeup of the bench on the far side of the field, with maybe 7-8 players/coaches on it.

This is what I was starting to realize/worry about. Glad that I was at least thinking in the right direction before just wandering off with a 300mm prime on the camera!

I have since found this blog post that had some great examples of focal lengths and distances with a person on stage for reference. Made it very clear that with a 300mm lens (full frame), I should plan on being at least 100ft away to get a 6ish foot person in a horizontal frame. Considering a football field is 160' wide, it matches up very closely with what you're describing. Maybe I'll go sit on the away team's bleachers and get the home team's bench

I have never tried taking photos at a foot ball game but the best spot to see a play develop is the end zone you can see the width of the field and the players moving however you may miss the interior line play

image the field as a table if you are at the middle of the table you get one view as the players move

at the end of the table, you get the whole width of the table as the players move

Very good points. I've never seen these teams play before, so I'm not sure how high (or low) scoring may be. I'll probably take the end zone approach for at least the first quarter and see how it goes.

[aslyfox]

. . . Very good points. I've never seen these teams play before, so I'm not sure how high (or low) scoring may be. I'll probably take the end zone approach for at least the first quarter and see how it goes.

low or high scoring doesn't matter, it's action

a guard pulling around the end of the line looking to block for the running back can be an exciting photo

[ confession time: it was my favorite photo of me taken during a game as I was looking for the block to spring the running back behind me it was by a fellow high school student taking photos of the games ]

[bobbyscon]

low or high scoring doesn't matter, it's action

Very true. I guess I was more thinking if there were a lot of 3 and outs and the team never made it too far down the field (towards me in the end zone) before having to punt. If my fantasy football teams have taught me anything over the years, it's that you never know what might happen in a football game!

Maybe I'll get one of my kids to take the K-r out with the 18-135 to practice with while I play with the Sigma and the 300. I don't want to carry all those lenses myself!

Thanks, as always, for the feedback!

[RGlasel]

I gave up taking night photos of high school football, mainly because my autofocus lenses over 90mm have a maximum aperture of f5.6. I did try taking some photos with a manual focus 70-210 f4 at night, your KP is much better at high ISO settings than my K-30, so if you set your shutter speed to 1/250 second, you might still get good results. To show you what 300mm looks like, I'm posting three photos from a daytime game (junior teams, not seniors). The shot with the kicker is probably 70 yards away, the other two shots were taken from the far sideline (on a Canadian Rules field, so it is 65 yards from sideline to sideline) and 10-20 yards downfield from the line of scrimmage. The fence that I'm standing behind is relatively far from the sideline as well, maybe 15 yards?

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[swanlefitte]

300 will get you a nice closeup of the bench on the far side of the field, with maybe 7-8 players/coaches on it.

Did the math with kp+300mm. 160ft wide field means from the side line to the other side line will show 12'7" of players.

If you are 10 yards off and players are 5 yards off for 215' you get 16'11".

[DonV]

As others have said, a fixed 300 is too long, your 70-300 should be good with the KP.
I would take the 18-135 too.
You will need to take lots of pictures to get some "good" ones.

[clackers]

I think you could struggle, Bobby. APS-C and slow lenses means your ISO is going to be high when your shutter speed is 1/1000s, for example.

Without a second body, you're forced to switch between your 300 (which is magnificent) as you move along the sidelines to the 18-135 when getting close to the end zone.

[aslyfox]

I'm heading to a local high school (American) football game this weekend and figured I'd take the camera (KP) to get some practice with sports photography. It's a very small "stadium" and will not be well lit.. .

if your budget would allow it, consider renting equipment from LensRental.com

here is a link to their K mount ASP-C inventory

https://www.lensrentals.com/search?filters=%7B%22checked%22%3A%7B%22Unavaila..._by=popularity

if the answer is yes, call asap and see if they can ship to you in time

[ThorSanchez]

I've never shot American football, but I have taken thousands of photos of soccer matches. American football fields are comparable to soccer, although a little smaller. I will typically use my 55-300 PLM, which works great in the daylight. Not so great at night with a max aperture in the 4.5-6.3 range. I haven't had a chance to shoot a night game since I got the K-3 Mark III, but with the K-3 II I'd cap ISO at 12800, and I'd often be bumping up against that at night. Photographing night youth sports almost always involves compromises. With your kit I'd probably use the 70-300, shoot TAv and let the ISO float where it needs to, and hope for the best. With soccer I always keep shutter at 1/500th or quicker, 1/1000th in daylight, and even at 1/500th I'll get motion blur. Heck, balls and feet sometimes blur at 1/1250th. Perhaps you could get away with a bit slower with football.

If I look at my soccer shots I have a pretty good distribution of focal lengths from 55 all the way to 300. I'm usually happier with the pictures that aren't all the way out at 300mm. That far away you will often get feet cut off from the crown of the field, it's harder to isolate one player, it's harder to hold everything steady. I usually get my best results standing behind one of the end lines (endzones in your case) and getting shots of players coming at me, so I'll get faces and eyes and balls. It's rare to get a keeper when the players' backs are to you, but you'll often get nice shots when there are visible faces even if it's not a key, exciting play. But to do that you have to have a zoom, as the players rapidly move from 50+ yards away to just a few yards away.

[bobbyscon]

Did the math with kp+300mm. 160ft wide field means from the side line to the other side line will show 12'7" of players.

If you are 10 yards off and players are 5 yards off for 215' you get 16'11".

This is awesome, thanks!

To show you what 300mm looks like, I'm posting three photos from a daytime game (junior teams, not seniors). The shot with the kicker is probably 70 yards away, the other two shots were taken from the far sideline (on a Canadian Rules field, so it is 65 yards from sideline to sideline) and 10-20 yards downfield from the line of scrimmage. The fence that I'm standing behind is relatively far from the sideline as well, maybe 15 yards?

I really appreciate the real-world sample shots! Really helps put scale/perspective to it.

You will need to take lots of pictures to get some "good" ones.

Oh, I plan on it. I'm not expecting to end up with anything professional looking, just the best I can. I'm really just going to get some practice in with gear I own and trying to better understand correlations to settings/results. If I'm able to get a few decent shots that maybe their yearbook team could use or to put in the school's eNewsletter, then great. If not, then off to digital recycling they go!

With your kit I'd probably use the 70-300, shoot TAv and let the ISO float where it needs to, and hope for the best. With soccer I always keep shutter at 1/500th or quicker, 1/1000th in daylight, and even at 1/500th I'll get motion blur. Heck, balls and feet sometimes blur at 1/1250th. Perhaps you could get away with a bit slower with football.

If I look at my soccer shots I have a pretty good distribution of focal lengths from 55 all the way to 300. I'm usually happier with the pictures that aren't all the way out at 300mm. That far away you will often get feet cut off from the crown of the field, it's harder to isolate one player, it's harder to hold everything steady. I usually get my best results standing behind one of the end lines (endzones in your case) and getting shots of players coming at me, so I'll get faces and eyes and balls.

Thanks for the advice! I know my shutter speed isn't going to quite be high enough to prevent blur, but I'm OK with that. Based on the math and examples from this thread, I'm assuming I'll be in the 150-220mm range with that zoom for most of the action.

[UncleVanya]

I shot high school football when I was in high school for the school newspaper and yearbook. A buddy and I teamed up. I shot a 50mm and he shot 180mm. I got the line action wide shots, he got closeup shots or action away from the line.

We shot at 3200 ASA most of the time with f2 or 2.8 lenses. (Pushed Tri-X or similar)

The 60-250 was described to me by a few folks as a perfect soccer lens. I think the 70-300 will work fine. Let iso go high, shoot raw, don’t be scared to have a little noise and a bit of movement from the action.

[Lowell Goudge]

Do the math

Image size = subject size x focal length / distance

Considering you are thinking 300 mm already and a crop sensor, and you know roughly the size of people you can flip the formula around for shooting distance.

Distance = subject size x focal length / image size

For an average person they are somewhere between 1.5 and 2 meters tall. So let’s allow 2 meters.

Given the landscape format is 16 mm high on the crop sensor, you would fill the frame at 37.5 meters / 40 yards.

So you would just get the shot in directly across the field, any down field distance means a longer distance / smaller image.

Ideally a 100-400 zoom would cover most of the action but a 300 prime would do pretty good as long as you can move up and down the sidelines