Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Photography
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2017, 10:53 AM   #1
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default Question for sports photography

Alright sports photographers, I have a Nikon D3100 and a Nikon D7100. The D7100 is my new toy and I'm looking for my best options to set up for indoor soccer, it's dimly lit with non stop action. What lens should I target for this type of photography? Thanks for any and all advice in advance!
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 11:52 AM   #2
Shane
Pope & Young
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Abilene, TX
Hunt In: Mismatched camo
Default

You need the largest aperture you can get - at least f/2.8. 70-200mm f/2.8 is a good one.
Shane is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 12:01 PM   #3
35remington
Pope & Young
 
35remington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Williamson
Hunt In: the dark
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
Alright sports photographers, I have a Nikon D3100 and a Nikon D7100. The D7100 is my new toy and I'm looking for my best options to set up for indoor soccer, it's dimly lit with non stop action. What lens should I target for this type of photography? Thanks for any and all advice in advance!
Is someone paying you to shoot? Do you shoot there often? If the answer to those questions is yes, I would consider mounting some flashes on very tall tripods like wedding photogs do at the reception. And yes, I agree with what Shane said about the lens. Look into the Nikon VR 70-200.
35remington is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 12:11 PM   #4
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

I had a feeling that would be the lens that was brought up. The fields are really small, it's my sons team so it's for personal reasons. I want that lens, but I'm not sure I'm ready to cut that check. I thought about maybe getting the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to get started. I know it doesn't have the reach, but these fields are only 80 yds x 40 yds.

I should have mentioned that, but that being said. What do y'all think about the Sig 24-70?
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 12:14 PM   #5
35remington
Pope & Young
 
35remington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Williamson
Hunt In: the dark
Default

If I were in your shoes I would see if a camera store would rent you a lens for a game so you can decide what's best.
35remington is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 12:19 PM   #6
150class
Pope & Young
 
150class's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio
Hunt In: Uvalde, Boerne
Default

Following as I'm new to the game but as Shane mentioned 2.8 apature is a must for indoor low light.

My finance was taking photos of deer at 50 yards with her 24-70 2.8 on a Sony and it was still pretty dang far even with some cropping. Also megapixels becomes a factor there I would imagine.

We'll see if I'm wrong though
150class is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 12:20 PM   #7
Shane
Pope & Young
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Abilene, TX
Hunt In: Mismatched camo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
I had a feeling that would be the lens that was brought up. The fields are really small, it's my sons team so it's for personal reasons. I want that lens, but I'm not sure I'm ready to cut that check. I thought about maybe getting the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to get started. I know it doesn't have the reach, but these fields are only 80 yds x 40 yds.

I should have mentioned that, but that being said. What do y'all think about the Sig 24-70?
Sigma would be good to start (maybe even to keep, I don't know). On the Nikon lens, you don't have to have the VR version. I shoot Canon and have the Canon non-image stabilization version of their 70-200. I shoot on a monopod, and that solves any hand shake problem that the more expensive image stabilizing lens would solve, and it's just as effective. You still need fast shutter speeds to stop the action on the field, and the VR lens won't be any different one way or another for that. High ISOs and larger apertures in dim light will get you faster shutter speeds.
Shane is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 01:50 PM   #8
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane View Post
Sigma would be good to start (maybe even to keep, I don't know). On the Nikon lens, you don't have to have the VR version. I shoot Canon and have the Canon non-image stabilization version of their 70-200. I shoot on a monopod, and that solves any hand shake problem that the more expensive image stabilizing lens would solve, and it's just as effective. You still need fast shutter speeds to stop the action on the field, and the VR lens won't be any different one way or another for that. High ISOs and larger apertures in dim light will get you faster shutter speeds.
Thanks for the input. I'm going to start shopping around for the 70-200 to see what I can come up with and see about renting one as well.
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 01:52 PM   #9
Casey
Administrator
 
Casey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bulverde
Default

Don't be afraid of used lenses either. You can save some cash and get serviceable equipment doing this. I've bought several used lenses in the past and they're still performing.
Casey is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 02:12 PM   #10
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey View Post
Don't be afraid of used lenses either. You can save some cash and get serviceable equipment doing this. I've bought several used lenses in the past and they're still performing.
This is probably the direction I'm headed. It appears the non VR version is the 80-200mm f/2.8 which runs $1200 new and the 70-200 f/2.8 runs $2100 - $2800.

My best body I have is the D7100 which I recently picked up for $700 (I'm skeered of the high dollar rigs), dang expensive hobbies are killin the pocket book. lol



Is there a prefered shop to buy used glass from online while targeting some local shops as well?

Last edited by Chad C; 01-30-2017 at 02:16 PM..
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 06:21 PM   #11
jdma
Eight Point
 
jdma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Huffman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
This is probably the direction I'm headed. It appears the non VR version is the 80-200mm f/2.8 which runs $1200 new and the 70-200 f/2.8 runs $2100 - $2800.

My best body I have is the D7100 which I recently picked up for $700 (I'm skeered of the high dollar rigs), dang expensive hobbies are killin the pocket book. lol



Is there a prefered shop to buy used glass from online while targeting some local shops as well?
I agree that the 70-200 would be the way to go.

B&H and Adorama are a couple. Also, you can rent a lens from lens rental and if you like it then buy it. I have not done the last option but they have it listed to do so.

Good Luck!!!
jdma is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 06:41 PM   #12
Casey
Administrator
 
Casey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bulverde
Default

Ive bought off forums like fredmiranda.com and pixtus.
Casey is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-30-2017, 10:09 PM   #13
yaqui
Ten Point
 
yaqui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: Eastland Co.
Default

Also, part of the reason you want to shoot at 2.8 is so the background is well out of focus. Shoot super high ISO. You want your shutter speed to be shooting at 1/500 at the very least. Get an idea of how large of a print you want to make. Are you doing 16x20's or just 8x10's? If it is for the web, then even better, higher ISO is your friend. You can really dial up the ISO without much loss of detail. A sharp photo that is a little grainy is way more interesting than a slightly blurry pic that has lots of detail. Grain is reality. I don't remember if in those cameras you can crop the sensor. If you can, then your FPS will be higher. More frames per sec, the better.

One of the tricks to shooting sports is shooting the persons face. That is really all that matters. No matter what sport, there is really no reason to see the ball. Soccer is a little different, but there is a lot of start stop action, so that helps. Don't waste your time shooting their backs. You have to see the face. Who's kid is that? I dunno, who is number 3? Who cares, can't see his face.

Try and shoot exclusively in vertical format. Ever see a horizontal fat head? Neither have I. Folks that shoot horizontal sports are wasting many pixels.

Another trick is mental. Stop watching the game. Don't watch what is happening as a spectator, you will miss too much. Concentrate on one kid at a time. Watch their facial expressions you will start to see how they act when they are in contact with other kids or the ball. There is a lot of pushing and pulling going on that folks don't realize. Emotion is fun. Shoot the coaches too, they get pretty animated in those team huddles.

Anticipate, shoot a few frames before you think you need to, and a few frames after. The frames after end up used more often than not.

A monopod really will help a ton, saves your back.

Have fun!
yaqui is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-31-2017, 07:08 AM   #14
Bill M
Pope & Young
 
Bill M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bryan, Texas
Default

I most often buy used from KEH. I look at B&H's used department as well but they are normally a bit higher. Both have a grading system and I have been more than pleased with their "product as described".

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-af-s-...zoom-lens.html
Bill M is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-31-2017, 09:57 AM   #15
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaqui View Post
Also, part of the reason you want to shoot at 2.8 is so the background is well out of focus. Shoot super high ISO. You want your shutter speed to be shooting at 1/500 at the very least. Get an idea of how large of a print you want to make. Are you doing 16x20's or just 8x10's? If it is for the web, then even better, higher ISO is your friend. You can really dial up the ISO without much loss of detail. A sharp photo that is a little grainy is way more interesting than a slightly blurry pic that has lots of detail. Grain is reality. I don't remember if in those cameras you can crop the sensor. If you can, then your FPS will be higher. More frames per sec, the better.

One of the tricks to shooting sports is shooting the persons face. That is really all that matters. No matter what sport, there is really no reason to see the ball. Soccer is a little different, but there is a lot of start stop action, so that helps. Don't waste your time shooting their backs. You have to see the face. Who's kid is that? I dunno, who is number 3? Who cares, can't see his face.

Try and shoot exclusively in vertical format. Ever see a horizontal fat head? Neither have I. Folks that shoot horizontal sports are wasting many pixels.

Another trick is mental. Stop watching the game. Don't watch what is happening as a spectator, you will miss too much. Concentrate on one kid at a time. Watch their facial expressions you will start to see how they act when they are in contact with other kids or the ball. There is a lot of pushing and pulling going on that folks don't realize. Emotion is fun. Shoot the coaches too, they get pretty animated in those team huddles.

Anticipate, shoot a few frames before you think you need to, and a few frames after. The frames after end up used more often than not.

A monopod really will help a ton, saves your back.

Have fun!
Thanks for the input, it is greatly appreciated.
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-31-2017, 09:58 AM   #16
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill M View Post
I most often buy used from KEH. I look at B&H's used department as well but they are normally a bit higher. Both have a grading system and I have been more than pleased with their "product as described".

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-af-s-...zoom-lens.html
Thanks Bill, I'll check out the link.
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-31-2017, 10:59 AM   #17
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

https://www.borrowlenses.com/product...200_f2.8_VR_II

This may be a pretty good service to check out lenses moving forward. Thanks for all the input.
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 02-09-2017, 09:04 AM   #18
Chad C
Pope & Young
 
Chad C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Hills
Default

Thanks for all the input, looks like I can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR for $1395 in like new condition so I'm going to pull the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chad C is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 02-09-2017, 09:26 AM   #19
yaqui
Ten Point
 
yaqui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: Eastland Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
Thanks for all the input, looks like I can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR for $1395 in like new condition so I'm going to pull the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice lens! I've got one. No need for me to upgrade to the VR II.
yaqui is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 02-21-2017, 12:17 PM   #20
macoop
Ten Point
 
macoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lubbock
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
Thanks for all the input, looks like I can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR for $1395 in like new condition so I'm going to pull the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pull it!
macoop is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 02-21-2017, 08:18 PM   #21
WyoBull
Ten Point
 
WyoBull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
This is probably the direction I'm headed. It appears the non VR version is the 80-200mm f/2.8 which runs $1200 new and the 70-200 f/2.8 runs $2100 - $2800.

My best body I have is the D7100 which I recently picked up for $700 (I'm skeered of the high dollar rigs), dang expensive hobbies are killin the pocket book. lol



Is there a prefered shop to buy used glass from online while targeting some local shops as well?
I had the 80-200 2.8 before I got the 70-200 2.8 VR. Both are very high quality lenses. If you can find a good used 80-200 I would not hesitate in buying it.
Regarding the 24-70, with your field being 80 yards by 40 yards, that is not going to give you enough reach on the 70mm side.
WyoBull is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 02-21-2017, 08:20 PM   #22
WyoBull
Ten Point
 
WyoBull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad C View Post
Thanks for all the input, looks like I can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR for $1395 in like new condition so I'm going to pull the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did not see your post before responding with my earlier post. That is a great price for that lens in like new condition. You will really enjoy it and my guess is that it will be on your body 90% of the time. I know mine is.
WyoBull is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com