Help, taking football pictures at night. I have a Digital

[insurancepi]

and am looking to take some pictures of my cousin playing football. I can get on the sideline, which will get me closer than the stands, but I was going to purchase a Canon 75-300 IS lens, will this lens give me enough zoom to obtain pictures and most importantly is the F-stop low enough on this lens, I believe it is 4-5.6 and what settings do you recommend. I do not have thousands to spend on a lens. Please help.

[cecilc]

Well....

Not knowing what kind of "digital" you have, I can only offer some general guidelines for you - but your individual situation may change some of this .....

The 300 length will be fine. But I'm assuming that you're going to be at or close to the 300 end most of the night, so your max aperture that you're going to be shooting at will be 5.6 - and I don't think that's "low enough" for action shots in a football game. High school stadium lighting is pretty awful all over the place, and shooting in lighting situations where even a 2.8 is slow that 5.6 is really going to be slow.

If you can use a flash, use a flash. Shove your ISO up as high as it'll go - 1600 and 3200 (if it's available). Shoot in AV mode and set your aperture as low as it'll go - even then your shutter speed is going to be (I'm guessing) around 1/30 or 1/60 or so (and I may be optimistic). That's not real good for stopping action. However, you'll be able to get some good "static" shots - the team in the huddle; the line of scrimmage before the ball's snapped; the team on the sidelines; individual players on the sidelines; etc. Basically, anything that's not moving too rapidly. Shooting more when the action is around the 50 yard line is better than shooting the game when the action is around the 20 or so on either end of the field (the center of the field usually is lit better than either end). Panning is a good technique to get very good at before the game. That'll give you some interesting shots.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get good shots here - but it's just going to be harder to do. You're handicapped here with: fast moving subjects; horrible lighting; and a slow lens. Not a good combo for action shots ....

Hopefully, someone else who knows more about this sort of thing will come along and be able to offer some more advice.

Best of luck .....

[Andy_T]

I'm not saying it's impossible to get good shots here - but it's just going to be harder to do. You're handicapped here with: fast moving subjects; horrible lighting; and a slow lens. Not a good combo for action shots ....


What Cecil said.

What you need is a long lens with a large aperture. That's what pros spend most of their hard earned money on :cry:

If you look at professional sports photographers, they most likely use the 70-200/2.8L (we're talking $1200 here) or the Sigma 120-300/2.8 ($1800) on a Canon 1D because that camera also has better autofocus capabilities than the Digital Rebel.

You might also go the prime road with the 2.8/200 ($ 650) or the 2.0/135 L ($ 900) with 1.4 tele converter ($ 270).

Of course, you can improve the light intake by using ISO 1600 and use the 75-300, but the AF performance will not improve that much.

Best regards,
Andy

[insurancepi]

that in my message. I see now that Canon has a D20, is it worth it to upgrade or should I just stick with what I have. I am not a professional, but I like to have decent equipment.

[cecilc]

What you need is a long lens with a large aperture. That's what pros spend most of their hard earned money on

Yea, ... what Andy said .... in fact, everything Andy said .....

The 20D would help - but you probably won't find one for another month that you could get your hands on. I'm on two separate waiting lists myself for one .....

In my opinion, what's hamstringing you right now is not having at least a 2.8 lens .... Andy had some good recommendations on lenses - take a look at a few of those.

I am not a professional, but I like to have decent equipment.

Then there you go ......

[Andy_T]

I see now that Canon has a D20, is it worth it to upgrade or should I just stick with what I have.

Most likely you will get more from buying good glass than from upgrading the camera. You might look for a good deal on a used 2.8/70-200 (900-1000$ if you're lucky) or a 2.8/200, most likely it will totally change your shooting.

There also is a 2.8/135 for about 270$, but it does not seem to be compatible with the 1.4 extender :cry: ... so it might be a bit short.

You might try to locate a photography shop where you can lend one of the lenses for a day to try it out.

Other than that ... crank up the ISO to 1600 or even 3200 (hack) and see what you get.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: one more idea ... can't your cousin play during daytime ???

[MazerRakhm]

I just had my first experience with this on Friday! My “Uncle” is big with HS football in the area and offered me the chance to take pictures for him. It was a great time!

The thing that I would have like to have most is an f2.8 lens. I currently have the DRebel, which worked fine, but my 75-300f4.5-f5 was a little on the slow side for taking pictures of fast action, especially in the end zones where it was darker.

Here are a couple of shots that I did get so you can see how they turned out:

http://KSmith.smugmug.com/photos/8985504-S.jpg

http://KSmith.smugmug.com/photos/8985508-S.jpg


Even with the ISO set to 1600 it was tough to get good stop action shots. If I had the $$ I would totally purchase the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, but until then I will try to make do with what I have.

Let me know if you'd like to see the rest of the gallery.