Minor League Football, low light and lens info?

[Evangeline]

Hi....hopefully the experts here will be able to offer comments and help. Presently I volunteer to photograph a local Minor League Football team. This is my second time doing it and they are interested in having me do more. It is a non-paying job, but I get quite a bit of exposure.

Presently I use a 30D and 70-200mm f/4 non-IS on a monopod. I have been able to shoot till dark, which is about half-time and then have to stop because of low light. Soon, even that will go away.

In your opinions, would a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS enable me to shoot till 9 or 10pm without problems?

This is my work so far. Any and all C&C's welcome.

Thanks
Evangeline

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/355225077_JrrU6-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/355225891_DwYm9-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/355226129_JhX7g-L.jpg

[manutd101]

Nice timing, but they are definitely underexposed.

[Evangeline]

I was at f/4, and had the shutter speed quite low. That's why I'm thinking an f/2.8 would be better. Would that achieve the look I want? I was pp'ing the heck out of them for this much.

ISO was at 100 for these shots, I started upping it right after this. Shutter was 320 and I was at 200mm.

[HighPixel]

Nice action! They are on the dark side, but I understand that's at the limit at that time of the evening. We have same equipment(30D & 70-200f/4L), but I like the crispness of your images. How are you processing your images? You can post here or shoot me a PM.
Oh, where are you located here in the PacNW? I'm in Tacoma.
Thanks
HP

[Evangeline]

Thank you, I'm up in Auburn. Processing in ACR mostly. Sharpening in CS3. I haven't learned very much about CS3 yet. Still quite the noobie at all this.
Evangeline

[dmwierz]

ISO was at 100 for these shots, I started upping it right after this. Shutter was 320 and I was at 200mm.

Dude, bump your ISO up up and up! You can comfortably shoot at ISO800 or even 1600. You were at least 2 stops underexposed, so not only would you gain exposure value by bumping up your ISO, but you'll also be at a faster shutter speed.

BTW, you stripped the EXIF data from your files, so next time you post, either don't do this, or at least post all your settings.

In your opinions, would a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS enable me to shoot till 9 or 10pm without problems?

You're gonna find f/4.0 isn't gonna cut it once it gets dark, but I'd say for these shots you had enough light.

Although it's impossible to say exactly what the light is at your field, I'm gonna guess once it gets dark, and you're shooting under the lights, you're gonna need f/2.8. Also, you won't need IS for action, so unless you need it for something else, save your money and get the non-IS lens.

[Evangeline]

:D dudette

Yes, I agree these are underexposed and I could have really upped the ISO. This is the second time I've shot football. The first time (month ago) I upped it and they looked horrible. Guess I was a bit afraid they'd be bad again.

I'm going to go to their practice nights, so I won't be under pressure come game time.

The reason I'm thinking of the IS vs non... I tend to wish I'd spent the extra $$ after the fact. Never know when you end up doing something and really could have used it.

Oh...sorry. They're linked from smugmug. Didn't realize when pp'ing it strips the EXIF. I would keep the data if you would be so kind and point me to a tutorial on how to do that. Thank you for your info and comments. I appreciate it!

http://boysmom.smugmug.com/gallery/5736441_hhvMk#354292671_xB4uK

[cstewart]

Regarding the IS, as Dennis alluded to, if you will be shooting other stuff with the lens that is low light and does not require a high shutter speed (e.g. architecture, still life, landscapes, etc.) then yes get the IS. If you are only shooting sports with it, don't get it as most sports require high shutter speeds and the IS really does not help here.

[Evangeline]

Thank you

So... the f2.8 is pretty much the lens for low light sports on a badly lit field? Would it be the choice for an arena, say...rodeo too? Dog shows, agility etc? Any other options?

[Evangeline]

BTW, thank you everyone!!! You've helped out greatly!!!

[dmwierz]

:D dudette

Yes, I agree these are underexposed and I could have really upped the ISO. This is the second time I've shot football. The first time (month ago) I upped it and they looked horrible. Guess I was a bit afraid they'd be bad again.

I'm going to go to their practice nights, so I won't be under pressure come game time.

The reason I'm thinking of the IS vs non... I tend to wish I'd spent the extra $$ after the fact. Never know when you end up doing something and really could have used it.

Oh...sorry. They're linked from smugmug. Didn't realize when pp'ing it strips the EXIF. I would keep the data if you would be so kind and point me to a tutorial on how to do that. Thank you for your info and comments. I appreciate it!

http://boysmom.smugmug.com/gallery/5736441_hhvMk#354292671_xB4uK

Mom, I think SmugMug strips the EXIF. We've seen this before. The only way to handle this is to cut the EXIF out of a viewer and paste it along with your images. You can also directly embed your images in your posts, but then you're limited to 2 images per post plus you're under some fairly restrictive file size limits. This is one reason why I have kept my web site with pBase.

Have you checked into using flash with your f/4.0 lens? I know flash is a no-no for NCAA and NFL, but it's used all the time for High School, and can make a HUGE difference in the quality of your shots, AND it'll let you shoot at f/4.0 all night long.

Thanks for sharing your shots, and I look forward to the next set!

[Mike R]

The 70-200 2.8 Non IS is the way to go for sports. You can also put on a 1.4 (or 2) extender for day games to get some extra reach and take it off when it starts to get dark because with it attached you will only be able to open up to f/4.0.
If it's allowed, a good flash such as the 580EX will also be of help on poorly lit fields along with the 2.8 lens. IF you think you might get into low light photography of objects that are not moving, and you can afford it, get the IS version. It will be more versatile. Have fun at the games.

[Joe Cyr]

I was in a similar situation as you. Shooting with the f4 until light was gone. I would then use either a 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 and simply wait for action to come to you on the sidelines (if you have sideline access that is.) My high school football field is horribly lit, so that is what I have done in the past. I have also shot the game with on-camera flash. Not once has it ever been a problem. You do get the red eye, but the picture is better exposed.

I just acquired the 2.8 non-IS version of the 70-200 so I am curious to see how it fares, but if the field is dark, I doubt that will be enough. Even with the 85 1.8, without a flash it would be underexposed at 1600.

Keep shooting... and don't worry about the noise/grain. You can't expect pro-looking photos if your field is not lit well enough.

[pigtailpat]

Boysmom -

Don't hesitate to bump the ISO up. I used to be extremely worried about going as high as 1600 (concerned about noise on a 30d - someday I'll move to the 1-d series). However, I finally purchased noiseware pro (as a plug-in for PS), and I am extremely impressed about the results (and I'm just using the defaults) and it can tide me over until the magic moment arrives to an upgrade to a 1-d series.

Pat

[Joe Cyr]

Pat. you'll still get noise with the 1-series...but at a much higher iso of course (shooting at 6400 is a wahoo!)

[pigtailpat]

Hey joe -

Yes, but it seems much cleaner from the 1-d series - that's what I was referring to........

Pat

[Evangeline]

Thank you everyone, for your help and info!!!

It is a Minor League football team playing on high school fields. Yes, the lights are lousy. The owner is checking into the possibilities of using a flash and I'm going to try it during practice to see if it disturbs the players.

I do like the thoughts of a 1.4 extender with the f/2.8. That would be so cool!!

Joe Cyr... please let me know how you like yours, I'm very interested to hear your results. I just acquired the 2.8 non-IS version of the 70-200 so I am curious to see how it fares, but if the field is dark, I doubt that will be enough. Even with the 85 1.8, without a flash it would be underexposed at 1600.

[bobbyz]

This may be helpful.

http://www.davehoffmannphoto.com/imageEngineer/2008/07/night-football-with-flash/

[Evangeline]

Thanks for the link!! I've only had my flash out of the pouch twice. Not very savy with it.