Would anyone care to measurebate this?

[PhotosGuy]

I want to be sure that my feeble brain isn’t tripping me up here, so anyone care to measurebate this?

My cousins daughter is playing football for the Jaguars this Saturday 8PM, starting on offense at tight end & free safety on defense. I was trying to decide what lens to use when it gets dark, so I shot some tests.

I’m thinking that, in order to be able crop in to the shots on the field later, I’ll have to ‘standardize’ the sizes to make a comparison, so I blew up the 70mm shots 100% & reduced the sizes of the 105mm & 150mm shots to match. This is where I’m a bit confused – is that thinking right, or do I need more coffee? ;)

All shots were on the tripod using the timer release. Focus is on the center of the bricks in the rectangle bounded by the parking sign & the tree. No sharpening.

1. 28-70mm 2.8 L @ 70mm f/2.8

2. 28-70mm 2.8 L @ 70mm f/4

3. 75-150 Vivitar @ 70mm f/3.8 (Obviously a non-starter)

4. 75-150 Vivitar @ 150mm f/3.8

5. 105mm Nikkor @ f/2.5

6. 105mm Nikkor @ f/4

I plan on using a strobe to try to “fill” the stadium lights when it gets dark, so I’m not concerned with the differences between f/2.8 & f/4. Then again, maybe I should be? It’s a High School stadium, so I’m not expecting any NFL level lighting, either.
Final output will probably be some 4X6” prints for her. What do you think?

[Jon]

You going to be in the stands or on the sidelines? I think lens speed and the right focal length(s) are going to be more important than the final resolution, especially if you're only doing 4x6 prints. And unless you've got a pretty big strobe, I wouldn't count on it to do more than add a catch-light.

[PhotosGuy]

Jon. I'll be at the bottom of the stands. The team owner won't let me walk the sidelines. :evil:
I agree that the right focal length(s) would be more important IF I had them, but I sold off the big stuff long ago, which is why I wanted to make sure that my comparison test was realistic.

It's not "a pretty big strobe"! :D It's an old Vivitar 283 with a tele filter that increases the reach to 175' at f/2.8 ISO 800, so I shouldn't have any problem getting a good fill from it. (More tests after it gets dark.)

Thanks.;)

[Jon]

If you figure on cropping later, you should enlarge the 70 and 105 mm shots to match the 150. That's going to be the lens/length that takes the least cropping, so it should be your standard. If you reduce the longer lens shots, you're throwing away data that's in the original, so the test will be slightly biased. But I don't think it's going to matter much which lens resolves the best; I'd be trying to decide based on usable focal length and usable aperture. And I suspect that'd give the 70-150 a slight edge over the 105, and leave the 24-70 wanting.
With the booster on the 283, what kind of coverage do you get?

[PhotosGuy]

The .doc says one will cover a 135mm & the other a 70mm. I'm planning on using the 135 & accepting the fall-off at the edges, but will know more after tonights tests (if it's not raining to beat hell!) ;-)
Right now, I'm leaning toward the 105 @ f/4 ISO 800, but we'll see what the "ambient" light levels are when I get there.

[Andy_T]

PhotosGuy,

I am not a pro by any accounts ... but how exactly do you plan to use a manual focus lens in a football game ???
Measurebating the performance of the lens to the latest % is one thing, not having AF in a fast action-packed game is something else.

If I were you, I'd go with the first one and take the others if you really need very long shots (and can get by with f/5.6 to get all the DOF you need).

All that said, #4 looks best to me :D

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon, The Elder]

When you guys do one of these threads- I feel like I am looking in the window of a looney bin.

[PhotosGuy]

Jon: I know just what you mean! ;)

Andy: how exactly do you plan to use a manual focus lens in a football game Excuse me for this, but :D:D:D! How about the same way we did it in the '70s? The '60s? Think about it. Sports Illustrated didn't just start running NFL pics 'till AutoF was invented, did they?

OK, I'm done. Thanks, Andy, for picking one you think looks best. It looks as if the magnification of the longer lenses offsets the convenience of the AF lens.

FYI: DOF for the 105 f/2.5 @ 100', which I'm guessing will be about the average I'll be shooting at, is 35' (CoC of .025") I think I can manage that all right.

[PhotosGuy]

Update: Shot a couple tests in the rain. Looks like it will work out great as a fill light, or a main light at f/2.8, too! :)

[Andy_T]

Andy: Excuse me for this, but :D:D:D! How about the same way we did it in the '70s? The '60s? Think about it. Sports Illustrated didn't just start running NFL pics 'till AutoF was invented, did they?

Believe it of not, I was actually aware of that :D
Still, in the 70's, cameras had focusing screens that made obtaining manual focus easier than today's DRebel.
I don't have problems with correct focus on my manual M42 camera with fresnel viewfinder, but find it difficult on my 20D.
To me, it would be very hard to get many keepers that way.

On the other hand, if you learned photography then, your experience (and most likely results) with manual focusing have to be vastly superior to mine (start was with NOINK 601 AF). So I assume you know what you are doing :D

Best regards,
Andy

[PhotosGuy]

Reading your posts for about a year, I thought you would know that but I had to take the shot anyway! :D:D

I totally agree about the focusing screens! I had 5 for the Nikons & miss them a lot! I don't remember which Canons have a feature to replace them, but that feature will play a BIG part in my choice when I upgrade someday.
Still, with the deep DOF from where I have to shoot from, + the fact that I don't have a client to make happy except my cousin, means that there's no pressure & I can have a learning experience while having a bit of fun. I should manage 1-2 good shots out of a couple gigs, no? :D

Re: So I assume you know what you are doing. Most of the time I'm shooting on M, so I always know what I'm doing! Sometimes what I "know" doesn't conform to the reality of the situation! :D;) Which keeps life interesting...:o

[Andy_T]

Photosguy ... :lol:

Regarding using a different focusing screen on a non-1-series, take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46498)

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

Looneybin. LOL

Regarding using a different focusing screen on a non-1-series, take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46498)
Might as well look here too:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74915

[PhotosGuy]

Thanks for the link, Doc. I'd seen it before But didn't remember where.

[PhotosGuy]

Some pics are done. Look here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75062