Any Cricket Photographers out there?

[Zeke]

I'm just after some basic advice re: lens choice.

I'll be picking up a 20D this week, and would like to shoot some cricket when summer comes along!

I'm looking at an EF 75 - 300mm III 1:4 - 5.6 currently, but wondered whether that is long enough to shoot cricket from the boundary line?

It effectively gives me 480mm (with the 1.6x 20D) and I've had some success with a (38-380mm) P&S Kodak digital camera in the past.

Any thoughts?

[gmen]

I'm just after some basic advice re: lens choice.

I'll be picking up a 20D this week, and would like to shoot some cricket when summer comes along!

I'm looking at an EF 75 - 300mm III 1:4 - 5.6 currently, but wondered whether that is long enough to shoot cricket from the boundary line?

It effectively gives me 480mm (with the 1.6x 20D) and I've had some success with a (38-380mm) P&S Kodak digital camera in the past.

Any thoughts?
Hi Zeke! I shoot quite a lot of cricket, so I hope I can be of some assistance.

I have rarely found that 300mm gives me enough reach (on a 1.3x body) at most cricket grounds - particularly if you are trying to fill the frame with the participants.

You'll probably find that 300mm on the 20D will enable you to shoot pretty much the entire length of the pitch, showing batsman and bowler in the same shot - assuming that you're working from a third man/long off or fine leg/long on position. If that's what you want to achieve then your existing lens will do the job.

Of course, cricket outfields vary in size from ground to ground - so at a very small village ground, you may find that you're getting a much tighter image than you would at, say, the Oval.

I shoot mostly at 600mm - you can see some of my recent results here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78740&highlight=balls - I'll also be posting a few shots from the weekend later on today. I often wish I had a little bit more reach at the bigger venues.

In summary, 300mm will be a little bit short at most grounds - but you should still be able to capture the atmosphere of the game. If you work the angles, you may find you can get the pavilion/clubhouse/crowd as a backdrop and make some nice images that show the 'essence' of the sport. At the smallest venues, you may find some success in isolating small groups of players (wicketkeeper and batsman for example) and capture some peak action.

Hope that helps. --- Gavin

[Zeke]

Hi Zeke! I shoot quite a lot of cricket, so I hope I can be of some assistance.
Thanks!

I have rarely found that 300mm gives me enough reach (on a 1.3x body) at most cricket grounds - particularly if you are trying to fill the frame with the participants.
Yeah... I was hoping that the relative 480mm of a 300mm on the 20D would give me enough for some nice shots. I'm currently using a Kodak DX6490 which has a 10X optical zoom which is the equivalent of a 38-380mm. Here's a couple of shots using the Kodak from a Pura Cup match between Tasmania & South Australia at Bellerive Oval.

http://www.zeke.com.au/temp/cricket_01.jpg

http://www.zeke.com.au/temp/cricket_02.jpg

There is simply not enough length and the DOF is non existant, which makes for a very busy and unattractive image. I am really looking forward to a D/SLR which should give me the control I'm craving.

You'll probably find that 300mm on the 20D will enable you to shoot pretty much the entire length of the pitch, showing batsman and bowler in the same shot - assuming that you're working from a third man/long off or fine leg/long on position. If that's what you want to achieve then your existing lens will do the job.

I shoot mostly at 600mm - you can see some of my recent results here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78740&highlight=balls - I'll also be posting a few shots from the weekend later on today. I often wish I had a little bit more reach at the bigger venues.

Are there any lenses you would recommend as an 'introductory' telephoto with enough length to do what I want?

[gmen]

Are there any lenses you would recommend as an 'introductory' telephoto with enough length to do what I want?
I'm sure there are others but one that springs to mind is: http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/170-500mm.htm

They crop up on e-bay fairly frequently - e.g. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30077&item=7524409123&rd=1&ssPageName=WD2V

I've got no direct experience of this lens - but 500mm would certainly improve your reach significantly. It's also a much more economical purchase than a long prime.

I'm sure there are others here that have used this lens - or have other suggestions - might be worth searching the equipment message boards for more info too!

[Wazza]

I would like to do cricket photography also, but on a 300mm, it wasn't quite enough. The physical distance, and the quality of the lens, weren't the best to be desired. That was on a 20D. With the 1.6x crop, I would have probably need a decent 500mm, and of course, I don't have the budget for a 500mm L lens. :D

If you're interested in seeing what 300mm did, I have a few shots, down the bottom of this page:

http://wazz*****scity.com/recent.htm

I was seated front row in the stands, and quite a few other people had SLRs pointed at them. I had only had the camera for 3 weeks, so I wasn't that great.


Good luck in getting the right lens, but 500mm does sound good, and the Sigma 170-500 or 50-500 should be ok, but just not that fast. If you don't mind sacrificing ISO by bumping it up, and shooting near the minimum f6.3/f8, you should get alright results. :)