Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk
Thread started 05 Nov 2016 (Saturday) 21:20
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Lens for night time sports?

 
Mr. ­ Bill
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Nov 05, 2016 21:20 |  #1

I have been shooting daytime baseball and football for the last couple of years and now that most of the kids on these teams are going to be heading to High School next year, some of the parents have asked me to shoot their kids and I know a lot of the games will be at night. I find that while I love shooting with the 70-200, the reach can be troublesome at times.

My current system that I shoot with is:
5dIII
70-200 f/2.8 (version 1)

I have an opportunity to purchase the 100-400 II (used) and would like to hear from those of you if this lens would be a good choice for me to use. I know that the 5d3 has great high ISO but are there any other limitations to using this setup that I don't know about?

I am also thinking of getting a 2nd body to pair with either lens (depending on the lighting situation). I have heard good things about the 7d2 (longer reach being its a crop factor) but would something like a 1d mk IV be a better route? Budget for body approx 1k

I would like to purchase the lens in the next few weeks and then will be able to get a 2nd body after the new year since baseball won't start until spring.

If there are any other suggestions other than what I have mentioned I would truly appreciate your input.



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
pat.kane
Senior Member
pat.kane's Avatar
566 posts
Joined May 2005
Arlington, VA
Nov 05, 2016 21:54 |  #2

The 100-400 II is a great lens, but I would not recommend it for night time sports.

I use f/2.8 lenses with a 1D X and still hate shooting baseball at night. I wouldn't even bother going if I had to give up another two stops.

I'd recommend taking the money you had planned for the 100-400 II and 2nd body and getting a used 300mm f/2.8L IS lens. The price for this lens has dropped significantly in the last year and not only is it a great focal length for baseball, it is a good all-around general purpose lens.


1Dx, 5D3 and some L glass (gear list / feedback)
http://MaxPreps.DMVpix​.com (external link)
http://www.DMVpix.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
rdalrt
Goldmember
rdalrt's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
The Great White North
Nov 05, 2016 22:02 |  #3

The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

LOG IN TO REPLY
rdalrt
Goldmember
rdalrt's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
The Great White North
Nov 05, 2016 22:04 |  #4

pat.kane wrote in post #18176928 (external link)
The 100-400 II is a great lens, but I would not recommend it for night time sports.

I use f/2.8 lenses with a 1D X and still hate shooting baseball at night. I wouldn't even bother going if I had to give up another two stops.

I'd recommend taking the money you had planned for the 100-400 II and 2nd body and getting a used 300mm f/2.8L IS lens. The price for this lens has dropped significantly in the last year and not only is it a great focal length for baseball, it is a good all-around general purpose lens.


rdalrt wrote in post #18176931 (external link)
The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.

Heh, great minds think alike? :)


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Bill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Nov 05, 2016 22:31 |  #5

rdalrt wrote in post #18176931 (external link)
The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.


Thanks for the info.
If I was to stick with the 70-200, would it be better to get a crop like the 7d2 for the extra reach then?



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Bill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Nov 05, 2016 22:33 as a reply to pat.kane's post |  #6

Thanks Pat for the reply. I could see where the 300 would be good for baseball, but what about football where the action is coming towards you. That's why I thought a 2nd body would come into play.



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
rdalrt
Goldmember
rdalrt's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
The Great White North
Nov 05, 2016 22:39 |  #7

Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176953 (external link)
Thanks for the info.
If I was to stick with the 70-200, would it be better to get a crop like the 7d2 for the extra reach then?


Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176954 (external link)
Thanks Pat for the reply. I could see where the 300 would be good for baseball, but what about football where the action is coming towards you. That's why I thought a 2nd body would come into play.

Don't forget the 1D IV is a 1.3 crop. I would still recommend it over the 7D II for anything at night.

The 300 is still actually a bit short for football. You would be surprised how close the action could get to you even with a 300 before you would have to switch to something shorter. Especially on a FF like the 5D III.


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

LOG IN TO REPLY
mathogre
Goldmember
mathogre's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
Oakton, VA USA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by mathogre.
Nov 05, 2016 23:33 |  #8

I completely disagree regarding f/5.6 for sports. Here's a set at the link below using the 5DM3 and the 100-400 Mk I. 1/500s, f/5.6, and ISO from 10,000 to 16,000. From what I understand, the Mk II lens has better IQ, but the Mk I is very effective for me with soccer as it is push/pull zoom. When the action moves from directly in front of you to the other end of the field, you push it out and you're there. Focus is very quick; I imagine the Mk II is quicker.

The 5DM3 can work well at high ISO. This isn't the film days. I shot color film at ASA 1000 when it was new. I have no issue shooting at 5 digit ISOs.

http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p380696282 (external link)

IMAGE: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18227148/2016/GKG01517.jpg

Graham
Canon A BIG ONE A Small One An itty bitty one
My Zenfolio Collectionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luxx
Senior Member
463 posts
Joined Jan 2013
St Louis
Nov 06, 2016 02:59 |  #9

I started with 6d and 100-400l I but even when it was overcast I struggled to keep ISO below 3200 and at night I was typically shooting at 6400 or 12800 to keep shutter speed better than 1/800.

I bought a 7dii and 300 2.8l is and haven't looked back. It has been great. I actually use that and a 70-200 l is ii on a 70d in combination for kids soccer. It's fast enough and I get good isolation. However even with this combination I find myself at ISO 6400-12800 at times.

I was hoping that the 5div would be a couple stops better in low light but so far it seams to be less than one...

I still use the 100-400 l is ii sometimes during the day for sports and definitely for wildlife with a 1.4x on my 7dii but I would not recommend it for nighttime high school sports.




LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
DC Fan's Avatar
5,871 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Nov 06, 2016 08:52 |  #10

Watch a major college or professional night football game on television and you're likely to see a substantial number of Canon 400mm f/2.8 lenses (external link) in use. They're acknowledged to do a good job at a high price.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com/c/product/73210​9-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_​400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176909 (external link)
I have been shooting daytime baseball and football for the last couple of years and now that most of the kids on these teams are going to be heading to High School next year, some of the parents have asked me to shoot their kids and I know a lot of the games will be at night. I find that while I love shooting with the 70-200, the reach can be troublesome at times.

My current system that I shoot with is:
5dIII
70-200 f/2.8 (version 1)

I have an opportunity to purchase the 100-400 II (used) and would like to hear from those of you if this lens would be a good choice for me to use. I know that the 5d3 has great high ISO but are there any other limitations to using this setup that I don't know about?

I am also thinking of getting a 2nd body to pair with either lens (depending on the lighting situation). I have heard good things about the 7d2 (longer reach being its a crop factor) but would something like a 1d mk IV be a better route? Budget for body approx 1k

I would like to purchase the lens in the next few weeks and then will be able to get a 2nd body after the new year since baseball won't start until spring.

If there are any other suggestions other than what I have mentioned I would truly appreciate your input.




LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
I'm having size issues, does this get worse with age?
S.Horton's Avatar
18,014 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Royersford, PA
Nov 06, 2016 09:00 |  #11

Monopod, crank the ISO without fear, have fun. Not sure what you mean about 'reach' unless you mean you can't crop as aggressively with ISO noise involved.

I ended up 400 f/4 DO and just move the ISO up. You could shoot the 100-400 high ISO, my guess is you'll just miss focus more in lower light unless you go to a 1D body, but I don't own what you have, and I could be completely wrong. What you'll surely face is more post-processing, any direction you go, unless odd color casts don't bother you at all.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.comexternal link 
Want your title changed?Dream On!external link

:cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hannya
Goldmember
Hannya's Avatar
1,026 posts
Joined Apr 2008
UK
Nov 06, 2016 09:17 |  #12

I use a 1Dmk4 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for soccer, day and floodlit. Personally, I'd avoid anything that doesn't give you a wide aperture. Less than 1/500th is difficult for sports. ISO can be dealt with in software, blur can't. What you can achieve depends on the lighting. In Mathogre's example above, lighting looks pretty good. I have to deal with a lot worse!


“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” ― Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sports Picsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
mathogre
Goldmember
mathogre's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
Oakton, VA USA
Nov 06, 2016 12:22 |  #13

DC Fan wrote in post #18177243 (external link)
Watch a major college or professional night football game on television and you're likely to see a substantial number of Canon 400mm f/2.8 lenses (external link) in use. They're acknowledged to do a good job at a high price.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com/c/product/73210​9-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_​400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

I am sure this is a great lens! With this however, you're now in the two body mode, as the 400mm is good for the far half of the field only. Up close and personal, you need something with a shorter focal length. You have zero time to change lenses. At our football games, there's a guy with a 400 f/2.8 on a monopod, and that's all he brings. Impressive as it looks to everyone else seeing him, I know what it means. He's still missing half of the shots.

"Look at me! I've got this BIG LENS! Size matters."

"Um, you're missing half of the action, and I'm getting it all."

Here's two body mode. You have one camera body with the 400 f/2.8 and another with the 70-200 f/2.8. You use the appropriate kit depending on where the action is on the field. Additional expense for the second body and lens is $13,000 to $17,000, depending on how you go with the second body. Based on the OP, this is high school sports. Most of us doing high school sports choke on the expense of a 100-400mm lens. Even my Mk I lens was used. Going to a high end pro lens and a second high end body is beyond what one could expect to achieve through spousal negotiation.


Graham
Canon A BIG ONE A Small One An itty bitty one
My Zenfolio Collectionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
pat.kane
Senior Member
pat.kane's Avatar
566 posts
Joined May 2005
Arlington, VA
Nov 06, 2016 18:30 |  #14

mathogre wrote in post #18177382 (external link)
[...]the 400mm is good for the far half of the field only. [...] At our football games, there's a guy with a 400 f/2.8 on a monopod, and that's all he brings. Impressive as it looks to everyone else seeing him, I know what it means. He's still missing half of the shots.

My guess is he's getting 85%+ of the action. He just looks for a different image to capture similar to what I show below. I just looked at the images from my last two football games and 84% were from the 400mm and 16% from the 70-200mm.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

1Dx, 5D3 and some L glass (gear list / feedback)
http://MaxPreps.DMVpix​.com (external link)
http://www.DMVpix.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Nov 06, 2016 18:34 |  #15

IF you have good light you might do OK at higher ISO's. If not, don't bother.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

8,361 views & 13 likes for this thread
Lens for night time sports?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00097 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is MarthaBennett
919 guests, 439 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016