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

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 07 Jan 2015 (Wednesday) 01:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lacrosse photos

 
10mm ­ Fan
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Jan 07, 2015 01:53 |  #1

My son is in his second season of lacrosse. Last season I shot the games with my 70-200 F4 IS. I had gone back and forth on the F4 IS vs. the 2.8 non-IS and I'm still not sure I made the right choice. While I got great shots, I feel that the subject could have been seperated from the background a little more and at the shutter speed I was using the IS was of no consequence. That being said, every time I have used a non-IS lens I have experienced unacceptable shake.

I am now considering adding another lens and I can't decide between the 400mm F5.6 or the 300mm F4.0 IS. I will be shooting from the sidelines which means the players shouldn't be more than 45 yards away at the most. My son is playing D4 which uses a half field, for those who know youth lacrosse.

I have seen some videos from sports photographers who have said that they don't use any lens with less than a 2.8 aperture. Would I be better off upgrading my 70-200 F4 IS to a 2.8 IS rather than getting a 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6? Or do you think I can get acceptable results using a 300 or 400? Acceptable to me means worthy of posting to a Facebook page and distributing to parents who may or may not want to print the photos.

I guess of all the problems one could have, deciding between these options is about as good as one could hope for. But it still bothers me.

By the way, for those who don't know the sport of lacrosse, it is a blast! There is a ton of action and opportunity to get good shots. I had several occasions to get a series of players taking shots on goal where the ball was frozen in mid-air. It is so much fun that I am considering renting a 300 or 400 2.8 lens when we have a tournament.


Canon 7d Canon XSI Canon 70-200 F4L IS Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 10-22mm USM Canon 28-135mm USM Canon 100-300mm USM
Canon 18-55 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
urbanfreestyle
I am a squirrel who loves rubbing bottles and I have Nuts in my drawers, too!
Avatar
2,060 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 226
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Exeter, Devon
     
Jan 07, 2015 02:08 |  #2

Personally i would recomend going with 70-200 f2.8 IS. This gives you the best complete package for your sport.

wide aperture x IS + fast AF =Happy times


Facebook (external link)
Canon 1D Mk IV | Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk1 | Sigma 'Bigma' 50-500 | Fuji XE1 | Helios 44/m | 50mm 1.4 | Manfrotto 055CX PRO3 | 3LT Mohawk ballhead | Lubitel 2 med format camera |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
10mm ­ Fan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Jan 07, 2015 02:18 as a reply to  @ urbanfreestyle's post |  #3

True enough. I really do think I erred by going with the F4 over the 2.8. But that being said, there were times when I wanted longer reach and the 200 just wasn't long enough even with the crop sensor.


Canon 7d Canon XSI Canon 70-200 F4L IS Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 10-22mm USM Canon 28-135mm USM Canon 100-300mm USM
Canon 18-55 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
urbanfreestyle
I am a squirrel who loves rubbing bottles and I have Nuts in my drawers, too!
Avatar
2,060 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 226
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Exeter, Devon
     
Jan 07, 2015 02:24 as a reply to  @ 10mm Fan's post |  #4

Perhaps an extender? sure you'll lose some of the f but still the glass should make up for it?


Facebook (external link)
Canon 1D Mk IV | Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk1 | Sigma 'Bigma' 50-500 | Fuji XE1 | Helios 44/m | 50mm 1.4 | Manfrotto 055CX PRO3 | 3LT Mohawk ballhead | Lubitel 2 med format camera |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 07, 2015 07:38 |  #5

I recommend longer than 200mm for field sports. I'd get the 300/4 for now and add a 1.4x tc when he moves up to bigger fields.

That or pick up a used 100-400L which are selling for under $1000 right now.

Background blur is about more than aperture, focal length matters.

Guys who claim to never use slower than f/2.8 are shooting an $8000 1DX and a $12,000 EF 400/2.8. Is that you?


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
Post edited over 4 years ago by watt100. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 07, 2015 09:11 |  #6

10mm Fan wrote in post #17370188 (external link)
My son is in his second season of lacrosse. Last season I shot the games with my 70-200 F4 IS. I had gone back and forth on the F4 IS vs. the 2.8 non-IS and I'm still not sure I made the right choice. While I got great shots, I feel that the subject could have been seperated from the background a little more and at the shutter speed I was using the IS was of no consequence. That being said, every time I have used a non-IS lens I have experienced unacceptable shake.

I am now considering adding another lens and I can't decide between the 400mm F5.6 or the 300mm F4.0 IS. I will be shooting from the sidelines which means the players shouldn't be more than 45 yards away at the most. My son is playing D4 which uses a half field, for those who know youth lacrosse.

I have seen some videos from sports photographers who have said that they don't use any lens with less than a 2.8 aperture. Would I be better off upgrading my 70-200 F4 IS to a 2.8 IS rather than getting a 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6? Or do you think I can get acceptable results using a 300 or 400? Acceptable to me means worthy of posting to a Facebook page and distributing to parents who may or may not want to print the photos.

I guess of all the problems one could have, deciding between these options is about as good as one could hope for. But it still bothers me.

By the way, for those who don't know the sport of lacrosse, it is a blast! There is a ton of action and opportunity to get good shots. I had several occasions to get a series of players taking shots on goal where the ball was frozen in mid-air. It is so much fun that I am considering renting a 300 or 400 2.8 lens when we have a tournament.

having f2.8 on the longer telephoto would be nice for blurring the background in lacrosse or other field sports. If you don't have that 'fast' lens budget you can get plenty of lacrosse pics using the older 100-400 but shooting at f5.6 is not quite like f2.8
I'd settle for just having a constant f4 in the longer 400mm zooms


60D
Canon 100-400 (original)
400mm
f5.6

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/13354396955_2a37e079d7_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 07, 2015 09:33 |  #7

watt100 wrote in post #17370518 (external link)
I'd settle for just having a constant f4 in the longer 400mm zooms]

400/4 is nice, but a long way from 400/5.6.

The absolute cheapest path to 400/4 in current lenses is the $3600 Sigma 120-300/2.8 zoom.

There are a few $6000 options like the Canon 200/2, 300/2.8 and 400/4 DO.

And there is the $12000 Canon 200-400/4.

I forgot that the op has a 1.6x sensor, which does make f/5.6 seem that much slower for blur. I'll amplify the 300/4 as a good pick on this basis.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scsurfdad
Senior Member
Avatar
314 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 07, 2015 13:09 |  #8

7D + 70-200 2.8 IS is a perfect combo for lax. I use it all the time and generally go behind the net to the side a little where I will most likely get my kids face in the photo. You can take some longer shots and crop it to get tighter. When my son was younger I would turn off IS and use a monopod at about his shoulder/head height.


Mike
Sony A7R III

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 07, 2015 17:03 |  #9

Just to follow up, here's some lacrosse with the 100-400L, near or at 400mm. Sure, it doesn't kill the background like a 400/2.8 prime, but my suggestion is that 400mm and f/5.6 can isolate players a lot better than 200mm and f/2.8, especially if you find yourself cropping that 200mm shot.


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


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


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
10mm ­ Fan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Jan 07, 2015 21:24 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #10

To me, that is a perfectly acceptable amount of background blur. Sure it isn't 2.8, but that works just fine.

I used an extender with my 70-200 at the Red Bull air races and was disappointed in the image quality. Definitely not sold on them.


Canon 7d Canon XSI Canon 70-200 F4L IS Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 10-22mm USM Canon 28-135mm USM Canon 100-300mm USM
Canon 18-55 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LINYBIMMER
Member
Avatar
142 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 185
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Lawn Guyland
     
Jan 08, 2015 16:49 |  #11

I found the 300 f4 slow to focus. I like shooting with the 70-200 2.8 and just this year jumped to the sigma 120-300 2.8 sport model. Depending on your budget, you can find a non IS 2.8 or splurge for the MII 2.8. My experience with the Sigma has been positive so far although it is heavy. Hope this helps.


Dude, Really?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
10mm ­ Fan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Jan 14, 2015 20:52 |  #12

Here are a couple of pics I took last season with my 70-200. On the second one I obviously had the aperture way too small.


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



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


Canon 7d Canon XSI Canon 70-200 F4L IS Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 10-22mm USM Canon 28-135mm USM Canon 100-300mm USM
Canon 18-55 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
Post edited over 4 years ago by watt100. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 15, 2015 04:39 |  #13

10mm Fan wrote in post #17382969 (external link)
Here are a couple of pics I took last season with my 70-200. On the second one I obviously had the aperture way too small.

OK, but in the second pic it appears you're too far away
next time get closer, zoom in more (200mm) or crop tighter


Rebel XSi / 450D
135mm cropped
f6.3

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8380/8568102993_3d9ec6a446_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 4 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Jan 15, 2015 05:27 |  #14

10mm Fan wrote in post #17382969 (external link)
Here are a couple of pics I took last season with my 70-200. On the second one I obviously had the aperture way too small.

Zooming in tighter would have a bigger effect than using a smaller aperture. Not only would it blur out the background, it would also focus the shot on the subject.

The next thing you need to do is change position. Both of these shots are treating the offensive player as the subject, but shooting the back of his head. In the first shot, you need to be standing exactly on the other side of the shooter. Then you would have a great shot.

In that second shot, if you were around the end line off to your right, you would have got the shooter in profile and you would have the sun at your back making the shadows look a lot better. As it is, any shot where I cannot see the subject's eyes in sports is a shot that goes in the trash bin.

Before shooting any outdoor sports, look at where the sun is and then place yourself for faces, peak action and good light. Then shoot tight and crop tighter. This is why I typically tell people that 200mm is not long enough for field sports, even on 1.6X format. Look back at my examples in this thread and note how tight they are, and how I placed myself for the evening light.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Supersteve911
Senior Member
613 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2010
Location: MN
     
Jan 22, 2015 09:28 |  #15

I shoot LAX with a 70-200 2.8. I wish I had a 400 to shoot with as that IMO would be the best lens for that sport.


5D III | 24-105 | 85 1.8 | 70-200 II 2.8 | 2 430 EX II's | 580 EX II |

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

6,207 views & 1 like for this thread
Lacrosse photos
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is heflerbj
895 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.