Weekend Soccer C&C Wanted

Here are some shots from the weekend.

All shot with the 1d classic and the 100-300.

The ones at the end were shot with the Sigma 400mm 5.6. Got a deal on it, really, really cheap and gave it a try. Needs a lot of light and I wanted to see how it would do. Not too bad to use, but it will take some practice and getting used to knowing it's limitations and age.

Still may go for the Canon 400mm 5.6L, have not decided yet.

Let me know what you think of theses. All cropped for web and I'll note the ones shot with the 400 when I get to them. They'll be at the bottom of the listing. The rest are the Sigma 100-300 f4.

I know the first one, he is running downhill, but if I straighten it, I'll lose the ball. Besides, it's one of my son and I like it.

1.

in my opinion ... all look well fine.
the DOF is abit weak but well... it is 5.6

Not bad at all. Great light and colour. Kids games are extremely difficult to shoot as the players rarely hold unto the ball for more than a second. Focusing can be a problem, but you've caught these well. DOF would have been better with 2.8, but at times 5.6 can be useful especially in certain situations like a crowded goalmouth for a corner.

Fiat126p wrote in post #12132471
in my opinion ... all look well fine.
the DOF is abit weak but well... it is 5.6

i dont think dof matters.... as long as action is there.

the 400 is noticeably better in terms of image quality compared to your 100-300

The 400 is a years old lens. Got it for a steal. It is a prime so it's 5.6 or up for that one. The 100-300 is a solid performer. I have no complaints with it.

Sometimes the 100-300 is the better lens for soccer, especially when the play gets so close that the 400 becomes unusable. Hateful to miss a great tackle or goal celebration because the play is right in front of you. The 100-300 is more flexible.

Nice work, nice cropping and shots

Thanks, before any are printed crops are adjusted for the print size. I usually crop a little differently for the web.

nice shots

Nice work with both lenses.

Howard Ting wrote in post #12150153
i dont think dof matters.... as long as action is there.

Couldn't disagree more. Understanding of DOF is one of the things that separates good shots from P&S snapshots if both catch the same action.

cpo13 wrote in post #12164110
Nice work with both lenses.

Couldn't disagree more. Understanding of DOF is one of the things that separates good shots from P&S snapshots if both catch the same action.

same here

i couldn't disagree with you more either

having no Bokeh does not make your picture a point and shoot. having bokeh doesn't make you a pro.
If the composition and moment is there, the picture is just as good.
fast lenses are desirable because of its versatile in dark environment, and the optics that come with it is usually superior. There are nothing that its f/4 or f/5.6 counterparts cant do.

http://us.123rf.com …ith-motion-blur-added.jpg
no bokeh. no need for 2.8 lens.

http://www.trentonian.​com …d65d4a464bd5577​929963.jpg
barely any bokeh b/c of tight crop


http://morningjournal.​com …d5a62d099830512​503316.jpg
no bokeh because it is a wide lens

http://cache2.asset-cache.net …164B673B53D48C4​911A1C4ACC
no bokeh, wideshot

Howard Ting wrote in post #12164408
same here

i couldn't disagree with you more either

having no Bokeh does not make your picture a point and shoot. having bokeh doesn't make you a pro.
If the composition and moment is there, the picture is just as good.

http://us.123rf.com …ith-motion-blur-added.jpg
no DOF. no need for 2.8 lens.

http://www.trentonian.​com …d65d4a464bd5577​929963.jpg
barely any bokeh b/c of tight crop


http://morningjournal.​com …d5a62d099830512​503316.jpg
no bokeh because it is a wide lens

http://cache2.asset-cache.net …164B673B53D48C4​911A1C4ACC
no bokeh, fisheye

You're missing the point. Getting a nice bokeh isn't what DOF is all about in typical kids sports. It's all about isolating what's of interest against all the typical crappy background you get at high school fields or a sports complex with multiple fields.

Close cropping is one way to help eliminate a background in some cases, as a couple of your examples show. But none of the examples you show are in the environment the OP has - i.e shooting at field level across to an almost always cluttered background. First is an isolated athlete and next two are a pro environment where the photographer can pick his angle. Can't see the last as link appears to be broken.

In this case OP did a nice job as I said and 5.6 was fine, but try shots like the OP posted above at f16 - see what you get and you'll understand.

cpo13 wrote in post #12164503
You're missing the point. Getting a nice bokeh isn't what DOF is all about in typical kids sports. It's all about isolating what's of interest against all the typical crappy background you get at high school fields or a sports complex with multiple fields.

Close cropping is one way to help eliminate a background in some cases, as a couple of your examples show. But none of the examples you show are in the environment the OP has - i.e shooting at field level across to an almost always cluttered background. First is an isolated athlete and next two are a pro environment where the photographer can pick his angle. Can't see the last as link appears to be broken.

In this case OP did a nice job as I said and 5.6 was fine, but try shots like the OP posted above at f16 - see what you get and you'll understand.

My comment was to the poster fiat, who write:

Fiat126p wrote in post #12132471
in my opinion ... all look well fine.
the DOF is abit weak but well... it is 5.6

Bokeh is there in OP's images. but you don't need a f/2.0 bokeh to get great pictures, I don't understand why he said the DOF is weak, the bokeh doesn't MAKE the image. OP has good timing/faces/action that is all. 5.6 gets the job done. and therefore DOF does not matter.

In fact I prefer shooting SOC with 100-300 rather than 400 2.8/5.6 because a great bokeh from the 2.8 does not make up for the missed shot b/c of the limiting 400 prime.

and what is a 'pro environment'? I like to think there is no such thing. When pro photog go out to shoot in a crappy environment are they just limited to overcoming the BG with just bokeh alone? (no composition, timing, technique, balance, tight crop)
can you imagine a photog for SI coming back to his editor and said 'Oh, i wasn't in a pro environment, so i have bad photos'

I am only suggesting that there are more creative ways for making a great picture other than using bokeh as to crutch to every "cluttered background"...

a 12 year old that knows how to use AV mode and push a buttom with a 200 f/2 can get great pictures from a SOC game. but what is impressive is if you can get great photos with a 55-250mm f/4-5.6


not to go off on a tangent, OP has great photos. Esp that teams have black and white on their uniform in the sun. hard to fit all that info on a histogram w/o clipping too much in either direction! GJ

IMO they all look great...if any of those where of one of my granddaughters I would be broke buying them from you...nice job!