Lens choice for AHL hockey

I'm shooting some AHL hockey this Sunday, and I wanted to get an opinion on lens choice. Here is my gear:

Bodies:
1D3
1D4

Lenses:
300 2.8
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8

I shot them last week, and used the 70-200 and 24-70, but not sure if I want to try that again this week. I was thinking about the 300, but not sure if I want to lug it around the arena. I did see a photographer with a monopod, but I'm not sure I want to bring one. And on the flip-side, the 70-200 didn't seem like it had enough reach if I shot from the stands, or from one end of the rink to the other.

So what would your choice be, and on what body?

Here is a link to last weeks shots:
http://www.flickr.com …f/sets/72157641​784769923/

Thanks!!

kenjancef wrote in post #16741000
I'm shooting some AHL hockey this Sunday, and I wanted to get an opinion on lens choice. Here is my gear:

Bodies:
1D3
1D4

Lenses:
300 2.8
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8

I shot them last week, and used the 70-200 and 24-70, but not sure if I want to try that again this week. I was thinking about the 300, but not sure if I want to lug it around the arena. I did see a photographer with a monopod, but I'm not sure I want to bring one. And on the flip-side, the 70-200 didn't seem like it had enough reach if I shot from the stands, or from one end of the rink to the other.

So what would your choice be, and on what body?

Here is a link to last weeks shots:
http://www.flickr.com …f/sets/72157641​784769923/

Thanks!!

You already have the lenses you need.

The basic photo coverage location for ice hockey, of course, is at rink level. The difficulty is in getting a clear image that does not expose you to risk from flying pucks. Glass always will be scarred and scuffed. With any luck, you'll be able to use a photo hole.

Many hockey photographers take the chance of locating themselves in a team bench for the open view, but that's a dangerous location.

You've found that hockey's speed and distances mean there is no ideal location or lens. A common compromise is to use a 70-200mm f/2.8 at rink side, but that means giving up the images that need a wider lens.

You'll need to decide which action to emphasize. Any decision will be a compromise.


Camera body is less important than the ability to keep up with hockey's extreme speed.

I shot some AHL hockey a few weeks ago at the invitation of one of the teams regular photographers. I brought my 1D III, 70-200 2.8, and a 1.4X III. The regular photographer had a 1DX and 300 2.8. He let me borrow the 300 for the second period.

OMG

That is such a nice lens. And the pics came out super!! FLICKR LINK TO AHL PICS

The arena has upgraded to LED lights. We had settings of 1/1000 sec, f3.2, ISO 200. If i remember correctly.

We found some empty seats to sit it, so lugging the lens around was a little less difficult. I would definately take the 300.

I usually use a 70-200, 16-35 or 15 fisheye for right on the glass, and a 300 (420 with extender) from the stands all on full frame.