Lacrosse photos

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.

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

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.

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

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?

10mm Fan wrote in post #17370188
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

watt100 wrote in post #17370518
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

10mm Fan wrote in post #17382969
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

10mm Fan wrote in post #17382969
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.

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.