Lens for baseball football field

OK, the only way to deal with the variability of where you get to shoot from, vs. where downfield the action is occuring, is to provide you with a table of FL and distance, showing Field of View for FF sensor...and you can derive longer Fl as proportionately smaller FOV, and shorter FL as proportionaly larger area captured. For example, 250mm FL has 2X the FOV as 500mm
(and you can derive APS-C FOV as 60% of the FF dimensions captured)


300mm

50' dist: 4' x 6'
100' dist: 8' x 12'
200' dist: 16' x 24'
300' dist: 24' x 36'

400mm

50' dist: 2.9' x 4.4'
100' dist: 6' x 9'
200' dist: 12' x 18'
300' dist:18' x 27'

500mm

50' dist: 2.3' x 3.5'
100' dist: 4.7' x 7.1'
200' dist: 9.5' x 14.3'
300' dist: 14.3 x 21.5'

It allows you to detemine what FL is 'too short' and what FL is 'too long' in what situations, in consideration of different zoom FL ranges.
And if you keep in mind that 100' across the field AND 100' downfield = 1.414 * 100', or 141', you get an idea of where downfield the action is.

I usually grab my 500/4 with gimbal for stationary outdoor shots on a baseball field and the 100-400 for waking around shots.

I have to chime in as it seems this lens never gets any love. It was given to me for a day by Canon to shoot the final round of the US open (golf) a few years ago. Up until then I wanted the 400mm F/2.8. The Canon 200-400mm F/4 with built in 1.4x teleconverter. It was a fantastic partner with my 70-200mm.

R6, 100-400 II, 1.4x III

two questions..

The 500mm f4 lens, with that being f4 aperture can you shoot that at night games?

Since the eos R is no good for sports, comparing prices would you rather have the r6 or 1dx mark ii?

Thanks everybody!

20fps and good eye AF gives the edge to the R6 over the 1DX2.

Battery life and build quality goes to the 1DX2.

Now we're shooting video.

I wish that were really that easy, particularly when you consider the volume of shots taken during a typical sporting event. Each camera has its issues, and some are easier to correct for. The only 10D had a gold color cast to it. The later bodies over saturated reds. Nothing like a linebacker with what looks like lipstick. I also shot for a few Historically Black university, and de-greening the skin of what the lighting back did to their skin was a hassle. To remove the green tones, it affected everything else green in the image, which didn't always work.

Today with my Sony gear is its love of the color blue. I've developed about 20 actions the bulk corrects skin tons for the various venues I shoot at. Its not much of an issue now as you say, but developing these action took a while. I finally ended up using an app made for video to "color grade" my images. Particularly on Canons, some of the tools used drop the dark tones too much, and you end up with simple a black background with no detail. Sometimes like in Basketball, it works, and helps. But not always.

Still like light room has build in lens correction... so you are very right... its pretty easy.

I've been playing with some of the newer lenses though, and because of new coatings, contrast is greatly improved. So its not just tone or color shift, but clarity. Again tools to fix that too... but nothing beats getting it right at point of capture. Just my 2 cents.

I discovered Tamron to be very nice quality without paying too much for my personal needs.
The image stabilization is very nice.
Its easy to forget that handheld images are possible.
Sports photography isn't my cup of tea.
I would bring my Canon 70-200 f 2.8
A 100-400mm may be a good enough lens for sports. Provided it has a good aperture.

Mr. Team.... interesting results. Maybe its just because it is late on a saturday night... but the first rugby shot, its kinda catching me oddly. The ball career looks pretty good. Good detail and all that. But the lady behind her, her face just looks different. Maybe its just the lighting, but its oddly out of focus to me. Is this a sizable crop?

I've been impressed with sample shots from the R6... I'ld have no issues recommending it to people. Your processing is usually spot on.. but the back ground players face seems to have lost more detail that i would have expected. Particularly at f8. Again, largely nothing wrong with the shot... you know... its one of those things that once it catches your eye, then you have a hard time not seeing it.

Maybe it was the TC.... who knows. The shot below that one also at f8 doesn't fall off nearly as sharply. Just a random thing that caught my eye...... good to see ya out there shooting sports again. Rugby is a great sport to shoot. Haven't shot it myself if probably a decade... need to find some opportunities to shoot it.

It was a crop, but not sure how much of one. I would have to try to find the raw to see. I don't think it was a huge crop, because I was shooting her as she ran this in for the score, and this would have been just before she made it into the zone. I am just glad they are doing full rules again, the touch rules last year was terrible, simply neutered the sport.

This is a different lens that rarely comes out for sports, but it is fun to use.

Cool. For big field sports, particularly Baseball, setting your expectations right is probably best. I've only shot a few MLB gams where "pros' who ere trying to cover outfield action use anything shorter that a 600 f4. And they have locations by design to give the best looks possible Even 400 for covering outfield is a stretch, though I guess if you are using one of the new super high pixel count cameras you could use a 400 to crop in.

But I love that you show using a 135. In these cases, patience and letting the action come to you is the best bet. The background on this shot is ever so much more pleasing.. and it looks like you still had some room to crop in on this shot had you wanted to.

Cool also you're doing Rugby... ladies Rugby as well... the ladies need some loving too.

James Crockett wrote in post #19217656
two questions..

The 500mm f4 lens, with that being f4 aperture can you shoot that at night games?

Since the eos R is no good for sports, comparing prices would you rather have the r6 or 1dx mark ii?

Thanks everybody!

As a film shooter trying to cover sports, including night games, 55 years ago with ISO 400 film, how I envy the digital shooter for the high ISO shooting!

I have taken my ealier reply about Field of View with 500mm FL and annotated it with DOF Zone depth at f/4

500mm

50' dist: 2.3' x 3.5', DOF Zone depth 0.25'
100' dist: 4.7' x 7.1'', DOF Zone depth 1.02'
200' dist: 9.5' x 14.3'', DOF Zone depth 4.12'
300' dist: 14.3 x 21.5'', DOF Zone depth 9.3'

Shooting at f/4 at night games will not be a problem from the standpoint of illumination, but from the standpoint of

• handholding 500mm and not capturing camera-motion-induced blur (less of problem with really high ISO, but that comes with noise)
  
• and with shallow DOF (except at long distances. )