Hockey practice for my 10 year old, Photography practice for dad.

Nice man. It's really hard to capture with so much white don't u find ? Not only the lighting but the overwhelming amount of white surely can't help lol
Great shots however, nicely done

Something I've been trying lately with my 5 year olds hockey pictures is dodging the faces under the helmets.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

looks good first shot would be really nice if the puck was in the frame but great job!

97dad...

nice work. the lighting is about what you can expect at most amateur rinks. actually I've got a couple around here that are 1 to 1-1/2 stops darker. #2 is a good capture. I look for skater on edge, head up, eyes open.

Great shots!

My daughter is just starting travel hockey and I am looking at the 70-200 choices. Since most of the rinks that 16U players play in will probably have rotten lighting, would you think that the 2.8 is essential or can you get by with f4?

Thanks in advance,
Walt

I find the 2.8 essential for getting anything close to a decent shot in our local arenas. Most have bad lighting, and those with good lighting tend to turn some lights off for minor hockey. I have had the chance to shoot during a couple of university matches, when all the lights are turned on. However, the extra lighting just starts a debate over whether I should stick to 1600 ISO for the higher shutter speeds, or drop to 800 ISO for less noise. But either way, I'm pretty much stuck with f/2.8. For me, shooting a hockey game at f/4 is as much a pipe dream as winning the lottery...

Good captures, you might want to consider a little noise reduction software to tone down the noise.

I'd agree with the others than a 70-200 2.8 is the way to go for a zoom. That prime looks pretty good though. I definitely go for glass before another body. You can always keep that when you upgrade later.

I'd keep the ISO up on the Rebel if the lighting is crummy. It's better to have a properly exposed picture with some noise as opposed to an underexposed picture with lots of noise when you bring it back.

cool pics

....10yr olds should focus on wrist shots though & her stick looks long

M3Matt thanks for the coaching but in reality her stick comes up to her mouth with skates on, right where it should be and she actually plays up in the 12U (PeeWee) division where slap shots are now allowed. Going on her 6th year of travel she has had plenty of time to work on wrist shots and is working on the next step in shooting.

blindz24 you are correct although I find it difficult in most Southern California rinks to shoot hockey with the limited lighting. It could just be my lack of experience though.

Milkbone73 those look better. Thank you

d44 I rarely got a good shot until I went to the 2.8. I would highly recommend nothing less.

scott wiggins, I know absolutely zero about noise reduction software but I will definately look into it. Thanks for the advice.

Oh boy, you guys are spending my money

Do you think IS is required as well?

Thanks,
Walt

Walt I have never owned an IS but have rented one. I personally didnt notice any difference with it. A friend of mine used it also and didnt buy the IS when he upgraded his lens. I think it all depends on you but one of the more experienced photog's on here may be able to help you better.

IS will not help you at all. It reduces camera shake, but will do nothing to prevent motion blur. 70-200 2.8 is pretty much the standard. I shot my son's tryouts last night to practice for the season. Nothing has changed over the summer... Manual mode, 1/320 @ f/2.8 and ISO 1600. I think my next lens purchase will be the 135 f/2. The extra stop would be NICE.

Welcome to youth hockey, amateur rinks.

d44 wrote in post #3944011
Great shots!

My daughter is just starting travel hockey and I am looking at the 70-200 choices. Since most of the rinks that 16U players play in will probably have rotten lighting, would you think that the 2.8 is essential or can you get by with f4?

Thanks in advance,
Walt

d44 wrote in post #3950774
Oh boy, you guys are spending my money

Do you think IS is required as well?

Thanks,
Walt

I typically shoot hockey at f/2 to get good exposure and stop action. The extra stop makes a big difference. I would think that f/4 would be way to slow, but I've not personally tried it. With an f/2.8 lens, you are going to be cranking your ISO way up to 1600 and higher in most rinks. If you are able to shoot from the penalty box (mid rink), then the focal length to get tight shots in front of the goal is around 300mm, so you need to factor that in to where you'll be standing and what you want to shoot. You can get lots of mid rink action though with a shorter lens, and the 135 f/2 is fast and sharp wide open. I personally use a 200 f/1.8 and throw on a TC1.4 when I can, but thats probably more than you want to spend. I am shooting on a 1.26 crop camera though, so if you are using a 1.6 crop camera, then the 135 f/2 should be giving you similar crops.

As far as IS goes, it would help for some things.... like with panning shots (if you want to get the background blurred while the player is sharp), and with shots of players standing still or sitting on the bench (which can make beautiful portraits), but its not really going to do much for your action shooting. IS is intended to stabilize the camera so that you can shoot at lower shutter speeds than you'd otherwise be able to handhold. With stopping action, you need faster shutter speeds, not lower shutter speeds... so its kind of pointless.

I agree with Dan (lackfocus) and convergent. I'm using a 70-200 2.8 IS lens, but I leave the IS off. I've shot a test game with and without (used both mode 1 & 2) - the IS off photos were better, by a little. It takes the IS a short time to stabilize when you activate focus, so you miss a few shots.

The 135 f2 is a brilliant lens, and as stated it is just right for mid-ice shots from the sin bin, but I find it limiting. I pull it out for the dimmer rinks.