Soccer or football at night

BTW - Can you post some of your shots?

I guess I don't understand that statement. Did you have a bad experience with Sigma?
Mike

Tareq - If you're shooting with Mark2N I would shoot with the 300 f2.8. It'll get you closer to the action so you'll be forced to frame tighter. You'll also think about your shots because it's a prime, less flexibility than a zoom.

As already stated, the 70-200 is a great lens for action that's closer to you. Most professionals shoot with a 300 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 around their neck. Position yourself at a corner of the field, halfway between the corner and the goalie, or even 20-25 yrds. from the corner on the sideline. Placement is everything.

Like I said, if you have horrible lighting you can't expect amazing results. High school fields are horribly lite compared to professional venues and that plays a huge role in your shots.

I shoot in a Pro Stadium and not high schools, so the lighting re great [one stadium is not so great but they will replace for better].

I shooted with 300 f2.8 in 2 matches in the past and i got really amzing results and i know that, but i missed alot of actions because of 300 fixed not flexible, and for this reason i decided to use 70-200, didn't i say that i got alot of actions with it?
I will post few shots of some matches in 2 Stadiums to show you the results of lightings.

Won't you miss lot of shots with 70-200mm when 200mm is not enough? 200m is only good when action is pretty close. That's why having 2 bodies with zoom on one and the prime on the other is the best option.

OK, here are some shots from 1 Stadium of my city or area, bad lighting

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

one more, pp applied

Man, the last one has too much saturation OMHO.

The lighting is pretty good IMHO. Some of your shots are somewhat under-exposed, (look at the faces). I wouldn't be worried about ISO 1600. Both lenses should give you very good results.

bobbyz wrote in post #4950917
Man, the last one has too much saturation OMHO.

The lighting is pretty good IMHO. Some of your shots are somewhat under-exposed, (look at the faces). I wouldn't be worried about ISO 1600. Both lenses should give you very good results.

The last one is more saturated because i did 0 saturation but i increased the exposure and contrast.
I know all my shots are underexposed because i used ISO 1600 or 1000 and f2.8 but i never go down slower than 1/400.

Definitely need to bump up the exposure on those shots. Why not shoot at ISO 3200? If you have Noise Ninja or any noise removal software, you should not hesitate shooting at ISO 3200.

If I understand what you mean by more professional, then your last pp'ed shot is okay - too much saturation but it's looking more "professional."

Just curious - why are some of the crops squares?

pagnamenta wrote in post #4951552
Definitely need to bump up the exposure on those shots. Why not shoot at ISO 3200? If you have Noise Ninja or any noise removal software, you should not hesitate shooting at ISO 3200.

If I understand what you mean by more professional, then your last pp'ed shot is okay - too much saturation but it's looking more "professional."

Just curious - why are some of the crops squares?

I have NN, but i was scared to use them as i heard in many threads that those softwares give so smooth or plasticity looks, and i can use ISO 3200 if i need.
About more professional i mean those shots so sharp and BG separated and peak actions and so, but that need practice and experimenting more and more i know.
I cropped all shots to be like square, but the original are not squares and i did that to get rid of many distract elements like another players, or columns or anything else.
Next time i will try to us 300 on my body and i am not thinking to use 2 bodies because all here using 1 body and it is their jobs so i am not doing that as it is just hobby, will be little embarrassed for me to use bodies different than others, and i will use ISO3200 if necessary.

OK, bumping this thread back again.
Today i will go to stadium to shoot a soccer match, it will start at 8:25pm which is completely at night so then only field lights, so should i use ISO 1600 or ISO 3200?
and what do you think the minimum shutter speed to be in safe side on most cases?
I am debating to use 70-200 or 300 f2.8, last time i used 300 f2.8 i got great results but very less than with 70-200 due to most actions is coming near our corners so that 300 is too long, and moving around all the time making me to miss a lot of actions, i don't want to use 2 bodies as all photographers there from newspapers using only 1 body and one lens, one or two of them use 2 lenses on same body swapping rarely so i don't want to be that serious shooter, so what you people do in my place?

Just caught this thread so sorry for the late input.
Here in the UK it is normal for all pro's to use at least two bodies. One with 300/400 and second with (maybe) 70-200. The longer is usually fixed to a monopod and covers action away from the goal mouth while the shorter lens is handheld for any action around the goal. We usully just drop the 300/400 onto our shoulder while using the shorter reach. This way we can quickly cover any action when the ball is moved quickly.
One thing I've never done is switch lenses during a game. Chances are I'd proberby miss something. Never seen anyone else do it either.
Regarding exposure settings we just use whatever we have to even in dark stadium.I've shot at 250th @ISO3200 but you will get some blur especially with the ball. Try to keep 400th or preferably 640th. We often submit underexposed shots to the newspapers but they expect it and will make corrections. They have to otherwise they just wouldnt get the live pics quickly enough. If shooting for yourself then only you can make the decision on exposure. I'd certainly use NN so try experimenting with various setting until you get the right sesults.

snapzz wrote in post #5231631
Just caught this thread so sorry for the late input.
Here in the UK it is normal for all pro's to use at least two bodies. One with 300/400 and second with (maybe) 70-200. The longer is usually fixed to a monopod and covers action away from the goal mouth while the shorter lens is handheld for any action around the goal. We usully just drop the 300/400 onto our shoulder while using the shorter reach. This way we can quickly cover any action when the ball is moved quickly.
One thing I've never done is switch lenses during a game. Chances are I'd proberby miss something. Never seen anyone else do it either.
Regarding exposure settings we just use whatever we have to even in dark stadium.I've shot at 250th @ISO3200 but you will get some blur especially with the ball. Try to keep 400th or preferably 640th. We often submit underexposed shots to the newspapers but they expect it and will make corrections. They have to otherwise they just wouldnt get the live pics quickly enough. If shooting for yourself then only you can make the decision on exposure. I'd certainly use NN so try experimenting with various setting until you get the right sesults.

Thank you very much
Yes, you were late, but today was really i serious strong match where i had shoot, i saw 2 of the press or newspaper shooters where using 400 [one Canon and the other Nikon] and both had another boy as well with i think 70-200 [again one canon and one Nikon], and both were using monopods for the 400, so when i will get my MKIII next time i will use two bodies with 2 different lenses even it is just a hobby.
The exposure in the stadium is a bit fine and i can have good settings, but i was confusing between 2 exposures:
1st: 1/640-1/800, f2.8, ISO 1250-1600
2nd: 1/320-1/400, f2.8, ISO 800-1000

So which one do you prefer: higher shutter speed or lower ISO? both give you good well exposure after i tested and saw the histogram and on the monitor.

I would go with 640th if you can but if the light falls drop to 400th.Mk2 & 3's can easily handle noise at that level of ISO.