F/4 for footie?

curiousanderson

curiousanderson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
356
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a canon 70-200 f/4 and have started shooting my local blue square north team (this is my first season).

When it gets to winter, am I going to find that f/4 is too slow?
 
curiousanderson said:
I have a canon 70-200 f/4 and have started shooting my local blue square north team (this is my first season).

When it gets to winter, am I going to find that f/4 is too slow?
Click to expand...


What are you shooting for ? if not to sell then just changing the iso up might do. ;)
 
It’s just a hobby at the moment, but I would like to get published over the next season.

I had thought about the Sigma 2.8, but wasn’t sure if what I would gain in light I would lose in the focusing speed and sharpness.
 
The Canon is sharper than the Sigma at but f2.8 can help. I used to sell work using the Sigma but wasn't always great, I switched to a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and a total change, I then got the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 as well for closer/light weight work and that is brilliant!
 
Thanks Mark. I’ve only just bought the 7d so the canon 2.8 is probably out of my range at the moment.

I think I’ll stick with the f/4 for the time being. If it starts to become a problem I’ll review it…then procrastinate, then buy the sigma, then decide I miss the sharpness of the canon, then sell the sigma and finally buy the canon 2.8.

That seems like the most likely course of events…;)
 
I shoot with an older Canon 70-210 f4 and at 3200 ISO on the 30d am getting 250th under lights.I guess with the 7D you could use 6400 and get less noise than I do and a Blue Square ground may have better lights so in your learning season you could get away with an f4. However I think any footy tog needs an f2.8 to progress to the next level
 
The new sigma 70-200 os is a new optical design and is much sharper than the old one. I shot it against the canon and the sigma is equally as sharp, it genuinely is! Although build quality, focussing speed, ergonomics and stabilisation take a back seat to the canon- but optically (from my tests) it's at least as good
 
F4 is fine for during the day in bright weather - evening matches and you can forget it when the light starts getting low
I only ever shot a match once at night and that was under floodlights and vowed never again with an F4 Lens.. 95% of the images went in the bin along with most of the faster moving images
my 2p
 
F4 should be absolutely fine for most situations. You should be OK to bump the ISO up a bit if you're shooting with a 7D anyway :)
 
SamuelHearn said:
You should be OK to bump the ISO up a bit if you're shooting with a 7D anyway :)
Click to expand...

only up to 3200 though- 6400 takes a massive quality hit






here is a 100% crop of the 2 lenses CANON VS SIGMA
picture7oo.png


can you guess which is which? Both at f4 iso 800 1/100 (indoors in daylight, pretty good light- but is this fast enough for sports? I think not...)



edit: the sigma is on the right. Extensive testing showed the sigma to have as-good-as bokeh/colour. Clearly these new OS lenses are much better than non OS, but the price reflects that (twice the price)
 
Last edited:
I spend a lot of time in F4 even though all my lens have f2.8.. I only use f2.8 when the lighting is so bad..

I think somebody is giving you missinformation about daytime matches in winter.. At peak winter the floodlights will be on at 3pm and it goes dark quickly esp if the weather is bad..

As technology and ISO gets better then do we need f2.8? well I am afraid the answer is yes.. I was shooting at iso 6400 f2.8 under the poorest floodlights in the football league last night.. I am off to a game tonight where I will be lucky to get a 250 shutter at iso 6400 f2.8

If you go to higher placed grounds then you can get away wiht f4 easy under flodlights.. say premership and championship and some league 2 and 1 grounds

If your looking long term and want to get out to as many matches as you can.. day or night.. then you need the f2.8 .. if your not all that serious and going as and when then stick with the canon... to be honest the difference in sharpness wouldnt matter at a night match.. but the colours are so much richer from a canon L on a canon body ....IMHO
 
SamuelHearn said:
F4 should be absolutely fine for most situations. You should be OK to bump the ISO up a bit if you're shooting with a 7D anyway :)
Click to expand...

What football ground do you shoot at under floodlights that get decent results at f4 upping the iso a bit??? I can only imagine chmpionship or premiership.. certainly not the grounds the OP is asking about... however i would be interested to know ??
 
Buttkicker said:
mrjames the OP is looking for a Lens for football which is fast moving action sport so posting static images of a firewire cable is not much of a help
samples of fast moving action at a night game would be of far more relevance to this thread with an F4 lens
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the new OS sigma lenses are a totally different kettle of fish compared to the previous sigma's- i.e. they might actually be a contender against the canon

and in this case the sigma 2.8 is the same price as the canon 4- and as we have deduced from the thread, 2.8 is essential- So I was merely stating that IMO the sigma 2.8 is a better option than the canon f4


I did not get to do any extensive AI servo testing, but the canon was a touch quicker, the sigma was very quick though, it just wasn't instant like the canon. But AF speed is no good if you're not getting a quick enough shutter to stop motion

so i'll say it again- 2.8 will give you more flexibilty in terms of creative freedom, and low light. The sigma 2.8 OS is a better lens (in every way) than the non OS, I think it is the better buy over the canon f4, although step up to the canon 2.8 if you've got £1600 to spend



you could always get a prime to give you something different/faster than your 7d+ 70-200. For the same price as a new 70-200 you could get a 60d and a 135L, which would probably give you more flexibility, and you have megapixels to spare so you can crop in if needed
 
Last edited:
Buttkicker said:
mrjames the OP is looking for a Lens for football which is fast moving action sport so posting static images of a firewire cable is not much of a help
samples of fast moving action at a night game would be of far more relevance to this thread with an F4 lens
Click to expand...

:plusone:


Always makes me laugh when High ISO comparisons are done in great light ...
 
Last edited:
I also shoot my local Blue Square North team purely as a hobby. I use a Sigma 70-300 F4.5-5.6 non IS lens on a Canon 500D. Like most have said if the light is good then I get decent results. I have decided this season though not to shoot under floodlight as I found it a real struggle to get anything worthwhile. Also I occasionally like to watch the game seen as I buy a season ticket.
 
Tugster said:
:plusone:


Always makes me laugh when High ISO comparisons are done in great light ...
Click to expand...

I should clarify (and have edited the post) that the comparison posted above is comparing the sigma lens to the canon lens, it is not an ISO comparison!



Although I do still stand fast in my opinion that 3200 is the max useable ISO on a crop camera, sigma f2.8@3200>canon f4@6400- iso 12800 be dammed.
 
mrjames said:
Although I do still stand fast in my opinion that 3200 is the max useable ISO on a crop camera, sigma f2.8@3200>canon f4@6400- iso 12800 be dammed.
Click to expand...

haha.. you need a mkIV mate.. seriously you do... :)
 
Tugster said:
Did you get your other body back Tony ?
Click to expand...

2 day turnaround.. brilliant :)

I am at a game tonight with probably the poorest floodlights I ahve been under.. I have my fingers crossed that all 4 are working this time... its non league so i can post what I get.. I will try to remeber to give f4 iso 6400 and higher a go to show what can be done..
 
KIPAX said:
I will try to remeber to give f4 iso 6400 and higher a go to show what can be done..
Click to expand...

I await with interest :p


I don't know what i'm doing in this thread, i'm just mooching- I don't even shoot sports, I mostly shoot studio- products, naked girls and lots of flashes- I control the light, I might shoot sports if I could control the flash ratio of the sun against my off camera flash

if you absolutely have to have to get the shot I guess the quality hit at higher ISO's is better than no shot

but I still think the quality loss up to 3200 is marginal, and in fact a little bit of noise add's some 'bite' to the image and gives it some texture, at 6400 it falls apart
APS-C crop- 3200 tops
full frame 5d/5d2- 6400 easy
APS-H 1d3- 3200 teasy, 6400 tops (although I always regret it)
APS-H 1d4- ??? guessing somewhere between 1d3 and 5d2, you can't escape physics
 
Last edited:
Tugster said:
How man actuations had it done Tony?
Click to expand...

they ddint tell me and i didnt ask on the cps form :( But I only had it a couple of months... i was more bothered about getting it back in time.. i cant do football wiht one body and lens :(

wish i had asked though.. as i bought it from canon-uk as a refurb i would know if they had sold me one wiht massive shutter count... tsk
 
mrjames said:
I don't know what i'm doing in this thread, i'm just mooching- I don't even shoot sports, I mostly shoot studio- products, naked girls and lots of flashes- I control the light, I might shoot sports if I could control the flash ratio of the sun against my off camera flash
Click to expand...

thats your problem.. ok not a problem really :) but thats why (with the greatest respect) its pointless you giving advice to someone wanting to shoot under floodlights at football... we will never get the same quality as you and your dolly bird under studio surroundings.. we will always get noise at night but its acceptable..

to be honest i would never give advice to a portrait photographer because its well out of my comfort zone ..

meant in the best possible way :)
 
Wow, great responses…so thanks very much.

From what I can gather, the f/4 will probably do up until Oct/Nov, but then after that, I’ll probably find myself pushing the ISO up to 6400 or 12800 (the highest I’ve gone with the 7d so far is 3200). I guess any more sharpness in the canon f/4 will probably be lost by pushing the ISO up one stop higher than I would have to with Sigma anyway, plus I’ll have extra noise to deal with.
 
KIPAX said:
thats your problem.. ok not a problem really :) but thats why (with the greatest respect) its pointless you giving advice to someone wanting to shoot under floodlights at football... we will never get the same quality as you and your dolly bird under studio surroundings.. we will always get noise at night but its acceptable..

to be honest i would never give advice to a portrait photographer because its well out of my comfort zone ..

meant in the best possible way :)
Click to expand...


Thank you :)

But...


1-the OP questions whether f4 is fast enough- other people with relevant experience confirm it is not

so it is confirmed the OP needs 2.8. He has just bought the 7d so can't spend £1.6k on a lens.




2- From my testing I deduce that the sigma 2.8 is as good as the canon 2.8 for half the price (at least in terms of IQ- previously sigma 2.8 lenses have been unacceptable at 2.8, so are basically big heavy f4 lenses, therefore making the f4 IS canon a much better option). The new 2.8 OS is a good alternative to the canon 2.8 for pro-level work, the OP should seriously consider the sigma and do his own tests.




3- The OP already has a 70-200 f4, he might be better off with a fast prime- i.e. the 135L as stated, 2 stops difference- this would let him shoot in a quarter of the light with the same ISO, or 2 stops lower.

F2 will give him shots that are a cut above the 2.8 in terms of background separation, which could make the difference between an accepted image and a rejected image, or an image that's noisy and un-usable or one that's clean. I think a second body (60/50d) with a prime is a decent suggestion


I was only giving my advice from the perspective of me being surprised at the sigma lens being so good, the OP himself questions the sigma (non OS) lens, and a poster confirms that it is 'not as sharp as the canon'. The new OS lens is 'as sharp', and '1 stop faster'

These lenses are brand new and haven't been tested by many people, it is natural for people to assume they will be 'value' lenses just like the old ones- I was happy to report the 2.8 was as good as, if not better than the canon (for the OP's requirements)

Obviously I have not field tested them in harsh conditons, but hopefully my post might make someone think twice about dismissing the sigma based on previous experiences
 
Last edited:
I used an f/4 IS throughout last season from Jan onwards as a short lens (admittedly daylight matches) and almost all circumstances it held up. Yes I was down to 1/320 very occasionally, but than can be mitigated by shooting head on etc.

Would I pick an f/2.8 over it? Canon Yes, Sigma No - and I also use a 120-300/2.8 as my long lens. The Sigma's AF is generally nowhere near as fast as the Canon.

As for ISO; if it's for publication in newsprint, the 7D is fine up at 6400. Not brilliant, but certainly usable.
 
DemiLion said:
As for ISO; if it's for publication in newsprint, the 7D is fine up at 6400. Not brilliant, but certainly usable.
Click to expand...
Only if exposure is nailed spot on or overexposed a tad and image is captures as close to filling the frame as possible, cropping will be a big no no
 
Gary Coyle said:
Only if exposure is nailed spot on or overexposed a tad and image is captures as close to filling the frame as possible, cropping will be a big no no
Click to expand...

It worked fine for me.

50% crop @ ISO 12800, f/2.8, 1/500th

ISO_example-6642.jpg


Similar at 66% crop:

ISO_example-6869.jpg


No they aren't not sparkly clear, but were fine in print.

PS - Yup I know that it's a different lens, but this was purely an ISO + 7D point.
 
Yes, theyre OK Mark but like you say, only for newsprint

ISO 6400 @ F/2.8

64001.jpg


ISO 8000 @ F/4

80001.jpg


ISO 8000 @ F/4

80002.jpg


ISO 8000 @ F/4

80003.jpg


ISO 8000 @ F/4

80004.jpg
 
And if I had another £10k spare I'd be shooting pictures that are similarly clear - but I don't at the moment! :D

I can't see a 12,800 in there though! :p
 
I've just pinched #3 G :lol:. I can't wait to try out the high ISO this winter:thumbs:. Not looking forward to the cold though Brrr:shake:.
Just to answer the OP's question I have used the Sigma 70-200 HSM blah blah (ie the new one!), for a few years & had no problems with focus speed, or quality under football leagues lighting but I think it may struggle under blue square quality lights TBH!. Kind regards Graham.
 
Thanks for the all the input.

I think I will upgrade to a 2.8 over the next few months. I think it’s either between a second hand canon non IS (seem to be about £650 on ebay) or a new sigma (non OS). Will probably end up with the Canon though.

I would seriously consider a Sigma OS (dpreview was very complimentary), but can’t justify the money and can’t seem to find any second hand ones. Also, I doubt I’ll need the OS for footie.

Thanks again!
 
mrjames said:
I stand corrected

but...
I bet they don't look too good up close, and I'm a canon shooter, so no D3s for me
Click to expand...

thats the point i made... no camera is going to produce the same quality as studio pictures from a sports game under floodlight using iso 12800

as for your canon quote? I got acceptable pictures at iso 12800 last night using a 70-200 on my canon 1dmkIV ... seriously its just about the only reason i upgraded from the mkIII ..I do a lot of high iso work indoors (no flash) and flloodlights
 
curiousanderson said:
I doubt I’ll need the OS for footie.
Click to expand...

Nice to have and not need rather than need and not have.. but for the most part with fast moving ball sports you wouldnt use any stabalisation.. that really does slow the AF down...a lot
 
curiousanderson said:
Thanks for the all the input.

I think I will upgrade to a 2.8 over the next few months. I think it’s either between a second hand canon non IS (seem to be about £650 on ebay) or a new sigma (non OS). Will probably end up with the Canon though.

I would seriously consider a Sigma OS (dpreview was very complimentary), but can’t justify the money and can’t seem to find any second hand ones. Also, I doubt I’ll need the OS for footie.

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
The 70-200 non IS is a great choice and i wish Nikon made one so we dont have to pay silly prices for something i dont use
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top