Football photgraphy lens choice ?

nicknack

nicknack

Suspended / Banned
Messages
139
Edit My Images
No
Hello folks,

I would like to start taking some shots from my local semi pro football club....i have been a photography hobbyist for sometime but do not consider myself up to a good standard, so will be more for my own experience...I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction for a good lens for my 60D. Budget is around £600. Buying second hand of course is an option for me.

Thanks in advance.
 
Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 150-500 , just looked on MPB they have a couple in at just below your budget, get a monopod as well.
 
Providing you're pretty much pitch-side you should be able to get a lot of shots with a 70-200mm lens. You'll probably need to go used but £600 will get you an f2.8 variant, which you WILL want.

I only have an f4, but only shoot for fun nowadays, so can pick games when the light is good enough for f4. If I was thinking of selling stuff again, it'd be f2.8 all the way.

Some may say 200mm is a little short, but with the crop factor, you get the equivalent of more than 300mm at f2.8, which I used to use a lot on film cameras, as did a lot of other people
 
I bought my D3 bodies from a pro football photographer a few years ago and the amount of kit he has is astronomical, although he has shorter lenses for interview work, on the field he is using 400mm+. Very expensive area of photography to get into!
 
400mm f/2.8 is what you'd really want, but thats 10x the budget. See what is the closest thing you can get in therms of length and aperture, but bare in mind the photos will reflect it.
 
troutfisher said:
Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 150-500 , just looked on MPB they have a couple in at just below your budget, get a monopod as well.
Click to expand...

I dont know what football troutfisher shoots.. but these lens would be useless for most of the year round... OK on a nice day at a push..

a sigma 70-200 f2.8 would be your best bet.. you wont cover the whole field but you will cover your own team attacking and be able to use it all yr round.. not just summer dsays :)
 
I agree with Tony, a 70-200 2.8 Sigma can be bought for under £600 and would be sufficient enough for you starting out in football. Have a look on MPB. Don't get the 50-500, as Tony says, it will be useless to you on dark winter afternoons and evening matches with low floodlights. You need a 2.8.
 
I started doing Conference League football last year. I used to turn up with the 300mm F2.8 and the 70 -200 F 2.8 and quickly found myself using the 70-200 far more regularly during a match. The 300mm brought me too close if I was sitting along the goal line towards the corner flag. You need to be looking through the lens when the action gets near you and I found it easier (and just as good) to use the 70-200 to capture the best action. The resultant image may need some cropping but that was fine. Of course, if you want to sit near the half way line and capture action all over the pitch then you will need a 400mm but that will not be within your budget. I also agree that you need 2.8 rather than 4 in order to get sufficing light on the dull days of winter and still keep the shutter speed up near 1/1000 and ISO under the noise barrier!
 
Plumtreelad said:
Of course, if you want to sit near the half way line and capture action all over the pitch then you will need a 400mm
Click to expand...

No way! :) your guessing and offering it as advice...tut tut....... Half way line the 300m is perfect ..it frames both goals just right... the 400 is too long and not really what you want to be changing that much direction...... sitting on the goal line the 70-200 or simmilar for the goalmouth your in and the 400 for the goalmouth at the other end..
 
Sigma 70-200 would be my choice for the money too, especially as you may find you don't enjoy it enough.
At least then you've got a good all round lens for all types of photography.

I had a 50-500 and it was pretty good on bright days, but as kipax says british winters and bright days don't go together! It was also bloody heavy and unwieldy.

Plus the x1.4 extender is £99 second hand if you decide you need more reach, though there are limitations using these.

Just my tuppence and Id refer you to the likes of kipax and Kelac as they do it for a living.
 
KIPAX said:
No way! :) your guessing and offering it as advice...tut tut....... Half way line the 300m is perfect ..it frames both goals just right... the 400 is too long and not really what you want to be changing that much direction...... sitting on the goal line the 70-200 or simmilar for the goalmouth your in and the 400 for the goalmouth at the other end..
Click to expand...
OK, Kippax, I think that we are almost in agreement. I did borrow a 400mm and found it easy to cover the pitch from the half way line but I do agree that 300mm is more comfortable from that position. We both suggest that the 70-200 is the way to go from the goal line. No offence taken, I hope?
 
You could always try hiring a few different lenses to see which one suits best before committing?
 
Plumtreelad said:
OK, Kippax, I think that we are almost in agreement. I did borrow a 400mm and found it easy to cover the pitch from the half way line but I do agree that 300mm is more comfortable from that position. We both suggest that the 70-200 is the way to go from the goal line. No offence taken, I hope?
Click to expand...

All of this depends on the body you are using of course.

Kipax is right, from the goal-line *most* photographers are using a two body set-up (at least) one with a 70-200mm for near action and one with a long lens for action at the other end, or coming towards. The key is knowing when to switch as neither works for the entire match assuming you are looking for balanced and varied coverage. *Most* professional photographers at EPL and championship level are shooting with FF, or possibly 1.3x bodies and *many* are using a 400mm f2.8 as their long lens.

If you use a 1.6x body then a 300mm gives you approximately the same field of view. It is not worth splitting hairs over this especially if you are not shooting FF.

Cropping heavily into a frame taken at 200mm isn't an option if your images are going out for publication - you'll be looking for 3500px on the long edge after cropping and at the far end you'll be taking a lot of the frame away.
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
All of this depends on the body you are using of course.

Kipax is right, from the goal-line *most* photographers are using a two body set-up (at least) one with a 70-200mm for near action and one with a long lens for action at the other end, or coming towards. The key is knowing when to switch as neither works for the entire match assuming you are looking for balanced and varied coverage. *Most* professional photographers at EPL and championship level are shooting with FF, or possibly 1.3x bodies and *many* are using a 400mm f2.8 as their long lens.

If you use a 1.6x body then a 300mm gives you approximately the same field of view. It is not worth splitting hairs over this especially if you are not shooting FF.

Cropping heavily into a frame taken at 200mm isn't an option if your images are going out for publication - you'll be looking for 3500px on the long edge after cropping and at the far end you'll be taking a lot of the frame away.
Click to expand...

I agree with your comments about a 2 camera set-up but I suspect that the OP does not have the luxury of such an arrangement.

Yes, I agree that heavy cropping is not really an option if the images are for publication. I have found that the 70-200 does give me greater chance of capturing action when I am sat on the goal line and focussing on the goal mouth/penalty area. However in making sure I do get the action, I will usually end up with some extraneous stuff that adds nothing to the image and needs cropping out. Newspapers/local media will take images that have been lightly cropped as long as the image quality remains high and the content of the image is of interest Not sure how if that applies to national media?
 
Plumtreelad said:
I agree with your comments about a 2 camera set-up but I suspect that the OP does not have the luxury of such an arrangement.
Click to expand...

So do I.

However, the post was in response to your suggestion that the longer lens didn't work (due to you needing close up images), and that the 70-200 was the lens of choice, and that you just cropped. My intention was to just state that whilst the 70-200mm is indeed a good choice for the OP given budget and the likely single body that it isn't a complete solution - otherwise the pros would just have £7k of camera kit on the sidelines, and not £20k+.
 
meonshore said:
My intention was to just state that whilst the 70-200mm is indeed a good choice for the OP given budget and the likely single body that it isn't a complete solution - otherwise the pros would just have £7k of camera kit on the sidelines, and not £20k+.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Looks like the OP will need to do the lottery if he wants to get anywhere near "a complete solution"
 
Plumtreelad said:
I agree entirely. Looks like the OP will need to do the lottery if he wants to get anywhere near "a complete solution"
Click to expand...

Or earn money by selling their images, just like the majority of us who shoot sport with that kind of kit do.....
 
meonshore said:
Or earn money by selling their images, just like the majority of us who shoot sport with that kind of kit do.....
Click to expand...
.. and that is why I admire what you pros do and there is just a bit of jealousy when I see the investment in the kit you use. I was tempted to say that if you have that high spec kit you are sure to get the best images and hence the best outlets for paid work, but I have read too many threads both here and on POTN to fall into that trap.
I doubt that I would be able to get into the top tier of sports photography at my age and so the income streams that are accessible to you, I can only dream about. Likewise, the hobbyists, like the OP, are usually limited in what they can invest in kit and so it is a case of compromise. Yet they can generate images that meet their needs be it for the local club web site or the local newspaper. Room for everybody.
 
KIPAX said:
I dont know what football troutfisher shoots.. but these lens would be useless for most of the year round... OK on a nice day at a push..

a sigma 70-200 f2.8 would be your best bet.. you wont cover the whole field but you will cover your own team attacking and be able to use it all yr round.. not just summer dsays :)
Click to expand...

Agree with Tony on this, 70-200 will be prefect to get you going

Cover the main action from your end following the team you plan on covering for then when other funds are available in future then you can look at upgrades and second bodies etc
 
meonshore said:
Cropping heavily into a frame taken at 200mm isn't an option if your images are going out for publication - you'll be looking for 3500px on the long edge after cropping and at the far end you'll be taking a lot of the frame away.
Click to expand...

I've never sent a football image in that's 3500px on the long side!


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
tophatter said:
I've never sent a football image in that's 3500px on the long side!
Click to expand...

My local paper told me 2500 when i started.. so I aim for that..IF I have a big file and resizing down... otherwise its the pic not the size :) Sent important pics that have massive crops.... they get used if there whats required
 
KIPAX said:
My local paper told me 2500 when i started.. so I aim for that..IF I have a big file and resizing down... otherwise its the pic not the size :) Sent important pics that have massive crops.... they get used if there whats required
Click to expand...

That's what I go by. The print in newspapers is so poor most of the time they don't do the images justice either! I go max 2500 and don't increase the size if the crop is smaller.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top