Football.What size lens for behind goal?

shapeshifter

shapeshifter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,444
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got the information on what size lens to use for remote camera behind goal.Crop sensor .Thanks.
 
I'm using a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on a D300.

Cheap in case it gets battered. Good enough at 1600iso.
 
meonshore said:
I'm using a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on a D300.

Cheap in case it gets battered. Good enough at 1600iso.
Click to expand...
I was hoping to use something cheaper but at least I have a size to work on.Tokina is fast also at f2.8.

Have you ever had camera damaged behind the goal ?
 
meonshore said:
I'm using a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on a D300.

Cheap in case it gets battered. Good enough at 1600iso.
Click to expand...

The camera or lens is good enough at 1600?

I have been looking at this lens recently, so good to hear someone is already using it.
 
I had the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and it was very good. I sold it to get the new Tokina 12-28 f4 with the autofocus motor in so I could use it on a Nikon D5300. I got an import and it (the 12-28 f4) was really poor and I mean bad(Ken R got that one wrong). It went straight back and I got a refund.

Now I am looking at putting the cheapest possible camera and lens arrangement behind the goal. I am coming to the conclusion that the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is really the only option and a good one at that. On crop it would be 16-24 mm and F2.8. It's a bit costly and using Nikon I thought there might have been some old manual focus lens that could be used for £100 or so. But it does not look like it.
 
Will the cheapest possible give you high enough ISO capabilities though?

No good having a camera that can only go to ISO 1600 if you need ISO 4000 to get a good enough exposure.
 
Yes .some of this type of photography will be under floodlights. It's very rare that to do something properly is cheap.:(
 
bigrob said:
The camera or lens is good enough at 1600?

I have been looking at this lens recently, so good to hear someone is already using it.
Click to expand...

Well the camera really. I didn't want to invest a lot into a remote, and this combination was about £600 - full frame not an option at the moment. I had the pocket wizard, got a 3rd party cable and all done. On a crop sensor and a budget this was recommended to me by an (off-forum) experienced football photographer and it works for me.

I don't tend to shoot below the Championship grounds and so 1600 ISO is good enough for me for a remote for about 90% of the time.
 
I don't quite see why a f2.8 lens is going to help, you need approx f4 or f5.6 to get a reasonable dof. I use a Canon 10-22mm and I have the camera equipment insured. Its been donked a couple of times without needing hospitalisation. Just be careful where you position it - the number I've seen sent flying at Prem League games on the telly is quite amazing!
 
Photodiva said:
I don't quite see why a f2.8 lens is going to help, you need approx f4 or f5.6 to get a reasonable dof. I use a Canon 10-22mm and I have the camera equipment insured. Its been donked a couple of times without needing hospitalisation. Just be careful where you position it - the number I've seen sent flying at Prem League games on the telly is quite amazing!
Click to expand...

It wasn't about need for me when I selected a 2.8 lens. I have mine at about f/4 - 4.5 as you say. It was more about quality vs price. I opted for a good quality, well built lens I could pick up used - and for me that was the Tokina 11-16mm. Which although an f2.8 when stopped down to f/4-f5 is sharp and good on the edges.

I could have put my Nikkor 14-24mm on it - but didn't want to put £1100 of lens on a remote. Not because it isn't insured, but because I'd rather not loose the use of it whilst repaired/replaced, and I also like it to hand if I need a super wide for any reason during the match.
 
With the Sky and floodlights being most of the shot how much exposure compensation is required to stop the players/Goalie being silhouettes.1stop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top