To all you top sports photographers......

[ttheduck]

What equipment (camera and lenses) best suits your choosen sport and why.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

Everything from 16mm to 840mm it depends on what the client wants

 

[ttheduck]

840mm......serious money?

 

[DemiLion]

I'm guessing that Andy's talking about a 300/2.8 with both a 2x and a 1.4x attached which would make a 840/8; so yup, not cheap!*

The problem is that (Canon v Nikon aside) everyone has their own different approach to the kit that they use, and that's always presuming that they can choose for themselves.


Your best bet would be to make sure that you understand how to read the Exif on a photograph and then take a trawl through the sports sharing forum, there's also a huge amount of info in here if you pick the right thread.


Edit:

*It could be a 500mm with a 1.7x as well - I'd forgotten that Andy uses the dark side!

 

[ttheduck]

Gotcha, didn't think of an extender

 

[Gary Coyle]

*It could be a 500mm with a 1.7x as well - I'd forgotten that Andy uses the dark side!

Maths not your strong point then Mark, 500 x 1.7 = 850

 

[seriousrikk]

600mm F4 with 1.4 = 840.

 

[DemiLion]

Maths not your strong point then Mark, 500 x 1.7 = 850

Close enough for government work!

(It's also a Nikon - you'd probably loose 30mm off the published length anyway )

 

[whipspeed]

For cycling shots most of the time it's my 70-200mm f2.8 or occasionally I'll sit or lie on the inside of a bend with a 17-40mm on.

 

[Gary Coyle]

Close enough for government work!

(It's also a Nikon - you'd probably loose 30mm off the published length anyway )

Nah, thats a common problem with Sigmas.

 

[bigrob]

839 + 1 = 840

I knew all that hard work in maths would stand me in good stead one day.

 

[Still Sport]

I doubt there are many sports photographers who have 1 chosen sport anymore! Apart from a very small minority, I would suggest that most sports photographers do not have the luxury of choosing a particular sport to cover. In reality they will try and cover as many different sports as possible in order to broaden their portfolio.

My current equipment lets me go from 24mm to 300mm @ f2.8 but I often hire other lenses to suit the sport I am shooting. A 135mm or 200mm f2 will often be useful for indoor sports and a 400mm f2.8 is great for larger events/venues. It really all depends on a number of factors so there really is no difinitive answer.

In the end, your brain is the most important piece of equipment for sports photography, even though it is hard to upgrade and often unreliable!

Cheers,

Dave

 

[cjay]

For cycling shots most of the time it's my 70-200mm f2.8 or occasionally I'll sit or lie on the inside of a bend with a 17-40mm on.

Ta for that hint - though for me it will be a 60-250/4 (Pentax don't really do long & fast any more). I've been asked to do event images for the London to Cambridge cycle ride - so it isn't a sprint - most people will have difficulty getting beyond 20mph by the time they get to Ferneux Pelham .

Any tips (other than 'not Pentax' I get that enough in other forums ). I haven't done any mid speed sport before - I'm wondering if the sigma 10-20 is surplus and the 16-50/2.8 will be wide enough for the 'low down try and make it look dynamic' - or to go for the Sigma and be damned. Also wondering if the 60-250/4 will give enough isolation (as DOF at 250mm and subject at 20m is about 1m) - as I can use a 50-135/2.8 - but then reach becomes an issue.

C