What focal length for kid's sports?

[ymc226]

I currently use a Nikon F6 with a Nikkor 180mm ED lens and is too short for my son's soccer and lacrosse games.

What focal length range is most appropriate?

I am considering the Nikkor 70-200 with a teleconverter 1.4 or 1.7. Any thoughts? Currently only shooting B&W using Fuji neopan 400.

 

[keeds]

When I shot Hockey (Field Hockey) to you lot in the States, I used a 70-200 with 1.4 teleconverter on Digital Nikon body. You therefore need to take the 1.5x crop factor for digital into account. This would give reasonable coverage to 1/2 -> 3/4 across field. I liked to frame with as tight as possble to isolate individual and exclude untidy backgrounds.

 

[df cardwell]

The 70-200/2.8 AFS etc. etc ?

Gosh, YES ! ( I began shooting soccer with a 400 Telyt on a Nikon F / F36, and Nobby was still playing ! )

Back then, you could stand on the touch line, and for a college game, you could focus on the
18, and wait. Today, depending on how old your son is, you'll have to be back further, but
your rig will be as fast to focus as possible, and you'll have genuinely high quality imaging
and be able to watch the game as a player would. Great !

I'm jealous !

Keep a second body, with a 28mm, prefocussed to 2 meters or so. You never know !

 

[Ian Grant]

An ideal lens is the 300mm f2.8, but very expensive. Why don't you try a 1.4 converter with your 180mm.

Only the best preferably matched converters will give you the best quality, you might be better off buying a tele-zoom lens from one of the better 3rd party manufacturers. My preference would be a Tamron or Vivitar. They would be better than any lens with a converter.

Ian

 

[Lee L]

I was given some Nikon equipment by a birder a year or so ago. It included a 75-300 zoom and a 400mm prime. I found the 400 too long for the speed of soccer with my 13 year old's premier team. It was too tight for framing well with a monopod during the fast action. The zoom at 300mm felt right and performed well. I wasn't able to zoom/focus/compose all at the same time, so I left it at 300mm and went with that, as shorter zoom settings were nearly always too short. I ended up using manual exposure settings and used AF lock on the camera I was given (N8008s) to pre-focus and then reframe my shots. That was the fastest way to work and be certain that the AF didn't start to "hunt" just as I was ready for my shot.

Once the players get closer to you it becomes harder to track them because of the relatively large and fast angular motion. If you wanted to do closer shots, I'd recommend a prefocused shorter lens on a second body that's easy to grab and aim. Know your DOF on the shorter lens and the area in which the players will be sharp. I like a rangefinder for 135mm or shorter lenses because you can use 1:1 finders, keep both eyes open, and have a view of the entire field to anticipate your shots according to what's going on outside the frame.

Lee

Well, I was going to be the first to respond , but got interrupted by my 17 year old who wanted to practice loading an Isolette I in preparation for his getting one of jsfyfe's offerings, and I come back in 5 minutes to 3 excellent replies. Ya gotta love APUG. I am able to shoot from 3 feet off the touch line at both high school and premier games. I shoot from 6 yards off the end line at regular season games as well, but the refs chase you off from there during tournament play to be sure you're not distracting the goalies. I like the endline to shoot offense and get faces, but you have to choose one side of the net, and know your players. Well... knowing your players always helps no matter where you're standing.

Don, do you have the cleat and tooth marks to prove you shot Stiles?

 

[Pinholemaster]

Lacrosse - try a 400 mm lens. When I covered the sport many many years ago, I used a 300 & a 600 on two bodies.

Go Orange!! Syracuse U NCAA National Champs once again.

 

[ymc226]

I don't think the 1.4 or 1.7 TC works with the 180 in terms of auto focus.

Can anyone comment on whether you lose significant AF speed and image quality for "sports" shots using the 1.7 over the 1.4 TC?

 

[PhotoJim]

It really depends on the sport. Some sports are very shootable with shortish lenses in the 85-135 range (e.g. hockey - what you probably call ice hockey). Conversely, football (North American style) invites much longer lenses. An 80-200 is often too short, and lenses in the 300mm range are good on the sidelines, with 400 being required when shooting from the end zone.

It also depends on the light. Shooting in full daylight gives you lots of options about maximum aperture, but if you are shooting on really overcast days or under stadium lighting, really fast lenses (f/2.8 and faster) start to become extremely useful. Using teleconverters, of course, makes an f/2.8 lens into f/4 or f/5.6.

The best way to figure this out if you have many opportunities to shoot is to shoot with what you have and figure out what doesn't work for you. You'll know soon whether you need faster or longer lenses, and specifically what you might require.

 

[df cardwell]

The systematic nature of sports shooting (speed, direction, depth of field, focus tracking, etc., etc.,)
means that no individual quality stands out, but one bad component brings it all down - theoretical
image quality is offset by speed of focus, anti vibration, and so on, ensures that your proposed system will
be impossible to beat by any bag of single fixed lenses. Don't underestimate how GOOD the AFS is, or how
effective a converter will be. No lens is SO PERFECTLY integrated with the F6.

When Sports Illustrated wants you to go shoot the World Cup, they'll pick up that 400/2.8 for you.

A 300/2.8 to shoot a pro striker wreaking havoc in the area is a lot of fun. But that's a Pro issue, and only if you are looking for a front page, above the fold shot. You won't be hanging 4 cameras with long fast primes on monopods over your shoulder. Do the 70-200.

You can ALWAYS rent a monster lens for that special event.

And you HAVE to show us the pictures.

 

[keithwms]

80-200 or 70-200 VR.

I have a 300/4 that I'm not using much these days, it might interest you. Helluva lot lighter on the body and the wallet than a 300/2.8.

 

[Colin Corneau]

The 300 f/4 is a great choice. I shoot a lot of sports for a daily paper, and it's minimum of 300mm IMHO.

A lot depends on your location, too. You may be able to get away with a relatively shorter focal length (say the 180mm) if you wait by the goal and get action in front of the net. Sure you might have to wait for it, but once it arrives you're ready.

 

[nyoung]

Another vote for the 300 f/4 AF-S. Moving to the 200mm zoom gains nothing over the 180mm prime. Adding a teleconverter to either lens sends you to f/4 anyway and compromises auto focus speed.

Be sure to shop for the recent vintage AF-S version of the lens. You will be disappointed in the autofocus performance of the earlier non AF-S.

You don't say what film you are shooting but I shoot daylight high school sports with the 300/4 at f/5.6 and ISO 400 with great results. Down here in Texas many of our HS stadiums allow ISO 800 @ f/4 and 250 after dark.

In any case, THE MOST IMPORTANT EQUIPMENT FOR shooting any sports with lenses longer than 180 to 200mm is your MONOPOD.

Good Luck in your quest.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I use a 300 2.8 for indoor sports like hockey and try to use the 400 or 600 for football, soccer and baseball. But these are real costly. If you're patient with the 180 you might get something when they're fighting for the ball near the sidelines. If you're child is just on a houseleague team having fun in the sport ... why not ask if he can play a few games on the outside positions so you can get more shots of him.

If you're really bored and suppose to be working like I am right now feel free to check out my sports website at www.thepicturedesk.ca

-Rob