Which setup would you have?
- Thread starter thgmuffin
- Start date
Maybe its just the web render but the last shot of the guy jumping to grab the foot ball is all blury.
I do the same types of shoots, I use a 7d with usually 300f2.8 on one and a 70-200f2.8 on the other. Near the end I drop the 300 and put on a 17-40 to get close in shots after the game wish I had a fisheye for that.
you need faster frame rate or just luck with the 6d
I'm also looking at the 400f2.8 to,add next summer and a third body.
I do the same types of shoots, I use a 7d with usually 300f2.8 on one and a 70-200f2.8 on the other. Near the end I drop the 300 and put on a 17-40 to get close in shots after the game wish I had a fisheye for that.
you need faster frame rate or just luck with the 6d
I'm also looking at the 400f2.8 to,add next summer and a third body.
Upvote
0
thgmuffin said:
Dude, which part of our advice led you to this choice?? The tamron is just going to annoy you as f/5.6 at the long end with blurry images and poor AF accuracy is gonna just kill all the fun. You'll end up trying to sell it after 2 days.
Buy something decent now. Not later. I would rather shoot with my 70-200 f/4 IS and just crop tight rather than use the tamron at 300mm. It's that bad. I have a shot of the moon that proves this. (Somewhere!).
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
thgmuffin said:
I implore you not to buy the slow telezoom. It'll be on ebay after your first game.
A little more money spent now (say on a used 200mm f2.8L) will make a world of difference.
Pay cheap, pay twice.
There is a lot of gear snobbery on these forums, and it's all very easy for folk with big deep pockets to tell you to spend lots of money for the best results. And whilst they are generally right, they also generally lack self-awareness.
Not everybody has big deep pockets. Not everybody with deep pockets wants to empty them in a camera shop.
I don't have big deep pockets, and I'm not suggesting you go nuts with the visa card either, i'm just trying to suggest decent ways forward that will suit the money you've allocated for this job.
A used 200mm f2.8L II isn't a vast stretch, but is a different world in terms of capabilities.
AF needs light to work, so bright lenses really are best, especially as ALL canon DSLRS have centre spots that work even better with fast lenses, this includes the T2i and the 6D.
Putting a slow lens on either of these cameras is going to handicap them. With a fast lens they should be able to do a good job.
I'm not a gear snob, I've just walked this path.
I can guarantee that you'll be back a week after buying the slow telezoom asking 'what now?'
Save yourself that week, and save yourself the money you'll chuck away. I don't have shares in canon so my only interest here is stopping a fellow 'tog making the mistakes I once made.
Upvote
0
thgmuffin said:
Thgmuffin....check this link out for a comparison of the tamron 70-300 at 300 vs canon 70-200 with a 1.4x at 280mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=757&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3
The canon will focus faster and it's clearly sharper.
Also, the tamron lens will be almost worthless in 10 years, but the canon will still be worth $750 ballpark....so what's the better choice financially when you consider that the canon also will give you much better pictures?
This is my suggestion:
1. Used 70-200 2.8 ....you need 2.8 for indoor sports. NEED.
2. Buy a 1.4x extender. Now you have a 98-280 f4 for field sports....and if the lighting is poor at a night football game you can still get great shots with just a 70-200 at 2.8. (You'll just get less of them, but trust me, I've shot plenty of football and the 70-200 works just fine.
3. Work on your editing. 99% of sport shots require some editing. Cropping, sharpening, and the light.
With the three shots you posted I took the liberty of doing a 2 minute edit on a couple of them.
Workflow...
1. Straighten
2. Crop
3. Light changes and contrast
4. Sharpen and detail
Jdramirez and Paul walnuts both offered some solid advice....and I agree....don't buy a tamron 70-300 for sports
With the first pic I would normally crop tighter, but didn't have enough pixels to do it, which sometimes happens. That's when I try to crop less and tell more of a story with the shot....with this one I wanted to leave the goalpost in the picture to show that it's a possible touchdown catch.
Edited and then the original. (done with free software on an iPad)
Attachments
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
+100. I hate spending money on stuff but eventually learned that getting quality gear will save you more money in the end. The tamron will end up on ebay and you'll be down $100.
Upvote
0
As I said for anything indoors, anything at night or even heavy overcast, if you want to stop action you really should have a 2.8 lens if shooting with a 6D...this is both for being able to have high enough shutter speed to stop action as well as to have autofocus (with center point alone on AV mode). With my 6D and the 70-200 2.8 I can get pictures in these situations. With my 100-400 I simply can not even at iso's >12000 which aren't ideal. To be honest even with a 2.8 lens sometimes it's not possible at night games. Kids fields aren't always that well lit.
That being said I can get great pictures with a 2ti and the 100-400 in the middle of the day
That being said I can get great pictures with a 2ti and the 100-400 in the middle of the day
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
I don't get it if you expose the image what ever way you can using iso/aperture/time it should not matter as long as your image comes out the way the original photographer intended. Each of us have different views but its the original author who needs to make price with what he produces no?
Upvote
0
WPJ said:
In some places that have mixed lighting or really ugly lighting it won't matter how long you expose or how high the ISO - it's still ugly light! In order to create good light you'll likely need to add light via flash etc. to get a more even light or to create separation between subject and background (backlight or rim light).
However the high ISO gives you more flexibility when exposing for the ambient light and when using flash (more power).
An example is a portrait in a dimly lit restaurant; you'd want to use a higher ISO to be able to stop down a bit and get a relatively short shutter speed. Then accentuate with flash to finish the job lighting your subject. This way you get independent control of background and subject.
Upvote
0
Hmm Flash is helpful for basketball games I guess but for outdoor soccer most of the action is going to be too far away. Fast lens and high iso are your friend. I guess some people have extremely powerful flashes but my guess is that some refs and participants might object.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
Jd....I think I understand what you're saying....
I have shot at poor light sporting events where the action is stopped, and I continue to shoot manual at 1/1000 and ISO 3200, even though the subjects are moving slow or not moving much....they are exposed correctly, but the image quality would be better if I quickly switched to 1/500 and ISO 1600....or maybe 1/250 and ISO 800
I probably should use my custom settings more to do this.
Upvote
0
Northstar said:
Hey Northstar, thanks for all of your help! The tips you gave on editing and cropping are very helpful!
Right now, I can't get the high end 70-200 simply because I don't have the money. I'll use the 70-300 for friday's match and hopefully I can get some good pictures.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
