# HS Football, first photos with 70-200 2.8



## Destin (Oct 4, 2010)

I've been wanting to get into shooting local high school football for a while now, but didn't have a fast enough telephoto to do so. I just got my Sigma 70-200 2.8, so I figured I'd go try it out. Still not really happy with the results once it gets totally dark out, my d40 simply doesn't perform well enough in low light situations (high iso, poor 3pt. AF). Anyway, what do you guys think of these: (sorry for the watermark, it is a much needed evil..too many players were stealing my photos using print screen. I wish they weren't covering faces in some, but smugmug doesn't let me adjust them on each photo individually, and if I put them in the corner it doesn't really serve it's purpose.

1.)






[/url][/IMG]

2.)





[/url][/IMG]

3.)





[/url][/IMG]

4.)





[/url][/IMG]

5.)





[/url][/IMG]

6.)





[/url][/IMG]

7.)





[/url][/IMG]


----------



## smlblk396 (Oct 4, 2010)

good shots I like them does the sigma cost that much less


----------



## Destin (Oct 4, 2010)

smlblk396 said:


> good shots I like them does the sigma cost that much less



Thanks!! The sigma is $800. The Nikon is $1,700. You tell me it its that much cheaper lol


----------



## smlblk396 (Oct 5, 2010)

the sigma for the canon is not that much in cost diff. on B&H


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

smlblk396 said:


> the sigma for the canon is not that much in cost diff. on B&H



Sigma does make a more expensive one that has their version of IS/VR (they call it OS). That one is like $1600, so in that case I would buy the nikon or canon, of course. But the most popular sigma by far is the $800 one:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579-101 -


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

bump


----------



## Kenny32 (Oct 5, 2010)

These were shot with a D40? I never would have thought. Did you use a flash?

You did great work with the equipment you have...HS football is not easy...


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 5, 2010)

The non-vr nikon competitor to the sigma would be the 80-200 f/2.8 which is 1100 new.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> The non-vr nikon competitor to the sigma would be the 80-200 f/2.8 which is 1100 new.



Which won't AF on my d40, and is still 300 more.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

Kenny32 said:


> These were shot with a D40? I never would have thought. Did you use a flash?
> 
> You did great work with the equipment you have...HS football is not easy...




Yeah, D40 at iso 1600. I never would have though it either. I did not use any flash. 

There was a lady there with a canon 50d, 70-200 2.8 is, and a 580ex 2 flash unit running on an external battery pack. My photos came out better than hers for some reason. I really can't believe my eyes, This is what I was getting with my old 55-200:






[/url]DSC_3163_8887 by ddanser229, on Flickr[/IMG]

and this is AFTER noise reduction in cs5!!! of course this was at iso 3200 (Hi 1)


----------



## smlblk396 (Oct 5, 2010)

WOW what a difference that made very nice shots


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

Yeah, it definitley made a huge difference. I'm going to try shooting high school volleyball in a gym tonight. I had a much harder time with this than football last time so we'll see what happens


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 5, 2010)

need more PP.. too dark.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> need more PP.. too dark.



Yeah, I'm well aware. I tried to brighten them up but then the noise from shooting high iso became too apparent. This is the best I could do. Feel free to give it a shot it you want


----------



## cnutco (Oct 5, 2010)

Destin said:


> Yeah, it definitley made a huge difference. I'm going to try shooting high school volleyball in a gym tonight. I had a much harder time with this than football last time so we'll see what happens



Yes, the lighting in the school gyms look to be ok until you take the first shot.  Hope you pictures turn out as nice as the football pictures.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

cnutco said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it definitley made a huge difference. I'm going to try shooting high school volleyball in a gym tonight. I had a much harder time with this than football last time so we'll see what happens
> ...




Here is a link to the volleyball photos if your interested.  

I dont have time to embed any right now...


----------



## kundalini (Oct 5, 2010)

Sorry, but your watermarks detract so much that I won't give any serious look.

However, check your horizons.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

I understand that.

Unfortunately they are a necessary evil. 

My horizons are definitley off, but I wasn't shooting with a monopod either. I think that will help quite a bit


----------



## kundalini (Oct 5, 2010)

Two clicks in something like Lightroom or ACR and Bob's your uncle to fix horizons.  Other software wants an integer.  Not a real problem as long as you self censor before posting.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 5, 2010)

The Nikkor 70-200 VR2 is $2200... even worse.  Epic lens though.

Agree on the watermark.  Makes it hard to look. *shrug*


----------



## Kenny32 (Oct 5, 2010)

Yeah, Horizons are off...but completely able to fix in PS, LR, or whatever you use...

Otherwise, I really like how they came out...I'm really impressed with your ability to handle your D40...They aren't noisy, and even though there is motion blur, it's nothing that I wouldn't expect from the equipment your using. Good job.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2010)

Kenny32 said:


> Yeah, Horizons are off...but completely able to fix in PS, LR, or whatever you use...
> 
> Otherwise, I really like how they came out...I'm really impressed with your ability to handle your D40...They aren't noisy, and even though there is motion blur, it's nothing that I wouldn't expect from the equipment your using. Good job.



Thanks. I'm working on fixing them all in LR3 now.


----------



## Kenny32 (Oct 6, 2010)

And don't worry about using a monopod with a 70-200...Even with a monopod my horizons come out messed up sometimes simply because you will always have a tendency to tilt it a little bit during fast action...Monopods are really meant to relieve the weight of heavier lenses, not keep your equipment level.


----------



## CNCO (Oct 6, 2010)

im looking to buy the 70-200 f2.8, the best i have found is 1200$


----------



## Destin (Oct 6, 2010)

CNCO said:


> im looking to buy the 70-200 f2.8, the best i have found is 1200$



All these photos were with the $800 sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG Macro HSM 2. It's all I had to spend, so I went with it. No regrets at all. The focus issues some experienced have not been a problem, and it's built like a tank. Can't say enough about this lens, its does what I need it to do, and it does a great job at it.


----------

