# Football - Steaming Pile of Noisy junk



## runnah (Sep 30, 2015)

So done with shooting football at this field. Way too dark, struggled to get to 1/400, max ISO all the time. Bleh. These were from the Canon 5dMKIII and the 7DMKII, most from the 400mm f/5.6L.

So like everything in life I am going to throw money at the problem until it goes away by renting the 300mm 2.8!




6N5A8057 by runnah555, on Flickr




6N5A8063 by runnah555, on Flickr




K52A0195 by runnah555, on Flickr




6N5A7929 by runnah555, on Flickr




K52A0091 by runnah555, on Flickr




6N5A8215 by runnah555, on Flickr




K52A0295 by runnah555, on Flickr


----------



## Braineack (Sep 30, 2015)

slippery slope renting that thing...you probably wont want to return it.


----------



## jaomul (Sep 30, 2015)

At least with that lens you can cancel your gym subscription


----------



## ronlane (Sep 30, 2015)

@runnah, I feel your frustration. My 70-200mm f/4L has me not wanting to shoot at night either.

For what it's worth, I really like #3 and I really like #6.


----------



## runnah (Sep 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> slippery slope renting that thing...you probably wont want to return it.



Probably not. But at least if I get amazing photos it would be easier to justify in my mind.


----------



## runnah (Sep 30, 2015)

ronlane said:


> @runnah, I feel your frustration. My 70-200mm f/4L has me not wanting to shoot at night either.
> 
> For what it's worth, I really like #3 and I really like #6.



Thanks. Both would have been great shots if they were less noisy and sharper.

I have an obligation to shoot these home games so I am going to power through it, but not really enjoy it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 30, 2015)

I've seen way worse images. These don't look to bad to me. I've been shooting JR football at 5000 iso, 640 at 3.5 with my 300 2.8 that don't look this good.  I struggle to get excited shooting these games as well, you see the action but the images look mushy and you wonder if it's worth it.  I've got a pro game tomorrow night, University game saturday afternoon, Jr game at 7pm saturday and another pro game on Tuesday night.  The Saturday afternoon game is the only one that will have decent light.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 30, 2015)

ronlane said:


> @runnah, I feel your frustration. My 70-200mm f/4L has me not wanting to shoot at night either.
> 
> For what it's worth, I really like #3 and I really like #6.


One reason I've bought f/2.8 lenses, except my 300 which is f/4  (and the Tamzooka).
I used my 80-200/2.8 at a night football game and did just fine on my Nikon d600.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2015)

I think you did one hell of a good job with an f/5.6 lens. My Gawd... f/5.6 has not been a "fast lens" since the 1920's man! You did okay, got good bits of action, all at f/5.6, which is dog-slow! I think these are one hell of a good example of working around a limitation. Yes, they are a bit weak color-wise due to the high ISO, and a bit watercolor-y due to NR or whatever, but really, pretty good. I've seen MUCH worse high school night football stuff over many decades from many different shooters. Overall, you took a lens that's really, badly suited to night high school football and managed to string together a good number of passable shots. High school fields often have the absolute shi*****t light possible, so the way you worked around the f/5.6 limitation makes these actually impressive to me.

I think there's a point too where going with a shorter lens, like 135 f/2, and cropping, makes a lot more sense. Of course, you don't get that telephoto look, and the backgrounds behind the action are widened out quite a bit too. But hey, this was a great way to convince yourself of the need for an f/2.8 tele, being hamstrung at f/5.6.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 30, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > @runnah, I feel your frustration. My 70-200mm f/4L has me not wanting to shoot at night either.
> ...



I'm doing all I can to put together the money for a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (either the original or the II). But getting the 7D mk II in July broke the bank for a while.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 30, 2015)

Acceptable images in my book, but consider the source 

They look better on Flickr.   Have you considered the 70-200 2.8 also?


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I think you did one hell of a good job with an f/5.6 lens. My Gawd... f/5.6 has not been a "fast lens" since the 1920's man! You did okay, got good bits of action, all at f/5.6, which is dog-slow! I think these are one hell of a good example of working around a limitation. Yes, they are a bit weak color-wise due to the high ISO, and a bit watercolor-y due to NR or whatever, but really, pretty good. I've seen MUCH worse high school night football stuff over many decades from many different shooters. Overall, you took a lens that's really, badly suited to night high school football and managed to string together a good number of passable shots. High school fields often have the absolute shi*****t light possible, so the way you worked around the f/5.6 limitation makes these actually impressive to me.
> 
> I think there's a point too where going with a shorter lens, like 135 f/2, and cropping, makes a lot more sense. Of course, you don't get that telephoto look, and the backgrounds behind the action are widened out quite a bit too. But hey, this was a great way to convince yourself of the need for an f/2.8 tele, being hamstring at f/5.6.



Agree.  I am shooting from the stands, but I am stuck at F4 with both 70-200f4 and 300f4 lenses.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 30, 2015)

ronlane said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...


Yeah, the money part stinks.
The official photographer at the football games here uses a nikon d750 and the Tamzooka.
FWIW, my equipment is older but it costs a lot less. My 300/4 AF is a screw focus lens, but only cost $300 the other year used.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 30, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I think you did one hell of a good job with an f/5.6 lens. My Gawd... f/5.6 has not been a "fast lens" since the 1920's man! You did okay, got good bits of action, all at f/5.6, which is dog-slow! I think these are one hell of a good example of working around a limitation. Yes, they are a bit weak color-wise due to the high ISO, and a bit watercolor-y due to NR or whatever, but really, pretty good. I've seen MUCH worse high school night football stuff over many decades from many different shooters. Overall, you took a lens that's really, badly suited to night high school football and managed to string together a good number of passable shots. High school fields often have the absolute shi*****t light possible, so the way you worked around the f/5.6 limitation makes these actually impressive to me.
> ...



Well you can send me your 300 f/4 and I'll use it on the sidelines   lol


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 30, 2015)

Look better than the title sounds. I'd just watch the framing so feet/hands aren't chopped off at awkward places. Glad when I ever occasionally ventured out of a hockey arena onto the sidelines it was daytime.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 30, 2015)

Nice!


----------



## runnah (Sep 30, 2015)

Thanks guys and gals I feel a little better about the end result.


----------



## runnah (Sep 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I think you did one hell of a good job with an f/5.6 lens. My Gawd... f/5.6 has not been a "fast lens" since the 1920's man! You did okay, got good bits of action, all at f/5.6, which is dog-slow! I think these are one hell of a good example of working around a limitation. Yes, they are a bit weak color-wise due to the high ISO, and a bit watercolor-y due to NR or whatever, but really, pretty good. I've seen MUCH worse high school night football stuff over many decades from many different shooters. Overall, you took a lens that's really, badly suited to night high school football and managed to string together a good number of passable shots. High school fields often have the absolute shi*****t light possible, so the way you worked around the f/5.6 limitation makes these actually impressive to me.
> 
> I think there's a point too where going with a shorter lens, like 135 f/2, and cropping, makes a lot more sense. Of course, you don't get that telephoto look, and the backgrounds behind the action are widened out quite a bit too. But hey, this was a great way to convince yourself of the need for an f/2.8 tele, being hamstrung at f/5.6.




Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. . I might try the 7-200 2.8 on the 7d and see if they yields good results.


----------



## snerd (Sep 30, 2015)

I used my 5D3 with the 70-200 2.8 IS II last week at grandsons football game, and immediately missed the longer crop of my 7D1


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 30, 2015)

snerd said:


> I used my 5D3 with the 70-200 2.8 IS II last week at grandsons football game, and immediately missed the longer crop of my 7D1
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


Where were you shooting from,  field or stands?


----------



## EIngerson (Sep 30, 2015)

I am absolutely jealous that you can shoot night games at ISO 6400. All mine have been 12800 or 16000. Either way, nicely done!!


Edit: Your noise is a personal beat down. Your photos are completely acceptable.


----------



## snerd (Oct 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > I used my 5D3 with the 70-200 2.8 IS II last week at grandsons football game, and immediately missed the longer crop of my 7D1
> ...


From stands.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 1, 2015)

snerd said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



I'm in the stands also.  I find myself switching back and forth from horizontal to vertical constantly (depending on the distance of the action) when using the 300mm.  The versatility of the 70-200 just works - most of the time.


----------



## BillM (Oct 3, 2015)

I'd stay home if I had to shoot at my field at f/5.6 !!!!!!

These are more than acceptable noise wise, I've been shooting with shutter speeds between 400-650 with ISO ranging from 4000 to 8000 and that's at f/2.8 lol


----------

