# HS Football  C&C



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

Here a couple of shots for the first football scrimage. This was my first time using my new D700 for sports.  Shot with D700 and 80-200 2.8

#1


#2

These next 3 are a sequence in a touchdown
#3

#4

#5


C&C welcome.  All of these are heavily cropped and I feel as though I need a longer lens, but a 300 2.8 is not in the budget of a high schooler:cry:. I am the photographer my high school yearbook.

Justin


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 15, 2012)

They must get tired running up hill, make sure you straighten up the horizon all the time.  Even though you have already cropped them, they could use a lot more cropping.  Thry aren't too bad, just keep at it.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 15, 2012)

Like image said, they could be cropped in a lot more. If the 200mm isn't doing it for you, have you looked into a teleconverter? [h=3]AF-S _Teleconverter_ TC-20E III from _Nikon_[/h]


----------



## TheLost (Aug 15, 2012)

I shoot high school football... here are a couple of things I'd work on.

As noted, fix your horizon.  Thinking  about it when you take the shot is best... but fix it in post.

Don't be afraid to crop.  Not only will your final images be cleaned up.. but it makes you think about what makes a good shot.  Over time you'll notice you are taking better framed images and have to crop less.

Use your f/2.8!!! Seperate the subject from the background.  The focus point should be the players and not the sideline. A shallow dof will make your images look more professional.

Shoot practices, shoot games, shoot scrimmages... learn where the play is going.  The a more you know about the game you'll get better shots.

And my final advice is... not all the action happens on the field.  Some of the most powerful pictures from the Olympics are the emotions after the events.  The cheers and tears, the screaming coaches, the players being carried off the field and the crazy fans. 

High school football is a crazy experiance.... have fun!!


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Like image said, they could be cropped in a lot more. If the 200mm isn't doing it for you, have you looked into a teleconverter? *AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon*


As far as I know there are no TCs that autofocus with the 80-200 af-d


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 15, 2012)

jmandell said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Like image said, they could be cropped in a lot more. If the 200mm isn't doing it for you, have you looked into a teleconverter? *AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon*
> ...



There are TCs that will focus with the D, I didn't know that's the one you had though.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 15, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Use your f/2.8!!! Seperate the subject from the background.  The focus point should be the players and not the sideline. A shallow dof will make your images look more professional.



Even @ 2.8, the subject isn't that close for the sidelines to be blurred out. He's using a 80-200mm. For it to "_look more professional_" with a shallow DOF, he would have to be much closer to the object, or have a much longer lens. If the subject is in the center of the field, there is 80 ft behind him that is still slightly in focus @ 200mm f/2.8.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

They seem really rather dark. 
Aim for the emotion of the game. Don't be afraid to use your lens at 200 ALL of the time. I shoot football with a 70-200 while wishing I had a 400mm. 
Are you able to be on the sidelines or do you have to be back further?


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 15, 2012)

The D700 has enough resolution to crop way more than you are doing.  This is also a good example of why I prefer shooting football crop frame anyway.  You get more reach, and since the files are smaller you can shoot faster.  

Also, one good strategy is to make a constant mental inventory of where your clean backgrounds are, and always be searching for shots that line up there.  Pro sports photographers will have a lot more clean backgrounds, and the only time you see a busy background from a pro sports photographer is when it was a moment that just transcended everything and it couldn't have been captured otherwise.  This is not an accident.  They make a mental notes of where their clean backgrounds are going to be, where they need to be to get those backgrounds, and as the action marches in that direction, they quickly position themselves to get the perfect shot with the perfect background.  

Also, try to shoot lower more often.  This is especially important for high school football, because the kids aren't very big (or at least compared to NFL).  In the NFL you'll see pro shooting only half stooping.  But the average NFL player is about 6'5".  The average high school player is probably 5'10".  That means you have to shoot a good bit lower to get the same perspective.  Even though you were shooting from the sidelines, a lot of these look like you were shooting slightly downwards.  Shooting up more will also help you backgrounds as well, as sky is better than parents milling about.


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> They seem really rather dark.
> Aim for the emotion of the game. Don't be afraid to use your lens at 200 ALL of the time. I shoot football with a 70-200 while wishing I had a 400mm.
> Are you able to be on the sidelines or do you have to be back further?


I did brighten them a little in Lightroom but I didn't focus so much on making them perfect in PP as this was a scrimmage and practice for me.  I was more focused on getting good composition.  There was also a lot of clouds that would darken the field for a few seconds and it would brighten up again.  And yes I am able to get on the sidelines.  All of these were 200mm.


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> The D700 has enough resolution to crop way more than you are doing.  This is also a good example of why I prefer shooting football crop frame anyway.  You get more reach, and since the files are smaller you can shoot faster.
> 
> Also, one good strategy is to make a constant mental inventory of where your clean backgrounds are, and always be searching for shots that line up there.  Pro sports photographers will have a lot more clean backgrounds, and the only time you see a busy background from a pro sports photographer is when it was a moment that just transcended everything and it couldn't have been captured otherwise.  This is not an accident.  They make a mental notes of where their clean backgrounds are going to be, where they need to be to get those backgrounds, and as the action marches in that direction, they quickly position themselves to get the perfect shot with the perfect background.
> 
> Also, try to shoot lower more often.  This is especially important for high school football, because the kids aren't very big (or at least compared to NFL).  In the NFL you'll see pro shooting only half stooping.  But the average NFL player is about 6'5".  The average high school player is probably 5'10".  That means you have to shoot a good bit lower to get the same perspective.  Even though you were shooting from the sidelines, a lot of these look like you were shooting slightly downwards.  Shooting up more will also help you backgrounds as well, as sky is better than parents milling about.


That makes sense what you are saying about height, I'm a pretty big guy ~6'4".  

I will try to crop out some more.  I have always been afraid to crop to much and lose resolution.


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

I also saw on ebay that 300 2.8 af-i lenses are going for ~$1500 to $2000.  Is the auto focus on these fast enough for sports?  I might be able to get one if we sell off some of our old glass.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 15, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Use your f/2.8!!! Seperate the subject from the background. The focus point should be the players and not the sideline. A shallow dof will make your images look more professional.
> ...





Ballistics said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Use your f/2.8!!! Seperate the subject from the background. The focus point should be the players and not the sideline. A shallow dof will make your images look more professional.
> ...



True.. but it should still be more 'blurred out' then the photos posted.  I shoot from the sidelines with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8...  at mid field (80 feet) you'll have a ~5.5ft in focus... things out at 160ft should be nice and blurry. 

If you look at the Exif details of image #3 you'll see it was shot at f/6.3... he/she has a decent lens... use it! 

(side note... Image #3 was also shot with a shutter of 1/800 & ISO 400..  you should be able to bump that D700 to a higher ISO and get a faster shutter.. i would stay as high above 1/1000 as possible to keep things sharp).


----------



## TheLost (Aug 15, 2012)

jmandell said:


> I also saw on ebay that 300 2.8 af-i lenses are going for ~$1500 to $2000.  Is the auto focus on these fast enough for sports?  I might be able to get one if we sell off some of our old glass.



The older af-i lenses aren't know for their speed... The 300 f/4 AF-S might be better choice in the same price range.

The problem with a fixed focus lens is that you'll loose flexibility.  Most of the people you'll see walking around with a 400mm (maybe a 300mm) at football games will have a 2nd body hanging around their neck with a 70-200mm attached.

Shooting sports isn't cheap


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

TheLost said:


> jmandell said:
> 
> 
> > I also saw on ebay that 300 2.8 af-i lenses are going for ~$1500 to $2000.  Is the auto focus on these fast enough for sports?  I might be able to get one if we sell off some of our old glass.
> ...


I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance.  It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700


----------



## TheLost (Aug 15, 2012)

jmandell said:


> I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance.  It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700



The D700 is a great camera.. You will love it when you start shooting games at night.

If it was me...  and i had a few bucks to spend... I'd probably start thinking about selling the 80-200 f/2.8 and picking up a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for the focus-speed-upgrade you'll notice.

Then you can start thinking about a longer lens


----------



## jmandell (Aug 15, 2012)

TheLost said:


> jmandell said:
> 
> 
> > I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance.  It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700
> ...


Is a VRII really necessary considering I shoot on a monopod.  I think VRI would be more attainable.  I have been considering one of those for the compatibility with teleconverters

I also have some other stuff of mine I could get some more lens money, so this goal might be attainable


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 15, 2012)

jmandell said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > jmandell said:
> ...



The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 15, 2012)

During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3.  Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless.  During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 16, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.



Correct... Nikons 70-200 f/2.8's are super fast to focus.

The VRI is an awesome lens (and the one i use).  I shoot DX so i don't really notice its weaknesses... You can get a 'like new' or refurbished for around $1700 and a nice used one for ~$1.5k.  The newer VRII is still the king and better then the VRI.

I spent a year with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II (non-os).. I would recommend that over the newer OS model.  For $1.3k you are very close to the price of a used Nikon VRI.  I've played with the Sigma OS model.. and while its a nice lens it's not in the same league as Nikon's version.  (im a big fan of sigma lenses so that hurts me to say  )


----------



## TheLost (Aug 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3.  Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless.  During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.



Can i ask why you shoot 5.6 and 6.3 during the day?


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 16, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.
> ...



I disagree completely here.

How is in a different league? And for $1.3k you are getting a brand new lens with a 3 year warranty. If you want to buy used, you can find this lens used for $1000. I did a ton of research and testing before I bought this lens.
I was going to go with Nikon, and almost bought a used VRI from someone on here, but for a brand new lens of competing quality I couldn't be happier for the price. Also, the non OS is an inferior lens.


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 16, 2012)

TheLost said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3.  Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless.  During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.
> ...



rhymes with carpness, montrast and duller paturation


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 16, 2012)

TheLost said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3.  Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless.  During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.
> ...



It still gives enough separation between the players and the backgrounds while allowing for more sharpness.  At 2.8 on a  bright day you'd have to be shooting at 100iso and 2000th second.  5.6-6.3  allows you to shoot 200-400iso at between 800-1000th.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 17, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> I disagree completely here.
> 
> How is in a different league? And for $1.3k you are getting a brand new lens with a 3 year warranty. If you want to buy used, you can find this lens used for $1000. I did a ton of research and testing before I bought this lens.
> I was going to go with Nikon, and almost bought a used VRI from someone on here, but for a brand new lens of competing quality I couldn't be happier for the price. Also, the non OS is an inferior lens.



I was very happy with my Sigma, and it sounds like you love yours also.  

However.. The Nikon's (vr and vrII) are built better (all metal, not plastic), weather sealed, and have better optics.  I'm not a Nikon fanboy... but the Sigma 70-200 OS (while a good lens) isn't a Nikon 70-200.  There is a reason a used VRI sells for ~$200 less then it did new when it came out in 2002.

As for warranty... My sigmas 'rubber' paint started to peel after a few months... Sigma (and their '3 year warranty') wouldn't cover replacing it, they called it normal wear and tear.  Do a search.. you'll see its common with sigmas coating.  My 6 year old VRI is just as smooth/tight as the day it left the factory. 

One is a 'PRO' lens... The other is a consumer lens..


----------



## jaicatalano (Aug 17, 2012)

Can we crop number 5 and call it love is in the air?


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 17, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree completely here.
> ...



You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses. 

I guess this is an agree to disagree here, because in direct comparison the Sigma is a direct competitor to the Nikon. 
The AF is incredible, the optics are excellent and it's build is great. The Nikon does have a better build but is not worth the extra $1000.

As for the weather seal, not really a concern for me. One could easily slip a plastic sleeve over the lens in the rain. None of my lenses are weather sealed and I've never had
an issue with not having it. 

The peeling paint is not something I would expect to be covered under warranty. VRIs are very hard to find at a decent price.  

I've had this lens for a couple of months, used it for outdoor and indoor sports and I always push it's limits and am never disappointed.

It's very hard to find a used VRI under 1500. Amazon has the Sigma OS used for around 975, that is if used is your thing.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 17, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses.
> 
> I guess this is an agree to disagree here, because in direct comparison the Sigma is a direct competitor to the Nikon.
> The AF is incredible, the optics are excellent and it's build is great. The Nikon does have a better build but is not worth the extra $1000.
> ...



I have shot with both of the sigma 70-200's. The original and the OS version and I have also shoot with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. 
I'll tell you that the 70-200 f/2.8OS by sigma is a VERY different bird than the non OS version. It is a metal build and is considerably sharper and faster to focus than the other. The NON OS version is a macro lens as well-which are generally slower to focus.  So is the Tamron. 
I much preferred the tamron over the original Sigma 70-200 in terms of sharpness, although I believe it was a bit slower than even the sigma to focus. I managed sports with it. It was not IDEAL, but it did work for me. The NEW Sigma? Made my life so much easier. Focus is awesome on it, silent and it is also sharper than the Tamron.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses.
> ...



Yeah the OS is definitely a tough competitor.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 17, 2012)

I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS... I shot an indoor swim meet, pee-wee football game and a High School basketball game (indoors) with it.  My PERSONAL opinion was image quality was the same as my non-os HSMII.  It also fogged up like crazy at the swim meet.. to the point i thought i'd have to pay the owner to get it fixed :blushing:. 

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is a great lens.. It was/is my opinion that for sports (like the subject of this thread) the OS version is priced too close to a used Nikon 70-200 vri (I can point you to a few right now for $1400 - $1600).

All of this is my opinion.. and everybody on the internet has one 

However... calling it just as good as Nikon's 70-200? I would like you to find me one 'professional' review that says that.  I can find you 100's that say Nikon's 70-200 (both vr1 and vr2) are the benchmarks.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 17, 2012)

TheLost said:


> I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS... I shot an indoor swim meet, pee-wee football game and a High School basketball game (indoors) with it.  My PERSONAL opinion was image quality was the same as my non-os HSMII.  It also fogged up like crazy at the swim meet.. to the point i thought i'd have to pay the owner to get it fixed :blushing:.
> 
> The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is a great lens.. It was/is my opinion that for sports (like the subject of this thread) the OS version is priced too close to a used Nikon 70-200 vri (I can point you to a few right now for $1400 - $1600).
> 
> ...



When the lens fogged up, did you come in from the cold into the pool?  I'm surprised that it would fog up at all.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 17, 2012)

I have gone from the cold inside and had a fog issue, but never anything like that and not for very long.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 17, 2012)

TheLost said:


> I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS... I shot an indoor swim meet, pee-wee football game and a High School basketball game (indoors) with it.  My PERSONAL opinion was image quality was the same as my non-os HSMII.  It also fogged up like crazy at the swim meet.. to the point i thought i'd have to pay the owner to get it fixed :blushing:.
> 
> The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is a great lens.. It was/is my opinion that for sports (like the subject of this thread) the OS version is priced too close to a used Nikon 70-200 vri (I can point you to a few right now for $1400 - $1600).
> 
> ...



They are the benchmarks. I said that the OS was a direct competitor not an equivalent. The Nikon is a better lens, as I said. But it's not $1000 better.  

For the price points, if you are going to compare, then compare the used Sigma, not the brand new lens. That wouldn't even make a bit of sense would it?
The Nikon is still $500 more expensive if comparing used price points. 

Bottom line - The Sigma OS is excellent at it's price point and gives the Nikon a run for it's money. 

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG OS Lens: First Impressions After a Few Weeks of Shooting (Nikon D7000) - YouTube
70-200mm f2.8 shootout - Part 4 - Sigma OS vs Tamron vs Nikon VRII - Conclusion & focus issues - YouTube


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I have gone from the cold inside and had a fog issue, but never anything like that and not for very long.



The only fog issue I have ever had, was with my camera, not the lens. Going from an ice cold car to a very humid hot summer day caused the mirror on my camera to fog.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 17, 2012)

This is why I asked the question, I've also gone from shooting football in november and then into the dressing room and the lens and camera fog up, I learned that lesson 35 years ago.  Taking cold gear into a humid atmosphere the gear will fog up.


----------

