D-70, Hockey & a new lens

[Chrissie]

Okay - I have been getting pretty good pictures with my 70-300mm f4.5-6 lens for my hockey shots. But I want even better shots! It was suggested I get a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. But which one??? What am I going to lose by going from a 300mm to a 200mm? Am I going to be able to further zoom on the pc and still have clarity of the pic?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! I am looking to buy a new lens soon as our local AHL team has made it to the playoffs! Yeah!!

Chrissie

[Photo-John]

Okay - I have been getting pretty good pictures with my 70-300mm f4.5-6 lens for my hockey shots. But I want even better shots!

Chrissie-
What would be better for you? What is it that you'd like a new lens to do for you? It's important for you to determine that before you spend any money. It's possible that practicing and learning technique is more important for you right now. That said, the 70-200 f/2.8 pro lens is arguably one of the most polished and best-performing pieces of photo equipment you can buy now. The auto focus is and accurate as it gets, the optics are magic, and the f/2.8 aperture gives you a bright view when you're shooting and helps with low light photos. The obvious choice for you would be the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR Nikkor: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat...6_3128crx.aspx

And Sigma has a 120-300mm f/2.8 that I've been dreaming of for a couple of years now: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat...2_3128crx.aspx

Both lenses are very expensive. But they will definitely make a difference for your hockey photography. Just don't expect equipment to replace technique. New gear is great and it does help. But practice and technique are what make great photos.

[Chrissie]

Hi! What I am looking to accomplish is to get crisper pictures. Here is one that I have taken with my 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor:



And here is one that someone else has taken with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (not sure which one):



As you can see the second one is much crisper.

As much as I would love to have the lens you suggested, it is a little too pricey for me right now. How does that one compare with the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor? That is one that is closer to my price range... but is it worth the money (ie. am I going to get better results with the f/2.8 versus my current f/4.5-6?)

Also - any suggestions on what my setting should be on my camera to improve my shots would be appreciated as well.

Thanks!
Chrissie

[JBPhoto]

Chrissy - I've been shooting lots of hockey this winter with a 75-300 f/4-5.6 and every now and then come up with a decent action shot. The shot below is one of them, though its a bit noisey. I shot it with a 20D in shutter priority, 1/250, f/7.1 and ISO 1600.
Attachment 24317

In both of the shots you've posted, the subjects are basically standing still. I think the big difference will be when you set your ISO and shutter speed to to capture the action, you'll lose the necessary light. Try to compensate and you'll have lots of blur.

I'm no expert and I'm fairly new to this myself, but I've read enough to convince me to order a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, which I just did this morning. Can't wait til it arrives.

[JBPhoto]

Chrissy - I've been shooting lots of hockey this winter with a 75-300 f/4-5.6 and every now and then come up with a decent action shot. The shot below is one of them, though its a bit noisey. I shot it with a 20D in shutter priority, 1/250, f/7.1 and ISO 1600.

In both of the shots you've posted, the subjects are basically standing still. I think the big difference will be when you set your ISO and shutter speed to to capture the action, you'll lose the necessary light. Try to compensate and you'll have lots of blur. At least this is whats been driving me nuts.

I'm no expert and I'm fairly new to this myself, but I've read enough to convince me to order a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, which I just did this morning. Can't wait til it arrives.

[Chrissie]

In both of the shots you've posted, the subjects are basically standing still.

Hi - Actually the second one is moving (he is being escorted off the ice!)

The person who took the second picture gets clearer action shots as well. I just want to make sure getting a new lense will benefit me or if I should just save and get the awesome lens that Photo-John suggested.

Chrissie

[JSPhoto]

Chrissy,

In post processing are you using unsharp mask? If not, try it and see if that helps any.

You should be able to adjust the in camera sharpening as well, see if that helps. If not, it could be a lens issue. I'm not sure about Nikon lenses and which are good and which are not.

JS

[Redo]

Chrissy, in your two picture example the other photographer used focusing to bring out the subject.

In your shot the graphics, on the boards, are ledgible in the background and the graphics are blurred in the other photographers shot. Blurring the background highlights the subject and in the case of sports images tend to look crisper.

While there is a chance that your camera is focused on the boards instead of the player, it is equally possible your lens @ f5.6 was sharp enough to focus both the player and the board.

From an equipment point, it is easier to blur background with a wider lens like an f2.8 rather than your F5.6. The trade off is mass. Lenses with larger apertures are generally a heavier than lenses with smaller apertures. You might want to go a camera store and wield a XX-200mm f2.8 zoom to see if you want deal with the mass.

Red

[Lava Lamp]

Okay - I have been getting pretty good pictures with my 70-300mm f4.5-6 lens for my hockey shots. But I want even better shots! It was suggested I get a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. But which one??? What am I going to lose by going from a 300mm to a 200mm? Am I going to be able to further zoom on the pc and still have clarity of the pic?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! I am looking to buy a new lens soon as our local AHL team has made it to the playoffs! Yeah!!

Chrissie

I have the 70-200 VR lens. It's great. The VR, however, is useless for action shots. With hockey, you will need shutter speeds of 1/125 to 1/250 to avoid motion blur. At 1/125, many of your shots will be blurry, but you may get some keepers. Compared to your current lens, the 70-200 will focus faster and give you more choice in shutter speed or ISO. 200mm may be the right length depending on your seat. You can get a used 80-200mm 2.8 for $500 or so. The AF-S version with the faster focusing motor would be several hundred dollars more.

[Chrissie]

Thanks! Nice catch - I didn't even notice that! Do you have any suggestions on what I should put my settings at? I am sure I don't have them set the way they should be. I am still an amatuer when it comes to this! I have just been using the Sport setting on my Nikon D70 with a few minor tweakings. Should I use a manual setting instead? Everytime I try that I can't seem to get the right combination and the pics come out like crap!

Thanks!!!
Chrissie

[JSPhoto]

Take your good shots from your "sports setting" and set your camera in manual to those settings. Whatch your meter, and adjust from there.
From there you will learn how to adjust for different situations.

JS

[ACArmstrong]

I shoot hockey with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 - you can see examples here: http://www.icebearsphotos.com - I love then lens and it cost about half what the Canon = would have cost.