Football - Steaming Pile of Noisy junk

[runnah]

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]

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

 

[jaomul]

At least with that lens you can cancel your gym subscription

 

[ronlane]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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.

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]

Acceptable images in my book, but consider the source

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

 

[JacaRanda]

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]

@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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[vintagesnaps]

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.