Soccer Photos, Like Night & Day

[sm4him]

Been too busy to get much posted lately, but I've shot about three soccer games since the last time I posted for C&C--AND I bought a 70-300 to use instead of my 55-300. It's no f/2.8, but I've been pleasantly surprised at the difference it's made. Can't wait till I can afford that f/2.8 lens--in a year or two

Anyway, photos. (For those who haven't seen my other threads, I'm new at sports photography, and started doing it to get photos of my niece playing). C&C welcome on all.

Every game I've shot, I've slowly upped my ISO, and every time it's not really been enough. I have a mental block about upping my ISO too much.
Finally, the last regular season game, I just went for it. Set my shutter speed to 1/500, aperture wide open (which generally meant 5.6), and then just upped the ISO until the meter was happy. Result: NOISY. NOISY. NOISY. I know, you can deal with noise in post. Only I don't really know quite how to do it and get good results. I'll have to work on that.

So, these first two are really noisy, but I did at least get some decent action, I think:

Game 1, Photo 1.

West_v_CAK_0393web by sm4him, on Flickr

Game 1, Photo 2.

West_v_CAK_0394web by sm4him, on Flickr

Then came the first playoff game--on a Saturday. At 11 a.m.! I was so excited about getting to shoot in the daylight! This was where I started to really see a difference with the 70-300 lens. Unfortunately, I got so wrapped up in the game sometimes that I forgot to SHOOT--especially when my niece scored the WINNING goal of the game!!!

Still, I think I did reasonably decent, considering I'm still trying to get this sports thing figured out.

Game 2, Photo 1.

West_v_Maryville_0267web by sm4him, on Flickr

Game 2, Photo 2.

West_v_Maryville_0308web by sm4him, on Flickr

Game 2, Photo 3

West_v_Maryville_0369web by sm4him, on Flickr

Game 2, Photo 4: Post-game photo--not really an action shot, but maybe my favorite; my niece is the one on the far left (photo left)

West_v_Maryville_0508web by sm4him, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Your results are getting better. Pretty good considering how new you are to shooting soccer, and the level of familiarity you have with modest-performance level zoom lenses. I have a Nikon 70-300 VR lens which tops out at f/5.6 at the longer range, and also a some high-priced 200,300,and 400 primes, and have shot soccer with those, as well as a Sigma 100-300 f/4 in good light, and even the clunky Nikon 80-400 VR...being limited to f/5.6 for NIGHTIME soccer on the 70-300VR is, as you found, kind of a one-hand-behind-the-back kinda deal...and even in daylight it's not exactly the most-positive focuser (does your sometimes just STOP, and not want to AF unless the focusing ring is goosed??Mine does! ken Rockwell's does...). I think you did okay on this last game, considering all the factors you had to deal with.

 

[imagemaker46]

Nice series of images. Even with that bit of noise on the first two. Your timing on the action is great.

 

[sm4him]

Thanks, Derrell and imagemaker--that means a great deal coming from the two of you, because of your expertise!

Your results are getting better. Pretty good considering how new you are to shooting soccer, and the level of familiarity you have with modest-performance level zoom lenses. I have a Nikon 70-300 VR lens which tops out at f/5.6 at the longer range, and also a some high-priced 200,300,and 400 primes, and have shot soccer with those, as well as a Sigma 100-300 f/4 in good light, and even the clunky Nikon 80-400 VR...being limited to f/5.6 for NIGHTIME soccer on the 70-300VR is, as you found, kind of a one-hand-behind-the-back kinda deal...and even in daylight it's not exactly the most-positive focuser (does your sometimes just STOP, and not want to AF unless the focusing ring is goosed??Mine does! ken Rockwell's does...). I think you did okay on this last game, considering all the factors you had to deal with.

Yeah, the 70-300 DOES seem to just STOP focusing sometimes--I'm glad you asked that, because frankly, I thought it was ME!! :lmao: I've only shot these two games with it, and when it would do that, I kept trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I never clued in to goosing the focusing ring; I probably did it accidentally and never realized that it's what made it start focusing again. Next time it happens, I'll try that and see if that's the problem--or if it IS me.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah..the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR just STOPS FOCUSING...something that I have only ever seen before with any regularity only on my Canon 50mm 1.4 EF lens...weird. The 70-300 VR just stops during portrait shoots, it does it at the beach, it does it on youth soccer...it just STOPS, and must be "goosed" to get it goin' again...it's weird...like I said, I saw this mentioned in the KR review of the lens, and sure as shootin' it will do this enough to be kind of a PITA.

 

[sm4him]

Yeah..the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR just STOPS FOCUSING...something that I have only ever seen before with any regularity only on my Canon 50mm 1.4 EF lens...weird. The 70-300 VR just stops during portrait shoots, it does it at the beach, it does it on youth soccer...it just STOPS, and must be "goosed" to get it goin' again...it's weird...like I said, I saw this mentioned in the KR review of the lens, and sure as shootin' it will do this enough to be kind of a PITA.

Well, hopefully by the time it really becomes a big enough PITA, I'll have saved enough to get a 70-200 f/2.8.

Anyone else?

 

[sm4him]

Posting one more photo, not because it's better than the others (it's not), but because it seems every so slightly less desperate than just typing "bump." :lmao:


West_v_Maryville_0119web by sm4him, on Flickr

 

[sm4him]

No added photo this time. Just a Bump.

 

[jhodges10]

I think they all look pretty good. I'm impressed with the daylight shots, the sun at 11AM had to have been a pain but none of them seems to be blown out. Agree with imagemaker you caught the action very well. I honestly can't say I remember that lens just stopping but having had it for a few years maybe I just got used to it and stopped noticing. Either way looks like its working out pretty well for you.

 

[sm4him]

I think they all look pretty good. I'm impressed with the daylight shots, the sun at 11AM had to have been a pain but none of them seems to be blown out. Agree with imagemaker you caught the action very well. I honestly can't say I remember that lens just stopping but having had it for a few years maybe I just got used to it and stopped noticing. Either way looks like its working out pretty well for you.

Thanks; I appreciate the comment!

Yes, I am LOVING the lens--so far, the issue where it stops focusing hasn't been that bothersome to me and it doesn't happen that often; happened a couple of times last night, but now that I know that goosing the focus ring makes it work again, I barely missed a shot.
And I'd forgotten, but my sister has had the same issue with hers, so if you never noticed it, perhaps you were just fortunate!
Regardless, I'm surprised by how MUCH more I like it than I did my 55-300. I'm quite pleased with the purchase!

 

[Derrel]

I went back and re-read the review of the 70-300VR, and it seems like what's going on is that the AF system STOPS mostly when the subject is far outside of the focused distance...so...and now, thinking back on it, that seems right. Like, say you're shooting at near-infinity, then swing the lens to a suddenly-appearing target at 8 feet...the lens may not rack focus inward....or vice-versa...I was shooting some closeups of my kid at 10-12 feet near the river, when I spotted a bald eagle coming overhead in some glorious light (yes, I know, weird) and swung onto the bird and the lens would NOT focus. Anyway, I re-read KR's review, and he mentioned that as long as the subject was "close" to the focusing range te lens was set to, that the AF was fast, and very accurate. And indeed, I find the 70-300 VR DOES focus well, for the most part. What I suspect is the issue is the f/4.5~f/5.6 variable aperture; f/5.6 is THE ACTUAL LIMIT of autofocus on "most" Nikon camera AF system, meaning f/5.6 is the minimum aperture for decent AF performance. Phase detection AF works a LOT better when the aperture is wider, because the "IN Focus" and "OUT of Focus" difference is much,much bigger when the f/stop is wider...at f/5.6, the cross-type AF sensors hit their limit on most bodies. So, basically, this lens is handicapped by its slow max aperture throughout its longer ranges.

But, OTOH, the optics are MUCH better than say the 55-200 my ex-wife has...I have shot that lens, and it's very "consumer"; the 70-300 VR is actually a lens that Thom Hogan lists, along with the 16-85mm AF-S VR as being the second lens in what he calls "the Two-Lens Setup" for the best quality lens kit for serious amateur users of DX format Nikons. I would classify the 70-300 as being "very high-end prosumer"...the optics on 24MP FX are actually pretty decent...its VR works great too..it is far,fat,far better than the 70-300G, and better than the 70-300, and better than the 70-300 ED....it is I think the absolute best 70-300 zoom Nikon has ever made, by a fair margin. KNOWING how the doggone thing works when it stalls is a big plus!

 

[jhodges10]

Interesting read Derrel thanks for the info. I had a 55-200 and absolutely hated it. I pawned it off on my dad.
He'd be the first to tell you he's a terrible photographer so he'll never notice how bad it is.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...I shot the 55-200 in Hawaii for about a week on her D40...zOMG...it was so,so "sketchy"....just NOT a good lens on that little Nikon...I can totally see why you dislike it...me too...just NOT my cuppa tea, even for walkabout use...

 

[sm4him]

I went back and re-read the review of the 70-300VR, and it seems like what's going on is that the AF system STOPS mostly when the subject is far outside of the focused distance...so...and now, thinking back on it, that seems right. Like, say you're shooting at near-infinity, then swing the lens to a suddenly-appearing target at 8 feet...the lens may not rack focus inward....or vice-versa...I was shooting some closeups of my kid at 10-12 feet near the river, when I spotted a bald eagle coming overhead in some glorious light (yes, I know, weird) and swung onto the bird and the lens would NOT focus. Anyway, I re-read KR's review, and he mentioned that as long as the subject was "close" to the focusing range te lens was set to, that the AF was fast, and very accurate. And indeed, I find the 70-300 VR DOES focus well, for the most part. What I suspect is the issue is the f/4.5~f/5.6 variable aperture; f/5.6 is THE ACTUAL LIMIT of autofocus on "most" Nikon camera AF system, meaning f/5.6 is the minimum aperture for decent AF performance. Phase detection AF works a LOT better when the aperture is wider, because the "IN Focus" and "OUT of Focus" difference is much,much bigger when the f/stop is wider...at f/5.6, the cross-type AF sensors hit their limit on most bodies. So, basically, this lens is handicapped by its slow max aperture throughout its longer ranges.

But, OTOH, the optics are MUCH better than say the 55-200 my ex-wife has...I have shot that lens, and it's very "consumer"; the 70-300 VR is actually a lens that Thom Hogan lists, along with the 16-85mm AF-S VR as being the second lens in what he calls "the Two-Lens Setup" for the best quality lens kit for serious amateur users of DX format Nikons. I would classify the 70-300 as being "very high-end prosumer"...the optics on 24MP FX are actually pretty decent...its VR works great too..it is far,fat,far better than the 70-300G, and better than the 70-300, and better than the 70-300 ED....it is I think the absolute best 70-300 zoom Nikon has ever made, by a fair margin. KNOWING how the doggone thing works when it stalls is a big plus!

VERY interesting information, Derrell, thanks!
That makes sense about the "close focusing range" notion--I really didn't pay attention to when it happened, but I'd be willing to guess it was times like when I'm shooting a shot on goal and then the keeper saves it and boots it clear down to the other end of the field.

Interesting read Derrel thanks for the info. I had a 55-200 and absolutely hated it. I pawned it off on my dad.
He'd be the first to tell you he's a terrible photographer so he'll never notice how bad it is.

My 55-300 really wasn't BAD, at all--in fact, I was reasonably happy with it until I started trying to shoot sports. And birds. And...okay, anything far enough away to need to the 250-300mm focal length range.
I didn't really realize what I was missing until I got something better. I'll really enjoy using the 70-300, but I gotta admit, I know enough NOW (unlike when I bought the 55-300) to know that I simply cannot WAIT until I can afford to get my hands on a 70-200 f/2.8. Patience is not my best quality.