Sports photographer's opinion on long telephoto

[Microbois]

I'm thinking about purchasing the newly announced AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR to use on my Nikon D610, but I'm wondering how I will deal with its fixed focal length. I'm currently using the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 for the soccer games of my son's team and the zoom is very useful. Since I can stand on the exterior lines of the field, I need the full range of the zoom. Some of the action happens 10' away from me, but most of the exciting action happens near the goal, and the 200mm is not enough reach, so I need to crop more than half of the picture. It's OK for watching on the screen, but it gets more complicated if I want a high resolution print of it. This is getting important because I've been selling a lot of photos last summer, and intend to provide a higher quality for larger prints next summer.

For those of you who have been using a fixed lenght telephoto for sports photography, how do you deal with this inconvenience? Am I exaggerating this problem?

My other option would be to purchase a new camera body, such as this upcoming D7200 that is rumored at the moment. On an APS-C camera, my 70-200mm zoom would become the equivalent of a 105-300mm. Also, the D7200 is rumored to have a decent buffer size, and hopefully has a higher capacity than 6 i/s. If so, then I'm sure it would be a less expensive option than buying this 300mm lens (2000$). I'm quite sure the D7200 with a grip would sell for less than that, since the D7100 goes for 1000$ here in Canada, and I would have a second body which is never a bad thing.

Sorry, a 1.4x or 2x converter is not an option for me...

What would you do?

 

[Overread15 3]

Few thoughts:

1) Fixed focal length can be more tricky to work with in some ways because you can't zoom back; however at times this is not always a case of missing shots, but adapting how you work and where you're sited. A change of location might yield more keeper shots.

2) Many times Sports and other journalists will have two cameras with them to let them quickly change between wide range of focal lengths.

3) Understanding over the game and how it plays out in general will improve your chances with options 1 and 2 because when you can predict you can change to suit - or move to anticipate the direction of the ball and game.

4) Sigma makes a very nice 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens that might suit your desires. Giving you a zoom, but also a longer reach. The only downside is weight - its heavy and heavier than most 300mm f2.8 primes, (though not in a vast way

 

[astroNikon]

I take photos of my older kids soccer games. They are not on full sized fields yet but they took a pretty big step up last year.
I have a d7000 and a d600.
I also use a 80-200/2.8 and a 300/4

Here's my take so far.
I really don't want to use 2 cameras.

The 300 is great if I'm sitting in the stands, or the sidelines in a chair and don't want to move.

But I don't really do that. I move around. And I need the 80, a real 80 FOV. A 80 on my d7000 requires me to move back on closeup action. A major PITA if you ask me. So I opt to use my d600 exclusively.

Of course, you can't switch lenses fast enough during action so I just stick with my 80-200.
I make sure I'm position towards the opposing teams goal to get the action coming towards me. I don't take too many action shots way across the field unless I want to get goalie action in which case I'm going to be positioned much closer anyways.

Its a wait and see sport for photography.

I've thought of getting a 120-300 or even a 150-500 but I just haven't seen the sense in it as I still need the 80 on alot of shots. But at this point since I do it for fun and the other families for free I'm not going to carry 2 cameras as of yet. When I get to a full size field I might change my mind.

And yes, I do crop alot. Luckily we have a lot of pixels.
FWIW, I'm also NOT selling prints or anything I provide pics free online - check out my Flickr Albums.

I have the old 300/4 AF lens for about $300 ... just in case you may want to test it out before spending $2k on a new lens. Here's kinda a rundown of it ==> Nikon 300mm f/4 AF Review

With AF-D lenses you have to learn to use them because if you are off they can focus hunt which can mess things up as they may focus slower than AF-S lenses. But I love my AF-D lenses and they focus really good as I adapted my style to them.

 

[BillM]

You could just stick with what you have and shoot the 610 in crop mode.

 

[runnah]

I use a 150-600. Anything more than a 300mm is going to be stupid expensive.

 

[Braineack]

the new 300mm f/4 is $2000.

this is why many people short sports/reach with APS-C sensors.

The 150-600 isn't a bad idea if you're not shooting night games...

 

[runnah]

Yeah the 150-600 for night games is not ideal. Day time it's great.

 

[EIngerson]

I've had fantastic success with a 70-200. That said, a 300 would have been my choice for field sports. In certain situations getting a group of players is not the shot I would have preferred.

Going back to the fact you said "you don't want to use 2 cameras" I would just stick with the 70-200. You can get the results you're looking for and still get some outstanding results. I think if you showed up with the 300 alone, you'd find situations that it just left you upset.

 

[astroNikon]

That's what I forgot. When games are in the evening or heavy cloud cover. The F/2.8 n the 80-200 and the high ISO ability of the d6x0 camera comes in real handy versus my d7000.

The only advantage the d7000 has is greater than 1/4000 shutter which I've had to deal with during really bright days. But then I also have ISO 50 on the d6x0 anyways to compensate.

 

[runnah]

The biggest thing I learned from doing sport is the you aren't there to document the entire game, rather just to get quality images. That make sense?

 

[Microbois]

You could just stick with what you have and shoot the 610 in crop mode.

That's the problem with the D610, even though I have lots of pixels, I have to crop a lot, and sometimes all I'm left with a picture size of 2100 by whatever, which is not enough to even print a 8x10. I've sold lots of action-shot pictures last summer, and just decided to make it more serious next summer. I'm not looking at getting rich, it's still a hobby, but if I can sell enough to pay for the new gear and occasional upgrades, I'll be very happy. At the same time, I do not want to spend more than 2000$, as I'm not sure I would pay this expense back fast enough. This is aside all the crap I would get from SWMBO as to why I need another lens or another camera...

 

[Gary A.]

Often you'll see pros on the sidelines with only one camera and lens, often a very long lens. That is because a news photog only needs a few images and the action is typically more important than the subject. Usually, the photogs who shoot sports in the forum are shooting their kids or someone that know. The point is that pros have different objectives and needs of hobbyists.

I strongly urge a two camera system, one with the 70-200 and the other with a longer lens, either prime or zoom. The Sigma 120-300 is a great zoom for sports. Ideally, if money wasn't a concern, all your lens should be a minimum of f/2.8. The faster lens is better in low light (obviously) and @ f/2.8 provides much better subject isolation with its shallow DOF.

Using a teleconverter (1.4x or 2x) is a great way to get extra reach without breaking the bank. But an extender on a f/4 would be impractical for night sports and extenders are designed for primes. Some zooms and extender work well together, but the ideal use would be on primes.

If shooting sports is extremely important and if you need to shoot at night or indoors, then I'd give serious thought of dumping the f/4 and only purchase f/2.8 lenses.

 

[Microbois]

Thanks AstroNikon, looks like we are exactly in the same boat. You also came to realize, just as I did, that the 80mm focal lenght (70mm in my case) is very useful. So this is why I think getting a fixed length telephoto would not work for me. The D610 is great to pull useable shots in less than ideal lighting conditions, but so far I've been quite lucky as my son's team usually play at 6h30PM, so there's still plenty of light available.

Positioning is also very tricky. I tend to walk along about 100' to 150' from the middle of the field, and I pick the best side depending on the sun's position and how busy the background is. Obviously, for some shots, it would have been better to be near the goal...

As I mentioned earlier, I sold a lot of printed pictures last summer, but it was a bit of a pain to deal with those that didn't have enough pixels due to heavy cropping. For next summer, my intention was to offer my pictures to the opponent team parents as well, and I've setup a website for them to order pictures. I just want to make sure I always have enough pixels to print a 8x10 at 300 dpi, thus the reason why I'm looking at getting a longer reach lense.

 

[Braineack]

A used D7100 might be cheaper than a longer lens.

You'll have 24MP with a "closer" image. Cropping the same shot on your D610 will result in a 10MP file.

 

[imagemaker46]

I wasn't aware that there was any inconvenience in using a long lens to shoot sports. What is necessary to shoot sports well is a real understanding of the sport you are shooting. I have two bodies, one with a 300 2.8 and a 1.4 most of the time, and a 70-200 2.8 which I rarely use when shooting sports. You should decide on what you want to shoot and not try and shoot everything, you can't cover it all. If your best shots are around the goal then use the lens that gets you what you want.

Working with a long lens is much more difficult than shooting with a zoomer, in fact, most people end up shooting too loose with the zoom, even when they don't have to. I would try renting a 300mm and taking just that lens to the soccer, if you come away with 10% of what you were getting with the shorter lens, that's not too bad. First time out, you will struggle and you will be frustrated with a longer lens, you will miss most of the action, because you will still be thinking short lens.

Depending on the focal length of the lens, it becomes more difficult, unless you move to a location on the field that makes it easier, but then what would be the point of using a 600mm and then moving so far back you could do the same job with a 300mm. It all comes down to what you want to shoot. Using a 600mm for soccer from the back line, you can shoot mid field action, with a 300mm from the same position you can shoot from the just outside the goal box, 70-200mm inside the box to the net.