Sports Photography for beginner

Beh162 · May 13, 2012

I'll be attending a night soccer match @ a well lite stadium and what I'm trying to accomplish is this picture below:

Sounders womens team v UW women's soccer team | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I have a Rebel t2i with EF-S 18-55mm (f3.5-5.6IS) & EF-S 55-250MM (f/4-5.6)

From what I've read I should have my shutter speed @ 1/500+, lowest F/stop, and high ISO. Any other suggestions that I should use to get that type of effect? What mode to be shooting in? I was thinking M so I can change all the settings myself.
Any advice/tips would be great! I'll be going to a few soccer practices this week so I plan on some trial & error.

KmH · May 13, 2012

What looks to a human as a well lit stadium, looks like a deep dark hole to a DSLR camera. Your consumer grade lenses will be a hinderance, because of their limited maximum apertures. Your T2i does not have the high ISO performance on would hope to have for that type of shooting situation.

That said, photos that have a lot of image noise from a high ISO setting, are better than blurry photos from to slow a shutter speed.

Yes, you will need about 1/500 for a shutter speed. If you can catch action just at the peak as everyone stops moving, you might get by with 1/250.

TCampbell · May 13, 2012

The shot that opens happens to be taken at f/2.8 -- as were many (but not all) of those shots.

Each "full" f-stop DOUBLES (or halves depending on whether you're going up or down) the amount of light the lens gathers (and thus how much is collected by the sensor.) The full stops going from f/5.6 to f/2.8 are: f/5.6 -> f/4 -> f/2.8. That's two full stops -- or FOUR times as much light. This means if the fastest you can possibly shoot with your f/5.6 is 1/125th then an f/2.8 lens could take that same shot at the same ISO using 1/500th. That makes a pretty big difference.

You are correct that you generally want 1/500th (to freeze action). Sometimes you can freeze action at 1/250th (depending on speed & direction), but usually you'll need 1/500th.

Ideally you want the lowest ISO you can manage which will still allow shooting at 1/500th. This might be ISO 1600 or 3200. You'll get more "noise" in the image (the image will look very grainy) as you crank up the ISO. But your choices are: (a) blurry action shots or (b) sharp actions shots that have a lot of noise. You can use software to reduce the amount of noise in post-processing (although this has the unwelcome side-effect of also softening the images a bit... so usually you put up with "some" noise in order to maintain an acceptable level of sharpness.)

Of course... having a lens that can shoot at f/2.8 or faster REALLY helps. Just be warned, f/2.8 zooms are fairly expensive.

Lastly... in case you're wondering (because it's a common misconception), Image Stabilization on a lens doesn't help in these situations (well... it helps the "autofocus" system... but it doesn't help the shot.) Image Stabilization is designed to help compensation for motion blur for when the camera itself is moving... it does nothing to help when the subject is moving.

Beh162 · May 14, 2012

Ahh I see. I didn't think my lens would be able to get that full effect but I guess I'll try to get the closest possible for the equipment I have.

Thanks for the advice, I'm going to take this all into consideration when I attempt the shots. Just wanted to get every bit of advice I could! I'll post some pictures later in the week..

ETA- what are some brand lens to look into? Just want to get an idea..

KmH · May 14, 2012

Since you have a Canon camera, I would recommend Canon lenses.

Tony S · May 14, 2012

Your lens won't work, like uyou've altready noted here. Takes a long fast focal length lens to get results like that on a soccer field, especially at the stadium in Tukwila where the shot was taken.

You need something along the lines of what the photographer in the background of this shot from the same flickr page is using...
Sounders womens team v UW women's soccer team | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

TCampbell · May 14, 2012

I'll mention a few lenses.

First is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is sort of the "gold standard" for the 70-200 lens. It's considered a "bread n butter" lens by many pro shooters. I own the original version of this lens (no the "II" edition) and love the lens. The only downside to this lens is the price tag. If money were not a consideration (sadly... it always is) then this would be THE lens to own.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Retail price on this lens is $2500. There's a $200 instant rebate bringing it down to $2300. This is probably more than you were hoping to spend.

Next is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. Note the "IS" tag is missing from the name. That's because this lens does not have image stabilization. Image stabilization is helps reduce motion blur caused by camera movement (and ONLY camera movement). Minimum shutter speed to prevent motion blur is a guideline that says the minimum shutter speed should be 1 / (focal length) X (crop factor). Your crop factor is 1.6. So on this lens with a max of 200mm focal length, the minimum shutter speed to prevent motion blur is about 1/320th. As you'll be shooting 1/500th, motion blur should not be a problem and therefore IS shouldn't be necessary. This is a very popular lens specifically for sports photography because the shutter speeds required to freeze action are high enough that having IS is no longer a factor.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Note the price tag is considerably less... it retails for $1450 but has a $100 instant rebate bringing it down to $1350. Zoom lenses with a constant f/2.8 focal ratio aren't cheap.

There are two other lenses you can consider... but tread carefully here. Sigma makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 which does have image stabilization (Sigma uses the letters "OS" for "optical stabilization"). At about $1300, it costs about $50 less than the non-IS version of the Canon lens. Tamron makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 which does not have any form of image stabilization. It's the least expensive 70-200mm that I know of ... at about $770.

The reason I mention that you should tread carefully is that Canon (and the same is true of Nikon) do not cooperate with 3rd party lens makers. They have to reverse engineer how the camera communicates. It's not unusual to read reports of people who claim they get strange error messages from the camera when using these lenses... or that it worked fine with the camera body they originally owned, but started getting error messages when they upgraded to a newer camera body. Optically, both Canon lenses (with and without IS) are better than the Sigma. Optically, the less-expensive Tamron outperforms the Sigma. The downside of the Tamron is it's focus motor -- it uses a more basic micro-motor which is slower to focus than any of the other lenses.

enzodm · May 14, 2012

To add some more info, the linked picture is at 1/400, ISO400, 125mm. At 125mm your lens reaches f/5. This means you loose 1 and 2/3 stops. Just try to see if the quality you have at 1600ISO is ok for you.

HughGuessWho · May 14, 2012

I own the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 USM NON IS lens and I must say, with proper camera holding techniques and ocassionaly a monopole I can get some tack sharp images. As mentioned above, the non IS version is half the price of the IS version.

gsgary · May 14, 2012

Your not aiming very high anyone could get a photo likes this
Sounders womens team v UW women's soccer team | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

HughGuessWho · May 14, 2012

Well, maybe not ANYONE :lol:

Beh162 · May 14, 2012

Thanks for all the detailed info on the lens. I'm still a little ways out on getting a new lens but getting the facts and advice is great! Although, If the deal is right I won't say no..

The pictures I've attached are just a starting point. I like the depth of field in a couple of those shots and when I shoot I would like to achieve at least that. Ofcourse first...I wanted to see if it was even possible with the camera I've bought and I can see it's going to be a tad difficult. I'll try those settings and see how it goes

DiskoJoe · May 14, 2012

TCampbell said:
I'll mention a few lenses.

First is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is sort of the "gold standard" for the 70-200 lens. It's considered a "bread n butter" lens by many pro shooters. I own the original version of this lens (no the "II" edition) and love the lens. The only downside to this lens is the price tag. If money were not a consideration (sadly... it always is) then this would be THE lens to own.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Retail price on this lens is $2500. There's a $200 instant rebate bringing it down to $2300. This is probably more than you were hoping to spend.

Next is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. Note the "IS" tag is missing from the name. That's because this lens does not have image stabilization. Image stabilization is helps reduce motion blur caused by camera movement (and ONLY camera movement). Minimum shutter speed to prevent motion blur is a guideline that says the minimum shutter speed should be 1 / (focal length) X (crop factor). Your crop factor is 1.6. So on this lens with a max of 200mm focal length, the minimum shutter speed to prevent motion blur is about 1/320th. As you'll be shooting 1/500th, motion blur should not be a problem and therefore IS shouldn't be necessary. This is a very popular lens specifically for sports photography because the shutter speeds required to freeze action are high enough that having IS is no longer a factor.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Note the price tag is considerably less... it retails for $1450 but has a $100 instant rebate bringing it down to $1350. Zoom lenses with a constant f/2.8 focal ratio aren't cheap.

There are two other lenses you can consider... but tread carefully here. Sigma makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 which does have image stabilization (Sigma uses the letters "OS" for "optical stabilization"). At about $1300, it costs about $50 less than the non-IS version of the Canon lens. Tamron makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 which does not have any form of image stabilization. It's the least expensive 70-200mm that I know of ... at about $770.

The reason I mention that you should tread carefully is that Canon (and the same is true of Nikon) do not cooperate with 3rd party lens makers. They have to reverse engineer how the camera communicates. It's not unusual to read reports of people who claim they get strange error messages from the camera when using these lenses... or that it worked fine with the camera body they originally owned, but started getting error messages when they upgraded to a newer camera body. Optically, both Canon lenses (with and without IS) are better than the Sigma. Optically, the less-expensive Tamron outperforms the Sigma. The downside of the Tamron is it's focus motor -- it uses a more basic micro-motor which is slower to focus than any of the other lenses.

The tamron and sigma options are both pretty decent for the cost. You can often find used copies of these lenses for reasonable prices but dont be surprised if the af might be a little worn on a used copy. Using this lens on a tripod is also another way to get really great pictures cheap and if you find a good position to mount your pod you can follow the action easily.

Beh162 · May 14, 2012

I saw on ebay this lens: Tokina AT-X 828 80 mm - 200 mm F/2.8 No one mentioned a Tokina and I'm wondering if there was a reason why lol

Anyways, I don't want to stray from the topic at hand. I'm going to try some different settings and see what comes out!

Beh162 · May 16, 2012

When looking through Ebay I did come across this:
[h=1]Canon Telephoto EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM[/h]It's a black lens unlike the white one (from the link above by TCampbell). How does that measure up because it's listed at around $800?