Best lens to shoot football with Nikon D3s

[WRJ23]

I have a Nikon D3s. I am looking to build a portfolio in sports photography with the intention of building a career longer term within the sports photography industry. I have a wedding and portrait photography background but have always wanted to work with sports and feel the time is now right. I am looking to shoot football, starting from the bottom, and I am looking for advice on the best lens for the job.

I am looking for second hand lenses, 300mm or 400mm, (f 2.8). To be honest, I have been very confused by the letter and numbers following the lens descriptions when searching, (eg. AF-S, ED, VR, IF-ED, NIKKOR etc etc.) and find it hard to distinguish between which is best suited to a D3s (which is also a full frame camera).

Which lens is preferable for football, and can anyone advise which specific lens works with the D3s best to create the finest images, especially in low light (floodlights)? I am looking to spend up to £4,000 second hand.


Many thanks,

Will

 

[StewartR]

On a full frame camera, a 400mm f/2.8 will probably be more useful than a 300mm f/2.8. (Though either would do a good job for you.)

Nikon have been making 400/2.8s since the mid 1980s. There are several different models but they are all absolutely excellent in terms of optical quality. Some types of lens design (wide angles, zooms etc) have come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, but not supertelephotos. They're all great. (Newer ones will be even greater, but that's nit-picking.)

A new 400/2.8 ("G VR" in the name) is £6500. You don't see many of them available used though, because somebody who's invested that much in a lens has a good reason for doing so and won't be selling on a whim.

Nikon recently announced a newer version of the 400/2.8 ("E FL" in the name) which is considerably lighter. That's £10000+ on pre-order. When the pros start getting their hands on them, you *might* see some of the current model available used. But even so the prices will still be pretty sporty because the demand will be high.

Personally I think you should consider the 1998-2007 model which had AF-S but not VR. You should be able to pick up a decent one for £3-4000. In tech speak that's the AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D IF-ED or the AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D IF-ED II. You want AF-S because that's the fastest autofocus system. You don't need VR because you'll be using a fast shutter speed on a monopod and camera shake isn't an issue.

 

[meonshore]

What Stewart said.

BUT.....

You'll also need a second body with a 70-200mm on it when the action closes in. Assuming you are stationed on one of the goal-lines this normally means when it reaches the penalty box area. You can't shoot a football match only with a 300/400mm prime or even only with a 200-400mm f/4 zoom. There is no time to change lenses (there is barely enough time to switch between the 2 bodies+lenses).

Mid-pitch action looks great, but goals and celebrations sell more - and typically those are taken on the 70-200mm and sometimes even wider (you'll also often see a 3rd camera with a 24-70mm or even 14-24mm. Because of that you'll need to prove you can shoot the money shots as well if you are building a portfolio.

 

[KIPAX]

for a one camera setup on a full frame body.. the 300 is going to be your best choice if only shooting football and if you need both ends of the pitch ............ or a 70-200 for one side only... yes a 400 is great but need a second body.. a 70-200 is great but not for other end.. a 300 shot from as near corner flag as possible will get you better options for both ends and will look more impressive in a portfolio shot at 2.8.... BUT a 300 is less flexible... personally i would go 70-200 f2.8 and dont worry about vr (image stablisation) as you wont need it why 70-200? well sports isnt all about football or field sports.. your portfolio will be rubish if all it contains is one sport... I have 5 sports jobs this weekend.. 3 football matches where I will use a 70-200 and 400... one 10k run I will use the 70-200 and one basketball where I will use a 85m prime ..


so your looking for a f2.8 lens .. you dont need vr and a 300 if football only or a 70-200 if other sports.... ideal setup is two bodies and s 70-200 and 400 plus other lens for other sports..... however you would need to triple your 4k budjet

 

[WRJ23]

Thank you all so much for your replies, they were exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you for taking the time to help, very much appreciated.

I have found an AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D IF-ED II on ebay which I am interested in, (even moreso after Stewart's response). I have a D300 body which I intend to put another lens on, I was thinking of the 70-200mm 2.8, and your responses have confirmed this. I think I can probably stretch to a 70-200mm 2.8 for around £1200 on ebay for now.

I agree that a third body is preferable, maybe I will pick something up, maybe another D300. I have a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 lens which should do the job. I may just have a go with the two cameras to start though and see how I get on. Get a bit of solid experience under my belt first shooting sports and going from there. The thought of having three cameras sounds a bit manic for now, but sure I'll get used to it quickly.

From your excellent responses I assume all of the posters have some good experience in sports photography? I have seen your website KIPAX, and find it very informative. It was actually where I found the information to apply for a Conference licence three years ago, so thank you!

I have shot a number of games over the years. It started when I was studying when I was 16, (I'm 32 now). My tutor at the time helped me hire a Canon EOS-1 and a 300mm 2.8, and get a press pass to a Wolves game in about 1998. Things have changed since then and it seems regulations have tightened in regards to accreditation. Long story short, I wanted to shoot sports back then but the costs involved in the required equipment were huge. I have shot weddings and portraits mainly over the years with some sports, but not as much as I'd have liked. I have maybe shot 10 Conference games over the last three years with a D300 and Sigma 120-300mm 2.8, but found the speed of focus of the lens so restricting.

Having fallen into a well paid job outside of photography in 2010, I closed my studio in Liverpool and worked in an office which is where I am now! It's not where I belong, so I intend to shoot sports over the next year or so, build a portfolio and see where it takes me. I have a Conference pass this year and intend to shoot at least twice a week over the North West to build a body of work before hopefully making some sort of 'plunge' in a year or so! I will also try other sports, but football will be where I start.

Any tips any of you could offer on how to 'work my way up' in this industry would be appreciated. Of course, I have long term dreams of shooting the biggest sporting events worldwide and I know that this isn't gong to happen overnight. I know I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there!!, but any tips on how to progress steadily going forward, gain accreditation and selling images would be great.

Thank you all again for your great advice.

Cheers,

Will

 

[KIPAX]

I agree that a third body is preferable,

Never felt the need for a third myself unless I wanted to add a remote camera behind a goal.. certainly wouldnt need one during a match...

I intend to shoot sports over the next year or so, build a portfolio and see where it takes me.

What will you do wiht this portfolio do you think?

Any tips any of you could offer on how to 'work my way up' in this industry would be appreciated. Of course, I have long term dreams of shooting the biggest sporting events worldwide and I know that this isn't gong to happen overnight. I know I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there!!, but any tips on how to progress steadily going forward, gain accreditation and selling images would be great.
l

The biggest tip your going to gte from anyone is.. dont shoot anyhting for anyone for free and dont give pics for free.. not even for a portfolio...all that will get you is hatred from other photogrpahers, a bad name for being cheap and harm the very industry your trying to get into..


Now for my thoughts

Well I think shooting the worlds biggest sporting events world wide is a complete waste of time... So i may not be much help.. but to go that route means you have to dislodge those already there...

Heres a little story for you... a few months ago.. sometime last yr.. I was at a very poorly lit non league ground in blackpool shooting a football match between lancashire and staffordshire under 14s girls..it was a cold night.. was hard work with the lighing and I was the only photogrpaher there... some parents and offical watching.. I took a flask to drink at half time.. Same night around 50 photogrpahers where at old trafford shooting man united.. I think either liverpool or evertyon where at home.. But lets say 50 photogrpahers at old trafford photogrpahing man united... where would you rather be?

Well.. most of the photogrpahers at old trafford made no money that night..and I mean most... I wouldnt like to guess but I bet 30 out of the 50 made nothing... I made just under 300 quid from my game..i had a small fee plus print sales..

moral? no idea... but me and my flask made more money than a lot of people living the so called dream

 

[meonshore]

I agree that a third body is preferable, maybe I will pick something up, maybe another D300.

Preferable yes, 4 would be great, 5 even better but in reality if you are starting out then 2 bodies would be more than sufficient unless you want to put a remote near the goal. Better to spend £90 of the £300 on Photomechanic so you have the industry standard (understanding that not everyone uses it - just most of us) image injesting, captioning and sending software.

From your excellent responses I assume all of the posters have some good experience in sports photography?

Yes plenty. Premiership and Championship football, ATP/WTA tour tennis, and international volleyball amongst others.

Having fallen into a well paid job outside of photography in 2010, I closed my studio in Liverpool and worked in an office which is where I am now! It's not where I belong, so I intend to shoot sports over the next year or so, build a portfolio and see where it takes me. I have a Conference pass this year and intend to shoot at least twice a week over the North West to build a body of work before hopefully making some sort of 'plunge' in a year or so! I will also try other sports, but football will be where I start.

You have a well paid job, can make money from weddings and portraits and you want to chuck it in for sports photography ? The talk in the photographers room at St Mary's last week was about dropping sports and taking on commercial work and weddings..... really I'd think long and hard about that. Not saying don't shoot sport but nothing to say you can't at least keep on the main job or ensure you have some social photography to guarantee income.

Any tips any of you could offer on how to 'work my way up' in this industry would be appreciated. Of course, I have long term dreams of shooting the biggest sporting events worldwide and I know that this isn't gong to happen overnight. I know I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there!!, but any tips on how to progress steadily going forward, gain accreditation and selling images would be great.

You need to work out what you want to end up being...

- freelance independent sports photographer
- freelance photographer shooting on-spec or commissioned for an agency
- agency employed photographer

What your end game is should determine the route you need to take, how long you need to earn your spurs in the lower leagues (if you want to shoot prem/championship given everything KIPAX states), and who and how you should approach them.

 

[WRJ23]

I can't believe I have never come onto photography forums before! Thank you so much again for your detailed and eye-opening responses. I think I have learnt a huge amount more from these two responses alone than the hours and hours I have spent scouring the internet for information on this subject. I will give both posts a full response on Monday when I have time to sit down and digest them properly, but I just wanted to come online quickly and say thank you for taking the time to reply and providing responses in such detail.