Can i have your advice please on Football/Soccer photography.

P

Philx1979

Messages
987
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Hi peeps,

I was hoping someone on here could give me some advice and point me in the right directon.

I have been using a Nikon D40x with a Nikon 55-200 mm f4-5.6 AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) DX Zoom-Nikkor lens for football photography and have been quite succesful in now being selected for a local paper to cover the football in our area and be paid for it.
The time has come that i feel i need to upgrade to a better camera and a higher frame rate.
Firstly i was thinking of a Nikon D300 with the additional battery grip which will give me upto 8fps which will be nice for capturing the right moment.

Now this is where i get lost, if i was to upgrade my lens in the future with a possibly budget of £800 to £1000 which lens is a best route, what lens do other football photographers use?

Is it best to use 300mm rather than 200mm and whats the lowest f stop lens should i go for, i think i seen that for a budget of say £1000 its a choice of either a 300mm f4 or 200 f2.8 and i would prefer to have VR on it.

I dont know, thats why i`m asking you people i hope there is someone on here who does this, maybe for a living and can pass on the advice.

Many thanks in advance.
Philx.
 
Just managed to find KIPAX`s pictures and they`re nice, looked at his profile and looks like lens is more important as he uses f2.8 lens. Wouldn`t mind a few pointers from him though, maybe he`ll be on later.
 
I would also say the 300mm 2.8 but unfortunately it appears to be out of your said budget.
 
I take it you are covering non-league football? If thats is correct you are more then aware you can get very close to the pitch unlike league games (unless you have a press pass), there for I find 200mm long enough 90% of the time.

The sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be good but I doubt you'll be able to find a second hand one in your price range.

Not sure why you'd want VR for football stuff. The shutter speed should be way high enough (1/500th +) to negate blur from camera shake. Therefore maybe look at the older Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 people rate it as sharp as the 70-200mm VR but its half the price if you can find a good used one.

Lens is definitely first however you are right about the higher frame rate of the D300, its supurb. Also consider noise handling as you can gain a great advantage when it comes to dim lit grounds by wacking up the ISO.

Hope this helps.
 
I agree that you should go for the glass before a new body. The evenings are getting darker and you might be struggling with with the f4 - 5.6 (especially with 5.6).

As for what lens you go for (I am not focusing on price here.. just some ideas).
First of all do you need to decide whether you want to go for a zoom lens or not.
Personally I like to use zoom lenses .. as they give a little bit more freedom. With a 300mm lens you will get good sharp photos.. but only from the 300mm range.
For newspaper print .. your pictures do not need to be primelens sharp *IMHO* And if I were in your shoes, I'd look at some zoom lenses like Nikon 200-400mm (is that f4??) I've seen that a lot on football grounds here in Finland on the Nikon guys... also what I use is Sigma's 120-300mm f2.8
And from my experience I can say that it produces good images....

As for the VR, once again only speaking from personal experience.. I'd rather go for a monopod and ditch the VR. Your shutterspeeds should be so fast that the VR would not really matter.

So lens before a new camera would be my advice....
 
Get the Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 AF-s you won't need the VR, pin sharp and fast AF you should be able to pick a S/H one for under £1000, if you want to go cheaper the 80-200mm F/2.8D is also excellent but slower AF, still probably the sharpest 80-200 zoom under £500 though
 
For the 200mm lens range.. that's fine when you go for the action by the goal. But if you want to be able to take any images that fill the frame from a bit further away. You'll be screaming for the extra reach of 300mm.
Also, with the ability to move around a little behind the goals... the 120-300 will also be able to capture the action around teh goalie....
 
Heyup.. Nice to be mentioned in despatches... Sat/Sun is make money time so off here more than on :)

OK presuming VR is the same as canons IS then ignore it on a tight budget

Lens is more important as everyone has said but no one has told you why.. GooGaBu might wanna read this because he is in a country that doesnt suffer the following :)

We are in winter now.. the floodlights are on at 3pm and quite dark. This weekend by half time it was no different than a night match. Nothing other than a f2.8 is going to handle it (unless you have a body that does iso6400 then you can get f4 hehe)... If you are doing non league or even league two.. your going to be suffering some dark ground with very poor floodlights.. even with a f2.8 you will be minimum iso1600 and slow shutter speeds ... max 320 i would guess

addyonbit: dont be fooled by the thought of a 200 and 1.4 extender..that would put you back to f4 and slow the af down slightly..

So yes most important lens and f4 will be next to useless.. get f2.8 I had the sigma 120-300 for yonks and it did well... this is the last thing i did with it before selling
http://othersports.fotopic.net/c1524208.html


If shooting for a paper then you will get away wiht max 200mm sat behind the goaline as attacking football is what they will want... but you might be pushed to get celebration shots on a 200 when they run towards the dugouts with backs to you... papers like good celebration shots... i sit at around the 18 yd line on a 300, can cover the goals and get face on celebrations:)

All in all on that budget... sigma 120-300 now and use the money you earn to get a better body..

Anyhting else.. just ask... where in the country are you.. your location is blank?
 
Last edited:
In the UK we have two short periods in the football season (beginning and end) when daytime games are actually played in daylight. A 3pm kick-off in November puts the second half under lights. Half the seasons league games are mid week fixtures and will usually be under lights. Typically at least half the games you shoot will be floodlit at some point. For non-league grounds you will be shooting at 1/250 to 1/320 @ f2.8 using iso 3200 regularly. Forget f4 or higher lenses - you will need f2.8 to cover football in the UK unless your camera gives you usable results at iso 6400 or higher.

Lens length depends upon your shooting style. You can happily shoot football at 200mm with a crop camera and just wait for the action to come within your range. With a 200mm lens you will be able to cover about a third of the action depending upon your position. My preferred length is 400mm but I usually shoot at 300mm as this gives me a little more flexibility and means I can use one camera rather than two (one for long and one for close).

IS/VR is very useful when you hit the lower shutter speeds. It won't stop subject motion blur but it will reduce the amount of images lost due to operator shakiness. Even the stablest of sports photographers struggle on a windy day with a larger lens. IS/VR makes all the difference.

Shooting for the papers you will also want weather gear for the equipment and ideally weather sealed equipment.

Edit: had to go out for a bit in the middle of writing this. Just seen Kipax's post and I'll say what he says :)


John
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Heyup.. Nice to be mentioned in despatches... Sat/Sun is make money time so off here more than on :)

OK presuming VR is the same as canons IS then ignore it on a tight budget

Lens is more important as everyone has said but no one has told you why.. GooGaBu might wanna read this because he is in a country that doesnt suffer the following :)

We are in winter now.. the floodlights are on at 3pm and quite dark. This weekend by half time it was no different than a night match. Nothing other than a f2.8 is going to handle it (unless you have a body that does iso6400 then you can get f4 hehe)... If you are doing non league or even league two.. your going to be suffering some dark ground with very poor floodlights.. even with a f2.8 you will be minimum iso1600 and slow shutter speeds ... max 320 i would guess

addyonbit: dont be fooled by the thought of a 200 and 1.4 extender..that would put you back to f4 and slow the af down slightly..

So yes most important lens and f4 will be next to useless.. get f2.8 I had the sigma 120-300 for yonks and it did well... this is the last thing i did with it before selling
http://othersports.fotopic.net/c1524208.html


If shooting for a paper then you will get away wiht max 200mm sat behind the goaline as attacking football is what they will want... but you might be pushed to get celebration shots on a 200 when they run towards the dugouts with backs to you... papers like good celebration shots... i sit at around the 18 yd line on a 300, can cover the goals and get face on celebrations:)

All in all on that budget... sigma 120-300 now and use the money you earn to get a better body..

Anyhting else.. just ask... where in the country are you.. your location is blank?
Click to expand...


Hiya Thnaks for everyone replying and many thanks to KIPAX.
My location is Porthleven,Cornwall.
Go here to see some of my current pictures i`ve captured view only the links i`ve provided as there are some other chaps photos elsewhere on the site.
http://www.porthlevenafc.co.uk/2008/11/porthleven-reserves-v-st-agnes-25th-oct-08/
http://www.porthlevenafc.co.uk/2008/10/reserves-xi-1-v-mullion-0-18th-oct-08/[URL="http://www.porthlevenafc.co.uk/2008/09/porthleven-stage-a-stunning-vase-fightback-against-buckland-athletic/"]http://www.porthlevenafc.co.uk/2008/09/porthleven-stage-a-stunning-vase-fightback-against-buckland-athletic/ Let me know what you think?
 
Philx1979 said:
Let me know what you think?
Click to expand...

There good pictures accept for one glaring thing that your so doing wrong.. SIT DOWN! Football should be done from a low position always.. it does make a massive difference to the picture.

You have been blessed with good lighting for those shots.. The difference will be massive for a night match and you will need to get that lens sooner rather than later :)
 
i am canon so i cant comment.. but i had the sigma 120-300 (available for both) and would reccomend that as first choice over anything else in that price range for sport
 
Yeagh but I would buy used... they dont wear down much :)
 
Ok thanks for your help guys, much appreciated, now will have to get down and work hard to earn those hard bucks to buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top