Cricket - Focal lengths

[JohnBoyUK]

Hi All. One question you may be able to help with. Focal lengths for cricket. I currently shoot a Nikon Z8. Longest lens I've got is the z mount 70-200 f2.8.
I've been looking at longer lenses to enable me to shoot football and cricket, primarily cricket. Budget-wise I'm looking at either the Tamron 150-500 z mount f6.7 or the Nikon 180-600 f6.3.

Now, focal length. Is 500mm long enough. Or should I go longer? I'm not overly bothered about the compact size of the Tamron.
Is there a huge difference between the separation of the background at f6.3 or f6.7. I realise its not going to be in realms of a f2.8 or f4 but I can't drop f2.8 or f4 money on a lens otherwise my wife will be sticking the lens where the sun doesn't shine but I can justify spending somewhere in the region of £1-2k max.

Thanks for any words of wisdom you can share!

 

[wookie6262]

I have only shot it a couple of times and I shot crop mode on a 400mm F2.8 for an effective focal length of 600mm. I suppose it depends on the ground but I would think a 600mm would be ideal and teleconverters may also have a use even at that length. Like most sports having two cameras with a longer and shorter lens works well for catches and fielding near you and for shots that show the environment

 

[KIPAX]

It depends what level of cricket your shooting.. I do two local leagues.. the lower one I can get away wiht 300mm at some grounds but mostly 400 ... the local lancashire league i need 400 and sometimes that can be short but not usually.. works fine.. if you want higher to say old trafford and the like then your going to want longer

 

[Sideshow Alvie]

As Kipax says, much depends on the level of cricket you want to cover. I use a Canon 500 f4 on various bodies to shoot county and test cricket and invariably use a crop sensor body, especially for the far wicket, so I'm shooting at an effective 800mm focal length. That being said, I see lots of people using nothing more than a 400 on a full frame body but that involves heavy cropping, more than I like to do, for sure.
Also, see a few people using something like a 150-500 Sigma or Tamron zoom who get great results at the likes of Old Trafford. These are very affordable lenses and the max aperture won't be too big an issue in daylight.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I used to photograph some sports events for local newspapers, generally on local sports pitches, back in the 1970s.

At the time, I had the choice of two Rolleiflex twin lens reflex cameras, a 3.5f with its 75mm lens or a TeleRollei with a 135mm lens. No super long telephotos or such like, so I just had to pick my spot and take what I could get. I sold a few pictures to the editors, who paid between £2.50 and £10 a shot (equivalent to £25 to £100 today) so they must have liked some of them.

My point is that the camera and lens matters less than your determination to get the picture you want. This is one of the few negatives, made with the TeleRollei, that's survived...

 

[KIPAX]

My point is that the camera and lens matters less than your determination to get the picture you want

So if I take my pocket kodak to a cricket match I should be OK so long as I am determined?

OP asked a reasonable question.. lens choice does matter for cricket

BTW
A good photographer can take a picture with any camera - complete myth !-- JustSayin

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So if I take my pocket kodak to a cricket match I should be OK so long as I am determined?

In a word, "yes".

From the 1850s to the 1950s, very few photographers used more than one lens. Through the 1960s and 1970s, as equipment prices dropped in real terms, more photographers gained access to additional lenses. The rapid spread of zoom lenses, during the latter part of the 1970s and into the 1980s, gave more photographers access to more focal lengths, at least for 35mm film photography.

However, what has always mattered is to know what you wish to record, understand the limitations of your equipment and then work out what's the best you can achieve given those conditions.

Of course, particular equipment will extend your potential and luck will always play a big part in getting the image you want.

 

[DemiLion]

All the usual hot air and wind from a certain source while posting pretty awful images.

 

[ShinySideUp]

I tried shooting a football match, one where I could get behind the goal and at the touchline. I had a 60-600mm zoom on a D850 and found that the 600mm was pretty much useless for capturing the action and most of my useful pictures were taken at about 200-300mm and then cropped in in PP. The reason the long length was no good was that it was impossible to follow the action as if the ball or the footballers moved too quickly, any good shot was lost because I couldn't keep up. Using a shorter length and cropping in after the event was a much better method and with your Z8 you have plenty of scope for cropping and still getting sharp images.

 

[DemiLion]

Using a shorter length and cropping in after the event was a much better method and with your Z8 you have plenty of scope for cropping and still getting sharp images.

That's a really poor suggestion for sports photography and very bad practice. You should always aim to get the maximum possible number of pixels on target.

What you needed to do was practice and not compensate.

Having said that, cricket coverage is significant different as most of it is a fixed point -unless you are chasing fielders and that takes a LOT of skill.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

All the usual hot air and wind from a certain source while posting pretty awful images.

I do wish you'd stop chasing me around and posting nasty comments. It's rude and only shows you to be an arrogant person.

 

[DemiLion]

I do wish you'd stop chasing me around and posting nasty comments. It's rude and only shows you to be an arrogant person.

Aren't you stretching your self regard just a fraction to think that I'd 'follow you around'?

I'm a sports' photographer and if it has failed to take your notice, you are posting in the sports forum.

And posting an absolute load of tosh to boot.

Your ideas are at least twenty years out of date.

There is a very good reason that there are so few decent action shots of the 1966 world cup final.

And that is because the equipment was crap - not the photographers.

Mod edit :- see my post below, #13.

 

[Dale.]

All the usual hot air and wind from a certain source while posting pretty awful images.

That could've been put better, I see no need for the hostility.

Also, if you want to make comments about a person's images, even if they are not to your taste, please keep it constructive, impersonal and non confrontational.



............and please, to all concerned, before this escalates further, play nice!

Now can we get back to the OP's question?

 

[Adam-G]

There is a very good reason that there are so few decent action shots of the 1966 world cup final.

And that is because the equipment was crap - not the photographers.

Mod edit :- see my post below, #13.

I think that demonstrates the point perfectly. Get Marty McFly to drop off a modern mirrorless camera with insane autofocus and zooms that are nearly as good as primes combined with rapid burst rates and we'd see what would happen.

I've shot a bit of sport, no expert by any means but I got way more keepers with my camera that has a better burst rate and more advanced AF than the first time I shot with my older body. Of course, I could increase the number of keepers by getting better as a photographer but assuming a base level of skill and knowledge, in difficult shooting scenarios like fast moving sports, it's insane to suggest equipment doesn't matter.

On topic, it was cricket I shot and I decent results with my 150-600mm from the stand shooting towards the crease.

 

[ShinySideUp]

That's a really poor suggestion for sports photography and very bad practice. You should always aim to get the maximum possible number of pixels on target.

What you needed to do was practice and not compensate.

Having said that, cricket coverage is significant different as most of it is a fixed point -unless you are chasing fielders and that takes a LOT of skill.

Well, I do it once in a blue moon and it worked for me; and it was a football match, rather faster and more erratic than cricket.

 

[redhed17]

When I started to do cricket pics, I found KIPAX's posts very useful. And he was open to questions. Always good to learn from a professional in the subject.

For the OP, I think focal lengths depend on how close they want to get into the batsman, and/or how much they want to crop. And where you plan to take pics. With a Z8, they have a lot of pixels to play with.

At my local cricket club I have found a 70-300mm on a crop sensor @300mm gives me a view to have the bowler, batman and wicket keeper all in shot from a certain position at the far crease. That obviously gives the option crop into the batsman when needed. My end goal is not to print, but to end up with an image I like, so number of pixels is not too great of a problem. My camera is 20Mp, and a tight crop of the batsman filling the whole frame can leave me with about 6Mp. I think that is a reduction of 70%. If that were a Z8, with 45Mp, you would end up with a 13.5Mp image. What do you want to do with the final images? Personal pleasure, showing online or print, and if so, how large?

I think a 450mm lens would give a similar view to what I get. Longer focal lengths gets you closer.

This past summer I started taking my compact camera with a 200mm lens, and again 20Mp. A wider view compared to 300mm, but better AF, and higher fps, but no large camera or tripod. Final images not ultimately as good as the DSLR and the larger lens/focal length and lens quality, but good enough for me most of the time.

 

[DemiLion]

That could've been put better, I see no need for the hostility.

You may not see the reason but I have become a little fed up of the person in question posting in here and the Pro's group with utterly ridiculous answers
whilst claiming decades of experience which are not backed up by his example images.

The answers usually fail to be relevant as well - just hot air being blown off.

 

[Dale.]

You may not see the reason but I have become a little fed up of the person in question posting in here and the Pro's group with utterly ridiculous answers

The problem for me here is that you have made it a personal jibe. 'The person in question' is entitled to air opinions and views of his own, we all are. It doesn't make that person right or wrong, they're opinions, not neccesarily fact. I see no reason to attack a person and/or an opinion because you're 'fed up' with it.

just hot air being blown off.

You've said it again, as in your post #8, after I asked you reasonably not to. Enjoy your day off.

 

[TimHughes]

Hi All. One question you may be able to help with. Focal lengths for cricket. I currently shoot a Nikon Z8. Longest lens I've got is the z mount 70-200 f2.8.
I've been looking at longer lenses to enable me to shoot football and cricket, primarily cricket. Budget-wise I'm looking at either the Tamron 150-500 z mount f6.7 or the Nikon 180-600 f6.3.

Now, focal length. Is 500mm long enough. Or should I go longer? I'm not overly bothered about the compact size of the Tamron.
Is there a huge difference between the separation of the background at f6.3 or f6.7. I realise its not going to be in realms of a f2.8 or f4 but I can't drop f2.8 or f4 money on a lens otherwise my wife will be sticking the lens where the sun doesn't shine but I can justify spending somewhere in the region of £1-2k max.

Thanks for any words of wisdom you can share!

I would go with @KIPAX suggestion. When I’m not sure of the focal length needed, I’ll think about the images I want, find out the likely distance and use a field of view calculator to find out what focal length is needed to get that composition.

 

[andrewc]

Do you shoot with one body or two?

I think that a 1x0-500 or 600 may be acceptable in bright sunlight, but may be frustrating when the light levels drop as they do quite quickly on an autumn afternoon, without resorting to stratospheric ISO levels.

 

[KIPAX]

When I started to do cricket pics, I found KIPAX's posts very useful. And he was open to questions.

Was? Still am no greater pleasure than helping out

 

[redhed17]

Do you shoot with one body or two?

I think that a 1x0-500 or 600 may be acceptable in bright sunlight, but may be frustrating when the light levels drop as they do quite quickly on an autumn afternoon, without resorting to stratospheric ISO levels.

For cricket, you may not always want a very fast shutter speed. Showing a little bit of movement in the ball/bat can give a bit of life to an image.

Even so, my minimum aperture is f5.6 on the 70-300mm lens at 300mm, and even raising the ISO to get faster shutter speeds on dull days, I haven't had too much problems with a crop centre DLSR, and a FF sensor would be even better, even with more pixels.

 

[andrewc]

OP mentioned wanting to shoot a bit of football as well.

 

[Don Fischer]

So if I take my pocket kodak to a cricket match I should be OK so long as I am determined?

OP asked a reasonable question.. lens choice does matter for cricket

BTW
A good photographer can take a picture with any camera - complete myth !-- JustSayin

I've never seen cricket but suspect it's played on a rectangular field. That being the case it's possible to always be on the wrong side of the field and then the lens comes into play. I suppose the smart guy would set himself up near the goal and take his shots there. Of course he'd have to change goals now and then. Not knowing much if anything about cricket If I were to go now I'd take my 55-300 Nikon lens. Better choice I would be one I saw recently I saw a guy had an 18-400 lens that might work well. I would not take my 150-500 Sigma because I think a lot would be shooting fairly fast off hand and 150-500 wouldn't let me do that and get decent photo's. A 70-200 2.8 might work but you'd miss closer in shots and maybe across the field shots.

 

[redhed17]

OP mentioned wanting to shoot a bit of football as well.

And in daylight, unless extremely dull, with those lenses, and that camera, it should do pretty well imho. If regularly in very low light, or at night, then those lenses may not be ideal. I don't think you would see those lenses at many night football matches.

 

[redhed17]

I've never seen cricket but suspect it's played on a rectangular field.

Yes and No.

From Wikipedia " A cricket field or cricket oval is a large grass field on which the game of cricket is played. Although generally oval in shape, there is a wide variety within this: some are almost perfect circles, some elongated ovals and some entirely irregular shapes with little or no symmetry – but they will have entirely curved boundaries, almost without exception. There are no fixed dimensions for the field but its diameter usually varies between 450 and 500 feet (140 and 150 m) for men's cricket."

Lower level and park pitches may be odd shapes and vary in size and shape, but you are at least 80m away on the smallest pitch.

Again from Wikipedia, "Within the boundary and generally as close to the centre as possible will be the square which is an area of carefully prepared grass upon which cricket pitches can be prepared and marked for the matches. The pitch is where batsmen hit the bowled ball and run between the wickets to score runs, while the fielding team tries to return the ball to either wicket to prevent this."

That being the case it's possible to always be on the wrong side of the field and then the lens comes into play. I suppose the smart guy would set himself up near the goal and take his shots there. Of course he'd have to change goals now and then.

This central rectangular area is 22 yards long. Every 6 balls, or 'over', the batsmen and bowler swap ends, and so you would have 6 balls of the batsman facing you, but further away, and 6 balls batting with his back to you, but 22 yards closer.

Not knowing much if anything about cricket If I were to go now I'd take my 55-300 Nikon lens. Better choice I would be one I saw recently I saw a guy had an 18-400 lens that might work well. I would not take my 150-500 Sigma because I think a lot would be shooting fairly fast off hand and 150-500 wouldn't let me do that and get decent photo's. A 70-200 2.8 might work but you'd miss closer in shots and maybe across the field shots.

Reach is generally the best option for cricket. And because almost all the action is in the centre of the field, AF is not hugely important for most shots, especially if the lens does not have the widest of apertures, and so not the shallowest depth of field.

Football on the other hand is very unpredictable, with action happening over a larger area. Those who take it very seriously may have two or more cameras with wide and telephoto lenses on each camera. Most of us may just go with the one camera and best lens from what we have, which would probably be in the 150-500mm to cover a lot of the pitch, especially on a FF camera.

It all depends on the type of cricket or football images you though.

 

[Nod]

And by "Football", I'm fairly certain that redhed17 means what Don would call "Soccer" rather than the Rugby (football, paradoxically!) based game the Americans call "Football)...

 

[andrewc]

And in daylight, unless extremely dull, with those lenses, and that camera, it should do pretty well imho. If regularly in very low light, or at night, then those lenses may not be ideal. I don't think you would see those lenses at many night football matches.

I was shooting schools rubgy tournament at the end of October. By the middle of afternoon with a few matches left to shoot, I'd switched from the my preferred lens and brought out the significantly heavier but shorter range 120-300 f/2.8 Sport.

 

[Don Fischer]

I played soccer through my Jr year of high school and still today am never sure if someone is talking about soccer of football. Loved playing soccer! was the starting center half back long as I played! Soccer and American football have the shape of their field in common. That shape can make taking picture's a problem I think if your to close to a subject needing a wider lens or to far needing a longer lens. I would think one that could handle all of it fairly well would be the way to go. With what I have now I suspect my 55-300 Nikon would work best. And wouldn't mind giving the 18-400 Nikon a shot. Pretty fast game at times and if you didn't have sufficient mm lens on the camera, you risk not getting the shot. My 150-500 Is simply to heavy for me to hand hold and get decent photos. My 55-300 might be a shade short on the long end and long on the short end. That 18-400 I say just might be the answer with the 18mm on the short end. I guess if I was to go do a soccer game or cricket I might stick with either my 18-200 or my 55-300 and simply hope for the best. Reality is your probably gonna miss a good number of shots anyway for no other reason than the game can be to fast. I guess the best answer to that is simply grin and bear it!

 

[Craig2008]

Personally I would want a 600mm. I am very fortunate to have one but now am selling due to going mirrorless native. I have shot the ashes to my local village side with it and everything inbetween beautiful focal length for it IMHO.

 

[redhed17]

I played soccer through my Jr year of high school and still today am never sure if someone is talking about soccer of football.

The clue is in the name, the game where you kick a ball around. That Americans have called a game where you throw a 'ball' to each other football causes the confusion.

 

[Pound Coin]

If you are on a .co.uk website and someone talks about football, they probably mean football.

 

[Don Fischer]

The clue is in the name, the game where you kick a ball around. That Americans have called a game where you throw a 'ball' to each other football causes the confusion.

You might be right, we do mostly throw the ball now but, in the past we mostly ran the ball. I have no idea where the name football came from but that's what it's been called here all my life. What do you call it in Europe?

 

[DemiLion]

The clue is in the name, the game where you kick a ball around. That Americans have called a game where you throw a 'ball' to each other football causes the confusion.

So what about rugby then? It's football as well.

 

[redhed17]

If you are on a .co.uk website and someone talks about football, they probably mean football.

The cricket 'and' football may have been a hint too. Don't think there is that much cricket in America.

You might be right, we do mostly throw the ball now but, in the past we mostly ran the ball. I have no idea where the name football came from but that's what it's been called here all my life. What do you call it in Europe?

Even running with the ball is not kicking the 'ball' with a foot. It's normally called American Football, as Americans call it football, and we have to differentiate from the game the rest of the world is talking about when they are talking about football.

 

[Pound Coin]

Yes, but the Rest of the World don’t play in the World Series, just the US.

Oh, and 600mm is a great focal length for cricket, unless you are at a quite small ground.

 

[swanseamale47]

Back when I shot cricket my normal go-to was a 400mm with a 600mm for closer shots. That was a few decades ago though. I dont know whats changed regarding access to the pitch. We had to "stand off" due to tv coverage.
Frankly with the exception of bowls cricket is my second least favorite sport. Man throws ball, man hits ball, man runs after ball. All stop for 10 minutes. I'd rather watch Dulux dry!

 

[Graham W]

Back when I shot cricket my normal go-to was a 400mm with a 600mm for closer shots. That was a few decades ago though. I dont know whats changed regarding access to the pitch. We had to "stand off" due to tv coverage.
Frankly with the exception of bowls cricket is my second least favorite sport. Man throws ball, man hits ball, man runs after ball. All stop for 10 minutes. I'd rather watch Dulux dry!

And they have to stop halfway through for something to eat!

 

[Bluesman graham]

Aren't you stretching your self regard just a fraction to think that I'd 'follow you around'?

I'm a sports' photographer and if it has failed to take your notice, you are posting in the sports forum.

And posting an absolute load of tosh to boot.

Your ideas are at least twenty years out of date.

There is a very good reason that there are so few decent action shots of the 1966 world cup final.

And that is because the equipment was crap - not the photographers.

Mod edit :- see my post below, #13.

 

[Bluesman graham]

Hi Guys.
Well I'm gonna drop an Atom Bomb & I really do hope it starts a s*** show!
I have been a photographer for over 40 years!
I've been through the "deving films under a cover in the bath" to meet deadlines! yawwwn!!
"Shooting" an image of a warm up, after asking a player to remove the track suit top so it looked like it was a playing shirt just in case, because, I had only 20 mins to shoot at a game then to get back, (4 mls) to dev & print images to roller wire down to London.
Onto Didgi, oh, forgot to say, I've now had to invest in new cameras at £7,000 + per camera!! + lap top? +mobile?, (didn't work half the time) to compete.

Things where ticking on nicely, I upgraded to Nikon D2h's, images where getting used all's tickety-boo until a new camera's introduced..... Nikon D3, ok all the staffers got them free but I carried on with my D2hs, I was covering a Yorkshire sport paper for Sheff Weds, Hudd's Town etc. Suddenly I found I was being told my images where " just a little bit hot on night games".
Invested in D3's & by then D3s's!, another kidney investment.
That Yorkshire Post paper folded & so I embarked on a line of Freelance sports agencies which was brilliant, (cos I was good, lol), however again Tech moves on & again I had to upgrade to newer models of cameras to compete.
To cut a long story short I cannot & will not continue to play catch up with modern gear, hence my retirement! its not because I'm a worse photographer, it's because any Tom, Dick ,or Harry can now with the funds capture publishable pictures with the modern gear & do so sometimes for nothing but cudos.

I realise that times have changed & that is why I've dropped out of the race but to poo poo someone that respects the essence of what sports photography was all about, ( ie capturing the moment) is totally disrespectful!
If anyone doesn't believe me I'll lay down a challenge! I'll take on any "modern" sports snapper to cover a game with me on 35mm film camera, 1 film, (35 frames) on a manual camera & lens, (135mm) for charity loser pays £100! Regards Graham.