As a complete beginner at this game I went out on Friday evening to photograph my grandson playing cricket. I am using a Canon 50D with a Sigma 70mm-200mm f2.8 II APO EX DG Macro coupled to a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. I managed one or two reasonable shots, bearing in mind my newbie status but found that, apart from not picking the best vantage point in the ground, my lens was proving to be a little on the short side. My question is what do you sports togs use for cricket? I am now thinking along the lines of purchasing one of the following...a Sigma 100-300 f4 or a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, or a Canon 100-400 f4.5-f5.6, or what about a Canon ef 300mm f4 IS USM. Any thoughts that you may have on these lenses, particularly if you use any of them, will be greatly appreciated, as will any recommendation for another lens not mentioned here. Ideally I would prefer to not have to spend more than £1K and am more than happy to purchase second-hand. Thanks in advance of any input.
Lens for sport - Cricket in particular
- Thread starter Bluenose
- Start date
I have just tried my hand at cricket photos at our local cricket club which is not a big ground and found my Sigma 100-300 f4 + Sigma 1.4 TC to be a little short on distance. I think Sigma have stopped selling the 100-300 also finding it tends to vignette
Dave
Dave
- Messages
- 13,057
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Excuse the cross site commenting on my first post in here, but I posted this on DPR last week (but I've edited out the irrelevant bits referring to a 400D).
Hope it's useful:
A couple of examples (uncropped):
f/5.6 @ 285 mm, 1/3200, ISO 400
f/5.6 @ 340 mm, 1/2000, ISO 400
and
f/5.6 @ 400 mm, 1/1250, ISO 400
Hope it's useful:
A couple of examples (uncropped):
f/5.6 @ 285 mm, 1/3200, ISO 400
f/5.6 @ 340 mm, 1/2000, ISO 400
and
f/5.6 @ 400 mm, 1/1250, ISO 400
Hi Ian, Thanks for your input, really interesting and I love the shots, exactly the sort of thing I want to achieve myself. The 100-400L certainly gives a nice crisp image. Choosing a lens aint that straightforward is it! Thanks again.hi Geoff,
I've shot plenty of cricket using a 100-400L.
These are from Headingley a few years ago, which is a big old ground, so if your grandson is play local league cricket - you should be able to get a bit tighter/closer
F
Excuse the cross site commenting on my first post in here, but I posted this on DPR last week (but I've edited out the irrelevant bits referring to a 400D).
Hope it's useful:
A couple of examples (uncropped):
f/5.6 @ 285 mm, 1/3200, ISO 400
f/5.6 @ 340 mm, 1/2000, ISO 400
and
f/5.6 @ 400 mm, 1/1250, ISO 400
Hi Mark, your input is most welcome, thank you. I just love the "Well bowled" shot, I'm looking forward to my first one of those. I almost got what would have been a great stumping shot on Friday night but my timing was a fraction off, I'll get there eventually though. You probably noticed in my original post that I felt that I had chosen a poor place to shoot from and interestingly over the weekend I made the decision to place myself at long-on or long-off next weekend so it would seem that I have got something right. I see that you are thinking of getting the Sigma 120-300, have you used one of these then and if so are you saying that you prefer this over the 100-400? I also notice that you prefer to 'hand-hold' - I have to say that that is my preference too. With the shots that I took on Friday I would have liked to have seen more of the background being out of focus but I don't think that I can achieve that when I have the 1.4x converter attached. Thanks again for your comments.
I've recently bought the Sigma 150-500 with cricket in mind, and I'm really pleased with it.
These were taken with the lens in conjunction with a D80. The problem I had was low light conditions and the f6.3 @ 500mm . The D80 got quite noisy above iso 400. I've subsequently bought a D300 which has helped considerably.
http://tonyelsephotography.com/cricket.htm
These were taken with the lens in conjunction with a D80. The problem I had was low light conditions and the f6.3 @ 500mm . The D80 got quite noisy above iso 400. I've subsequently bought a D300 which has helped considerably.
http://tonyelsephotography.com/cricket.htm
Hi Tony, Thanks for coming in on this, I hadn't thought about that particular lens but I've been onto your link and you have some really sharp shots there. Food for thought obviously. Any ideas on how the lens would cope on a Canon 50D (noisewise)?
Hi again Tony. As I said in my earlier post I am most impressed with your shots taken with this lens and so have had a look to see how much I can get one for and was most surprised to see that it can be had for around the £700.00 mark, any ideas why what appears to be such a good lens should be so reasonably priced?
- Messages
- 13,057
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Geoff,
Re the 120-300, no I haven't managed to use one yet. I was meant to be hiring one for that match, but Fiaxtion had already let it out!
As for preferring it over the 100-400, I would say that they both have different uses and virtues. The 100-400 is half the weight and therefore easier to cart around, however it has a variable apperture that goes up to f5.6 on the long end.
The 120-300 is heavier (obviously) but has the extra light advantage even with a 1.4 converter and, of course, more greater control over DoF.
The main subjects that I photograph are horses, or more specifically Eventing. Outside the summer months, and towards the end of the day, some extra light through the lens would be very handy. I'd never get rid of the 100-400 as it is such a flexible relatively lightweight lens, but I could do with a little extra!
As to why I'm targeting the 120-300 rather than a prime; I need the flexibility of different focal lengths for show jumping and cross country without having to switch bodies/lenses quickly.
For cricket, to get the key shots, I usually take a short controlled burst of 2-4 frames for each delivery. In a 25 over match that will usually mean that I have about 900 images, from which I'll normally narrow it down to about 200-250 for the match in total. It's quite heavy going, but one of the only ways that I've found to make sure that you capture the vital moments!
Have fun!
Re the 120-300, no I haven't managed to use one yet. I was meant to be hiring one for that match, but Fiaxtion had already let it out!
As for preferring it over the 100-400, I would say that they both have different uses and virtues. The 100-400 is half the weight and therefore easier to cart around, however it has a variable apperture that goes up to f5.6 on the long end.
The 120-300 is heavier (obviously) but has the extra light advantage even with a 1.4 converter and, of course, more greater control over DoF.
The main subjects that I photograph are horses, or more specifically Eventing. Outside the summer months, and towards the end of the day, some extra light through the lens would be very handy. I'd never get rid of the 100-400 as it is such a flexible relatively lightweight lens, but I could do with a little extra!
As to why I'm targeting the 120-300 rather than a prime; I need the flexibility of different focal lengths for show jumping and cross country without having to switch bodies/lenses quickly.
For cricket, to get the key shots, I usually take a short controlled burst of 2-4 frames for each delivery. In a 25 over match that will usually mean that I have about 900 images, from which I'll normally narrow it down to about 200-250 for the match in total. It's quite heavy going, but one of the only ways that I've found to make sure that you capture the vital moments!
Have fun!
- Messages
- 3,435
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I use a Canon 300 2.8 with 1.4 and 2x converters. This gives me 300, 420 and 600mm which allows me to get right in for full frame on the far batsman or widen up a bit and crop later if I need to.
I do find cricket photography boring as watching paint dry though.
I do find cricket photography boring as watching paint dry though.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,410
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
exactly the same on all counts
have a look at these... cricket using a 300mm lens and a x2 converter at F8
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=232672
- Messages
- 13,057
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Apart from the fact that you are clearly a cricket heathen, I absolutely love this:
http://slikimages.com/?p=371
Taking geekery to it's zenith!!!
Although I have to admit that I did have a lust after one of those a few months ago!! You've got a very entertaining writing style Tobers.
It's also great to see a sports photographers blogg/site that doesn't centre around football, but has such marvels as the World Marble Championships! Considering you've got Custard Pies on there as well, maybe you could launch a competition on here for the most bizarre sport pics. I've got a feeling that Rory McGrath's programme could be quite a useful reference!!
Some absolutely brilliant shots there, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I shall aim for that quality as I learn more and more about the art. Thanks again.
Hi Geoff,
Re the 120-300, no I haven't managed to use one yet. I was meant to be hiring one for that match, but Fiaxtion had already let it out!
As for preferring it over the 100-400, I would say that they both have different uses and virtues. The 100-400 is half the weight and therefore easier to cart around, however it has a variable apperture that goes up to f5.6 on the long end.
The 120-300 is heavier (obviously) but has the extra light advantage even with a 1.4 converter and, of course, more greater control over DoF.
The main subjects that I photograph are horses, or more specifically Eventing. Outside the summer months, and towards the end of the day, some extra light through the lens would be very handy. I'd never get rid of the 100-400 as it is such a flexible relatively lightweight lens, but I could do with a little extra!
As to why I'm targeting the 120-300 rather than a prime; I need the flexibility of different focal lengths for show jumping and cross country without having to switch bodies/lenses quickly.
For cricket, to get the key shots, I usually take a short controlled burst of 2-4 frames for each delivery. In a 25 over match that will usually mean that I have about 900 images, from which I'll normally narrow it down to about 200-250 for the match in total. It's quite heavy going, but one of the only ways that I've found to make sure that you capture the vital moments!
Have fun!
Thanks for this Mark, really helpful. I have now just purchased a 100-400 from the classifieds on here. i'm looking forward to using it at the weekend and hopefully will get some good shots.
- Messages
- 3,435
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Apart from the fact that you are clearly a cricket heathen, I absolutely love this:
http://slikimages.com/?p=371
Taking geekery to it's zenith!!!
Although I have to admit that I did have a lust after one of those a few months ago!! You've got a very entertaining writing style Tobers.
Considering you've got Custard Pies on there as well, maybe you could launch a competition on here for the most bizarre sport pics. I've got a feeling that Rory McGrath's programme could be quite a useful reference!!
I've got a post in the pipeline about trousers too!