minimum equipment requirement for EFL games.

B

Braddersphotography

Messages
51
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks, is there a 'minimum requirement' in terms of equipment to photograph EFL games? Been talking to few guys that work for agencies and they say a minimum 300mm lens is expected, I have a Canon 1dmkiv but only with a 70-200 2.8 isn't this sufficient?
 
Wouldn't say there is a 'minimum' requirement as such, unless you do work for an agency - they will expect certain things from your gear.
When I covered EFL/Premier League game - in the beginning the 300mm was long enough (with everyone pretty much having crop bodies), when it all went full frame - then it was 400mm that everyone had.
Mostly I had on the two handheld bodies - on the other one 70-200mm f2.8 and on the other one either a 400mm f2.8 or Canon 200-400mm with x1.4 built-in.
The zoom mainly at daytime games.

With the 70-200, you might struggle to get much more than the action in the last quarter of the pitch..

So it depended what you are after?? You can get good images with the 70-200... but will be restricted to the area you are able to cover with it.
 
Ultimately its the kit required to give clients the shots they want. If that can't be delivered custom may be taken elsewhere, so an agency will want their photographers have the necessary equipment to provide those images, and a 70-200 will have limitations regarding what you can get with it.
 
Braddersphotography said:
Hi folks, is there a 'minimum requirement' in terms of equipment to photograph EFL games? Been talking to few guys that work for agencies and they say a minimum 300mm lens is expected, I have a Canon 1dmkiv but only with a 70-200 2.8 isn't this sufficient?
Click to expand...

No. For most agencies you'll need 2 bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and one with a 300/2.8, or preferably a 400/2.8.

You will also need to be able to cull, caption edit and send for pitchside, preferably using Photo Mechanic.
 
Nostromo said:
Just as a matter of interest, were they any good. I suspect they were, if they were on the website.
Click to expand...

Good enough... for that end of the game... nothing for what happened at the other end as you can imagine....

I photogrpahed a game last night for two papers one for each team.. plus one club.. I got what i needed for my club and my paper but probably got better pics of the opposition goals for the other paper.. the ones scored at the other end of the pitch.....No such thing as the wrong end with a 400mm IMHO :) a 70-200 on its own you can always get soemhting good.. especialy if someone scores right in front of you and celebrates... but if its all at the other end your snookered :
 
Braddersphotography said:
Okay, so would you recommend the next piece of kit I get is a 300mm 2.8 and keep the 1dmk4 for a bit?
Click to expand...


400mm I would never reccomend a 300mm over a 400mm for field sports.... The problem is when yo go over 200 then you need to start looking at two bodies to cover football.. one body ona 300 is only really effective from the sidelines :(
 
Last edited:
I ahve the 300mm and the 400mm ..90% of the time I use the 400mm.. The 300mm i use for some junior football.. ice hockey and adult football at grass roots level when i am shooting both sides as its perfect from the half way line...
 
In my first full season shooting Scottish Premiership and I have 70-200mm and 300mm f/2.8 with a 5d MkIV and 5d MkIII. Can get some great shots with the 300mm but feels just a little short for the opposition box. Hoping to upgrade the 300mm to 400mm in the summer ahead of next season.
 
KIPAX said:
400mm I would never reccomend a 300mm over a 400mm for field sports.... The problem is when yo go over 200 then you need to start looking at two bodies to cover football.. one body ona 300 is only really effective from the sidelines :(
Click to expand...
Do you think the new Nikon 120-300 f2.8 will be a more bought lens for sports in the near future?

KIPAX said:
You asked for reccomendation of what to get not how much to spend :)

As above... sports photography isnt cheap.
Click to expand...
So how do photographers make it profitable if its not cheap and the margins are constantly squeezed?
 
Last edited:
Braddersphotography said:
Hi folks, is there a 'minimum requirement' in terms of equipment to photograph EFL games? Been talking to few guys that work for agencies and they say a minimum 300mm lens is expected, I have a Canon 1dmkiv but only with a 70-200 2.8 isn't this sufficient?
Click to expand...

All you're realistically going to sell from an EFL game these days is a goal or celebration so a single body and 70-200 would be fine. Small agencies might say the expect a 3 or 400 but that's only so you look the part ;)
 
purpleclouds said:
All you're realistically going to sell from an EFL game these days is a goal or celebration so a single body and 70-200 would be fine. Small agencies might say the expect a 3 or 400 but that's only so you look the part ;)
Click to expand...


haha is this how you spend your Birthday young man :) happy thingies anyways:)

I was at a game within the last week or two and it absoloutly tipped it down... It was a night match and not the best floodlights anyway... that and pouring rain i didnt even get the 400 out.. did the whole game 70-200 and the club and local paper wouldnt know the difference and was happy with what they got...
 
400mm 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 .... you wouldnt get what your agency wants with just a 70-200... may aswell go down your local club
 
LAURAM88 said:
400mm 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 .... you wouldnt get what your agency wants with just a 70-200... may aswell go down your local club
Click to expand...
however it does seem to be more about perception than delivery. If you can get publishable shots with a 70-200....

aren't we all told about GAS being a bad thing?
 
jamesev said:
aren't we all told about GAS being a bad thing?
Click to expand...
I doubt we'd have 70-200mm lenses if someone couldn't create a market for them. So from that point of view GAS is a good thing. :naughty:
 
jamesev said:
Do you think the new Nikon 120-300 f2.8 will be a more bought lens for sports in the near future?
Click to expand...

Theres been a 120-300 for many yrs.. canon and nikon using the sigma version.. I ahd one myself on the way up the equipment ladder.... its versatile but still needs the reach


jamesev said:
So how do photographers make it profitable if its not cheap and the margins are constantly squeezed?
Click to expand...

My margins are not squeezed.. But i think i know what your reffering to... My answer is.... Sports photography is not all about going to pro football and selling to newspapers .. in fact that's probably just a quarter of my income as a full time sports photographer. All my equipment is paid for by photography :)
 
KIPAX said:
My margins are not squeezed.. But i think i know what your reffering to... My answer is.... Sports photography is not all about going to pro football and selling to newspapers .. in fact that's probably just a quarter of my income as a full time sports photographer. All my equipment is paid for by photography :)
Click to expand...
I assume thats by ensuring you maintain your added value to whoever is your revenue stream. There seems to be a constant stream of supply who will do it for less (note I didn't say the same for less). As well as the recipients who will accept lesser quality, and i'm thinking that if you had a 200mm lens on a 60Mpx body you can in theory crop to a certain number of pixels, which if its going in a newspaper where the paper texture will make the viewed picture "noisy" the spatial printing measure becomes less of a concern compared to if it were a glossy mag.
 
I would be straight out to get a 150 - 600 Sigma Sports lens.

Have that on one body and the 70-200 on the other body.

But then I am not qualified to answer so ignore it if you want lol
 
A 300mm f/2.8 lens that gets the shot can be cropped. A 600mm shot that is either binned because the aperture doesn't permit a fast enough shutter speed, or doesn't isolate the player from the background, is not much use.

A lot of football takes place in evenings under floodlights, so in order to freeze the player adequately you need a fast lens and a camera that has good high iso handling, as you'll need both in order to get a 1/640s or faster in those conditions.
 
DemiLion said:
See the above post.

I'd rather have a decent 300/2.8 than a narrow aperture zoom.
Click to expand...
Having spoken to a number of photographers globally it seems that its only in darker and gloomier areas like the UK that 2.8s are more highly sought. In countries that have sunnier conditions more frequently they plump for f4s more.
 
jamesev said:
Having spoken to a number of photographers globally it seems that its only in darker and gloomier areas like the UK that 2.8s are more highly sought. In countries that have sunnier conditions more frequently they plump for f4s more.
Click to expand...


My go to lens is an f/4 500mm, but I'd still rather have an f/2.8 300mm than a variable zoom that starts at f/5.
 
Used to be a Getty snapper, Charlie Crowhurst, who I'd see at many matches with a 300 2.8 and what I think was a 24-105 or similar maybe, and he would get plenty of decent stuff.

Here in the League of Ireland the grounds are pretty tight, and generally dark as sin, and I've always thought you could do a whole season on a 300.
 
DemiLion said:
My go to lens is an f/4 500mm, but I'd still rather have an f/2.8 300mm than a variable zoom that starts at f/5.
Click to expand...
Well yes there is a limit to the long end minimum f. the lenses that have huge reach for example - 50-500, but only give you f6.3 at the 500 end. They usually do so to keep costs lower but often that comes with poor focusing motors or some of the other characteristics are of lower quality. I did find it somewhat odd that Nikon did bring out a 120-300 f2.8 that if the price wasn't too much of an issue would in some respects make the 300 prime redundant.
 
jamesev said:
I did find it somewhat odd that Nikon did bring out a 120-300 f2.8 that if the price wasn't too much of an issue would in some respects make the 300 prime redundant.
Click to expand...
Yer true. But Nikon have upgraded most of the other "pro" type lens. 600, 500, 400, 70-200, 24-70 except the 300. So maybe the 120-300 is the replacement 300. And the 300 direct replacement, if it comes, will be z mount?? The 120-300 being the last f mount "big' lens. Who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top