New Idea/Recommended Lens for Action Shots (Soccer)

Curtis Cunningham · #1 06-04-2008, 09:15 PM

I'm just finishing up my first season of T&I soccer photography for the local soccer league (Under-14's, -12's, -10's and -8's). So far it's been going quite well.

Yesterday afternoon after I finished another team, I spoke with a soccer mom who has been helping to organize things for me about the possibility of doing action shots (i.e. on game/tournament day). Another gentleman joined in on the conversation and had a suggestion for me which I hadn't previously considered.

Rather than just showing up, shooting a game, and then dealing with the possible throng of people wanting to see proofs etc., he suggested taking deposits from specific families to photograph specific kids and then having those images available online for people to purchase. I liked this idea because I see this as being a more focused way of shooting the game. I'd have a list of specific players to watch for (i.e. #4, #7, #10 on team RED, #6, #7, #9 on team BLUE etc.) during the game.

Then having the images available online would help me to because I only have one laptop and it's just not feasible to proof this way to multiple people all at one time.

1. Do you think that an idea like this would work?

2. What lens would I need to use in order to best get the action/close-up shots required. I'm shooting the T&I's with a Canon/24-105 f/4 IS L lens. I'm pretty sure 105mm isn't enough length, but I'm not sure what kind of a zoom lens I would need to best do this.

Dennis_Vied · #2 06-04-2008, 11:57 PM

Depending on the distance, a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 100-400 IS would do a fine job. You would probably need 2 bodies, one with the 24-105, and one with either the 70-200 or the 100-400. That's what I would shoot for.

DougAxford · #3 06-05-2008, 12:02 AM

Curtis, this has been discussed a number of times here. This is one Swim Meet Results

Lots of people shoot by request only but I found it better to shoot only with a paid deposit. That way, the customer is committed to buying unless the photos are not good. Most action prints are $25./8x10 but some guys are deep discounting for the past few years.

I shoot soccer with 70-200 2.8. You don't need the 2.8 or IS for sports action UNLESS you also want to use it for hockey/skating/weddings, etc. Sports action is usually 250th to 350th sec and the IS won't be of any use. It will be valuable for weddings in darker churches when you need to hand hold at 1/20th range and the extra stop difference between the 2.8 & 4 is worth it for weddings and indoor sports but not much else.

DougA

Curtis Cunningham · #4 06-05-2008, 12:35 AM

I do have a 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 that I used with my old Rebel. I'm wondering how much performance gain I would get if I purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM? I could use it in on my Rebel XT body, and effectively get a longer zoom with the magnification factor.

There might be the possibility of doing some hockey photography at the end of the year, and so perhaps the additional expense of a 2.8 lens would be worth it.

Ken Little · #5 06-30-2008, 03:23 PM

Curtis, I shot soccer with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It did fairly well as long as you were willing to roam the sidelines somewhat. Shooting from one end of the field to the other is too much of a stretch though. However, the advantage of shooting with an f/2.8 lens is that it gives you a better lens for shooting hockey, where you need all the lens speed you can afford. Additionally, having an f/2.8 lens allow you to add a 1.4X teleconverter (making your lens a 280mm on the long end) for shooting soccer and you only lose 1 stop, shooting at f/4. The f/2.8 and f/4 provides a decent amount of Bokeh, which helps make the subject pop and helps somewhat distinguish your pictures from those shooting with a f/5.6. In my opinion, you can't go wrong with a faster lens. Who knows, maybe you'll sell more pictures to help defray the extra cost.

Regarding your first question, I sell sports action pictures exclusively from the web. My business model is shoot, edit and upload (SEU). I am the press photographer for a large high school and feel an obligation to cover most the game. But on the other hand, when I am editing some 300 pictures after a game, only to have a fraction of these purchased, then it does make me more sensitive to shoot more pictures for the people who buy more frequently. I guess, since I have a full time job and do photography on the side, I didn't want to have to do marketing, accounting, and collections as it was all I could do is SEU. My idea of marketing was putting my website on the back of my shirt, where they can see it when I work the game (see my post in the Advertising Forum). But what you propose appears to be a good idea. I know I have a lot to learn and can always learn from others on this forum. I just have to balance the privilege of shooting on the sideline with a Press Pass versus mainly shooting those have provided deposits. I imagine I would need to provide a reasonable balance.

Ken Little · #6 07-01-2008, 08:54 AM

I might also add that you gain a lot more flexibility in what you can shoot with a faster lens. I know that practically all of the high school soccer games I shoot are at night. I couldn't shoot soccer at night under the lights with anything but a f/2.8 and expect to stop the action. I sometimes have to augment this with flash. Also, shooting indoor sports such as basketball, volleyball or swimming also requires a fast lens.

I also failed to mention in the post above that you also need to consider the crop (or mag) factor of your camera to get the lens reach.

So, in conclusion, you need to examine your needs and growth plans. Having a faster lens vastly opens up your shooting avenues. My 70-200mm f/2.8 is not an IS lens, as I figured I'd just be shooting action and to me it wasn't worth the extra $400 or $500 for this feature, not to mention the extra weight and size of the lens. But, as Doug mentions above, you can more easily shot events such as weddings with the IS feature. Good luck with your decision!

Noel_Carboni · #7 07-01-2008, 12:06 PM

I've shot field sports with the 100-400 and I can tell you this:

1. In bright light it's a nice lens for the job. The slightly improved depth of field because of the relatively smaller aperture is helpful in that your focus can be off a hair and you'll still get sharp players against nicely blurred backgrounds. It's also nice to be able to frame shots using the zoom as the action moves about the field.

2. The 100-400 is useless in the evening and under lights. It's just not fast enough, and lord knows I tried.

-Noel