Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 200-500 and night football
Page 1 of 2 next>
Sep 19, 2017 22:40:36   #
Topirish1990
 
Anyone have experience using a Nikon 200-500 for night football games, both videos and photos

Reply
Sep 19, 2017 23:31:48   #
lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama
 
No experience, but I want to follow this discussion.

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 09:28:10   #
Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI
 
lwerthe1mer wrote:
No experience, but I want to follow this discussion.


Me too!

Duane

Reply
 
 
Sep 20, 2017 10:05:38   #
Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada
 
Topirish1990 wrote:
Anyone have experience using a Nikon 200-500 for night football games, both videos and photos


I want to folow this discussion as well, but first would like to know camera model the lens will be mounted on, I assume Nikon brand?

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 10:46:50   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
Topirish1990 wrote:
Anyone have experience using a Nikon 200-500 for night football games, both videos and photos


The Nikon 200-500mm is an excellent lens, especially for wildlife photography. A 70-200mm f2.8 would be a preference for me. The last time I saw a pro football photographer, he had all Canon Gear. Lenses were 24-70, 70-200, and one 400mm prime. The first two were f2.8. You didn't mention the camera. A low light DX D500 camera should work out fine. Tripod for use?

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 11:08:27   #
tomcat
 
I have for soccer. I use a D500. Just make certain that you stay zoomed in on your subject because you don't want to have to do much enlarging at the high ISO values.

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 11:36:44   #
sandiegosteve Loc: San Diego, CA
 
That model is f5.6, right?

I've done one outdoor night game, and was at 2.8 ISO3200 the whole time (Nikon 70-200 VR2). I do a lot of ice hockey and rarely get over f4 (right before a set play when things are still). I think losing two stops to 5.6 would make it hard. If your able to shoot 6400 comfortably, or lower shutter speed I think it would be cool.

I'm looking at the lens for daytime stuff, including sports.

I am interested to hear what others have to say.

Lens seems popular, I've not seen it used anywhere.

Reply
 
 
Sep 20, 2017 12:07:10   #
Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier
 
You really need a lens that is faster. I shoot a lot of night time football games in poor lighting and f:2.8 at 6400 ISO is not uncommon. Unless you have great lighting I would use another lens.

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 12:12:54   #
texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas
 
I am a Nikon man, not because I think it is better than Canon, but all of my expensive lenses are Nikons. I switched to Nikon back when Canon brought out the EOS system and none of the older lens worked with the EOS bodies. I was angry with them.

Canon seems to have been more open to photographers needs when they bring out the next generation of bodies. While Nikon is still a competitor, they seemed to have lagged behind Canon. Also, Canon has perfected their marketing skills. Everything from the color of their lens (to grab attention) to advertisements in NatGEo implying one must have a Canon to capture the superb wildlife shots.

That being said, many excellent photographs are taken with either system. In fact, neither Canon nor Nikon have a monopoly on excellence. While professional level equipment makes photography easier, it is always the person behind the lens that makes the difference.

Google what cameras professionals used to capture images, and don't be surprise to learn many have shot with pocket cameras. While I can't find the source, I do recall one National Geographic Photographer that used an Instamatic on a shoot. Heck, when I first got into crime scene photography, I used a SpeedGraphics 4x5. Nothing like the resolution of a camera that can contact print 4x5 images. Of course, that was when I was young and strong, carrying the equivalent of a 100 lb sack of feed was no big deal.

mas24 wrote:
The Nikon 200-500mm is an excellent lens, especially for wildlife photography. A 70-200mm f2.8 would be a preference for me. The last time I saw a pro football photographer, he had all Canon Gear. Lenses were 24-70, 70-200, and one 400mm prime. The first two were f2.8. You didn't mention the camera. A low light DX D500 camera should work out fine. Tripod for use?

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 13:00:54   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
texasdigital wrote:
I am a Nikon man, not because I think it is better than Canon, but all of my expensive lenses are Nikons. I switched to Nikon back when Canon brought out the EOS system and none of the older lens worked with the EOS bodies. I was angry with them.

Canon seems to have been more open to photographers needs when they bring out the next generation of bodies. While Nikon is still a competitor, they seemed to have lagged behind Canon. Also, Canon has perfected their marketing skills. Everything from the color of their lens (to grab attention) to advertisements in NatGEo implying one must have a Canon to capture the superb wildlife shots.

That being said, many excellent photographs are taken with either system. In fact, neither Canon nor Nikon have a monopoly on excellence. While professional level equipment makes photography easier, it is always the person behind the lens that makes the difference.

Google what cameras professionals used to capture images, and don't be surprise to learn many have shot with pocket cameras. While I can't find the source, I do recall one National Geographic Photographer that used an Instamatic on a shoot. Heck, when I first got into crime scene photography, I used a SpeedGraphics 4x5. Nothing like the resolution of a camera that can contact print 4x5 images. Of course, that was when I was young and strong, carrying the equivalent of a 100 lb sack of feed was no big deal.
I am a Nikon man, not because I think it is better... (show quote)


The pro football photographer I mentioned used a Canon 1DX, not the current 1DX Mark 2. His 400mm prime was an f4, not the f2.8, which is about 10K in price. I will agree that the Nikon D5 is as good or better than the Canon 1DX Mark 2. Canon has a marketing advantage over the other camera brands. As for the Graflex Speed Graphic, I just saw a newsreel, honoring the great middle weight fighter Jake LaMotta, who just passed away at age 95. Portrayed by Robert DiNiro in the 1980s Raging Bull Movie. An original newsreel was shown on TV today, when he fought Sugar Ray Robinson in one of his 1940s fight. Guess what cameras were at Ringside? The Graflex Speed Graphics.

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 13:27:22   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Depends on the camera you stick it on.

Reply
 
 
Sep 20, 2017 14:02:51   #
Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada
 
SteveR wrote:
Depends on the camera you stick it on.


Which is exactly why I asked the same question in an earlier post of mine!

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 14:38:32   #
texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas
 
Of course. The Speed Graphics was the premier news camera of it's era. Other than it's size and weight, carry around those double sided film canisters was a pain.
mas24 wrote:
The pro football photographer I mentioned used a Canon 1DX, not the current 1DX Mark 2. His 400mm prime was an f4, not the f2.8, which is about 10K in price. I will agree that the Nikon D5 is as good or better than the Canon 1DX Mark 2. Canon has a marketing advantage over the other camera brands. As for the Graflex Speed Graphic, I just saw a newsreel, honoring the great middle weight fighter Jake LaMotta, who just passed away at age 95. Portrayed by Robert DiNiro in the 1980s Raging Bull Movie. An original newsreel was shown on TV today, when he fought Sugar Ray Robinson in one of his 1940s fight. Guess what cameras were at Ringside? The Graflex Speed Graphics.
The pro football photographer I mentioned used a C... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 15:54:49   #
leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida
 
Topirish1990 wrote:
Anyone have experience using a Nikon 200-500 for night football games, both videos and photos

In about a month, I plan on shooting my grandson's high school night time football game, using said lens mounted on the Nikon D3. Knowing the awesome low light shooting capabilities of the D3, and the outstanding quality of the 200-50 lens, I expect I will get some good photos. The same weekend, I will shoot my other grandson" football game...he is a sophomore playing offensive tackle for The Princeton Tigers. I will be sure and post photos from both games.

Reply
Sep 20, 2017 16:12:53   #
whitewolfowner
 
I do not own the lens but I have shot high school football games for most of my life. Even with a newer camera model and the fact that that lens is f5.6, I believe one would be pushing the limits to get good shots. In my opinion, a 80-200mm f2.8 is the ideal lens for shooting high school football from the side lines.

The weight and size of the 200-500 lens (I have used the Tamron 150-600mm lens) would also pose a concern for moving around in between the players and other people trying to move with the action. A 80-200mm f2.8 can sometimes be almost too large to cover and protect in tight quarters. I believe a 200-500 will be too slow and too large to be practical for shooting high school football.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.