p.1 #1 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
Seems like there are plenty of discussions about what lenses are best for field sports and what should someone buy. Often, however, there aren't examples of the reach one can get from each focal length. Welp, I created a video showing just that.
I've said over and over again if given the option to have only ONE lens in my bag--for sports or any type of photography--it would be the 70-200. Hands down. However, for field sports I find I very rarely use that lens. It's just too short. For years my 400 was my "go-to" lens and most recently I sold my 400/f2.8 lens and am now using the Canon 200-400/f4 lens with the built-in TC (that will be another video specifically about that lens!). I used my 70-200 and the 200-400 with the TC to create this video.
Hope someone finds it useful as you think about how much lens one needs for field sports. I will likely update this video and show how this relates to a baseball field. Let me know what you think, either here or in the comments of the video.
p.1 #2 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
Good presentation Scott . It provides context to those who are new to sports photography regarding the value of reach when shooting field sports. Could not agree more that the 70-200 definitely provides good coverage for close in action, but it's important to recognize its limits. My main venue is soccer and similarly I find the majority of captures come from long glass (usually the 400 here). I'd say my 70-200 is used probably a bit more than in football mainly due to when & where the action presents itself on the soccer field.
p.1 #3 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
This is truly an outstanding presentation. Thanks, Scott. I've shared it with several people at or near the beginning of their journey. While I intuitively know and feel the difference between 400 MM and 560 MM, to see it in this format really reinforces the value of reach for football.
I also greatly appreciated your earlier positioning video, and shared that as well. It's outstanding. The one thing I would add to that video — and this is primarily for those of us who shoot a lot of small-town high school football — is the value of using the often-limited spectator section as a background. It's obviously not an issue in D1. The backgrounds in places like the Big House in Ann Arbor are de facto outstanding. But I find my small town positioning in many/most cases is driven by the need to avoid empty bleachers, porta-potties, tool sheds, and the like.
p.1 #4 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
Hey FM Sports folks - the three folks who have posted above (Scott Sewell, Schlotz, and PureMichigan) are all outstanding sports photographers. I recommend that you watch the videos they share, look up previous posts they've posted, and learn from them! I'm still on my journey to get better and their advice and examples have helped me immensely!
p.1 #5 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
PureMichigan wrote:
This is truly an outstanding presentation. Thanks, Scott.
The one thing I would add to that video — and this is primarily for those of us who shoot a lot of small-town high school football — is the value of using the often-limited spectator section as a background. It's obviously not an issue in D1. The backgrounds in places like the Big House in Ann Arbor are de facto outstanding. But I find my small town positioning in many/most cases is driven by the need to avoid empty bleachers, porta-potties, tool sheds, and the like.
Keep the great videos coming!
This is so true for small town Texas where I have to shoot around the dads in their F-150s and tractors parked around the end zone with their high beams turned on to illuminate the field!😂🤡😂
p.1 #6 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
schlotz wrote:
Good presentation Scott . It provides context to those who are new to sports photography regarding the value of reach when shooting field sports. Could not agree more that the 70-200 definitely provides good coverage for close in action, but it's important to recognize its limits. My main venue is soccer and similarly I find the majority of captures come from long glass (usually the 400 here). I'd say my 70-200 is used probably a bit more than in football mainly due to when & where the action presents itself on the soccer field.
Thanks Matt. I appreciate your kind words about the video.
I agree that the 70-200 might be a bit more useful for soccer compared to (American) football. Action can seem to stay closer at certain times, where in football once they get into the end zone and score the ball is soon farther away.
p.1 #7 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
PureMichigan wrote:
This is truly an outstanding presentation. Thanks, Scott. I've shared it with several people at or near the beginning of their journey. While I intuitively know and feel the difference between 400 MM and 560 MM, to see it in this format really reinforces the value of reach for football.
I also greatly appreciated your earlier positioning video, and shared that as well. It's outstanding. The one thing I would add to that video — and this is primarily for those of us who shoot a lot of small-town high school football — is the value of using the often-limited spectator section as a background. It's obviously not an issue in D1. The backgrounds in places like the Big House in Ann Arbor are de facto outstanding. But I find my small town positioning in many/most cases is driven by the need to avoid empty bleachers, porta-potties, tool sheds, and the like.
Thanks for the kind words about the video, and thanks for sharing these videos. Let me know if there are any topics you think newer photographers might find useful. I'm always up for new video ideas.
Excellent points about backgrounds at high school and youth events.
p.1 #8 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
crteach wrote:
Hey FM Sports folks - the three folks who have posted above (Scott Sewell, Schlotz, and PureMichigan) are all outstanding sports photographers. I recommend that you watch the videos they share, look up previous posts they've posted, and learn from them! I'm still on my journey to get better and their advice and examples have helped me immensely!
Ah, thanks for the kind words. I had some wonderful mentors when I started and even today I am flattered with some of the high-caliber photographers I have the opportunity to shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with. I'm always glad when I can do anything that might help other photographers.
p.1 #10 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
Caleb Williams wrote:
Great videos, really. Both long lenses and positions.
Thanks Caleb. I guess others might appreciate the field position video. I made it a little late in the season, but that info is basically timeless. Keep up the great work you're doing!
p.1 #11 · What telephoto do I really need for field sports?
Understanding that there are hundreds of YouTube videos available on the very basics of sports photography, there are at least two "next level" holes that I think would be of great help to people. These are infrequently covered, if at all, or if they are not well enough.
The first is how to shoot in a "sunstorm" -- harsh (noonish) overhead sunlight. That really throws off a lot of advanced beginners. And quite frankly, me at times. We all hate it, but there are ways to mitigate the issues, but it is underdiscussed, IMHO.
The other is the incredible importance of managing backgrounds. This should be on the Mount Rushmore of sports photography skills but it is rarely discussed in teaching tools (except maybe here). There should be a master class in Backgrounds.
It's one of those things that people either seem to "get" intuitively or just choose to ignore entirely, even though just a two-inch move to the left or the decision to stand to get the crowd in the background (vs. a porta potty) makes a world of difference. Like seeing the focal length differences in Scott's earlier video, if people could visualize just how little it often takes to elevate a background, I think most would be surprised.
. It provides context to those who are new to sports photography regarding the value of reach when shooting field sports. Could not agree more that the 70-200 definitely provides good coverage for close in action, but it's important to recognize its limits. My main venue is soccer and similarly I find the majority of captures come from long glass (usually the 400 here). I'd say my 70-200 is used probably a bit more than in football mainly due to when & where the action presents itself on the soccer field.