Check out the football shots from last weekends and this weekends games. First game I shot with a 18-135, and second game (orange team) I shot with a 70-300. Tell me what you think!! Also should I buy smugmug, this is just a trial, also should I try and sell the pictures to parents? Thanks Guys.

Link: http://isaacpatry.smugmug.com/Sports...7122&k=xK8QNL9

Didnt work

I don't think it works for anything other then a computer

Your link doesn't work. My best guess is that you can't link from a trial account.

The best method for presenting images here is to post them directly.

I'm not sure that anyone other than yourself will be able to provide adequate answers to your remaining questions.

I was able to view your photos by going to: www.issacpatry.smugmug.com

The best advice I can give you is to remember this old sports photography guideline: <b>Face-Ball-Action</b> If you don't see all three of those in your viewfinder, don't press the shutter button.

You've got several very nice shots in your gallery, but there's also several where we see nothing but player's backs. In my experience even the most rabid football Mom isn't too interested in shots of her son's back.

Try to shoot tighter. You should be able to do this with your 70-300mm lens, but you'll need to stay on the 300mm end of things. Loose shots containing players not involved in the action, out of focus coaches, bleachers in the background cause, etc. are generally distractions from the action and should be avoided.

Keep shooting and above all, have fun.

A decent first effort. You'll get there, but you're not there yet. I wouldn't waste any money on a pro account anywhere for a while. Here are a few of my observations about sports photography, and I have done it professionally:

Shooting - the number one thing that you need to do when shooting youth sports is to get low and shoot on the kids' level. Parents, amateurs, and hacks usually do not do this. This perspective makes the kids look like pros, and increases your odds of getting the whites of their eyes. You also get the horizon and a distant background this way, so it will be nice and defocused. Shooting down on the kids from a standing position makes them look like little kids, and will only get you photos that look the same as the garbage that the parents are getting already. The only edge you might have is better equipment, but it usually won't matter.

Next is a successful sports action photograph usually has at least two of these qualities - face, ball, action/conflict. Sometimes a shot of the player facing away from you can work if the name and number on the back of the jersey are clearly readable, but it has to be a darn good shot.

Next is to shoot with the sun at your back or to the side. Shoot into the sun only if you absolutely have to. Next, if the light is relatively constant, shoot manual and expose for the player (in helmet/visor sports you may not be able to expose for the face perfectly). This prevents the camera from getting fooled by varying backgrounds. It looks like you were sometimes doing these two things already, but they are good to keep in mind. Also always shoot with your lens wide open to maximize background blur. This helps set your shots apart from the parents'. Choose the lowest ISO you can (but avoid ISO 50) to get shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000. Lower ISO has better quality. You have some shots at ISO 800, 1/3200. Not necessary.

Sales - selling via the online model like SmugMug is difficult. Just emailing the coach and/or the parents after the game with a link to your gallery and then praying for sales won't get many if any bites, even if the photos are good. You have to do some marketing. Get permission from the coach in advance, and ask them to email the team in advance to say that you will be there for a "picture day". If the league has already hired a pro, you won't be able to do this. Do individual portraits too, or at least a team group shot. This sets expectations, and then parents will be ready and waiting for your email after the game. Even then, sales will be fewer than you hope. In the age of digital cameras and smartphones, photos have lost a lot of value. Everyone's computer is already flooded with photos they will never print. A lot of people will just view your images on their computer, say hey that's great, email the link around to their family and friends, use it on facebook, and then they're done with it. They don't need to buy it after that. Doesn't matter if the images are watermarked or right-click disabled, they will use them as-is and grab a screenshot if they want.

Hope this helps, good luck!

I probably wont sell any just because I like to do it for fun. There is another game this weekend that I will shoot and hopefully do much better. So I should shoot with a lower ISO, and lower shutter speed? Then ap should be the lowest I could get it. Also, for daytime shooting should I get the 100-400 canon lens? Does anyone have experience with it? And would I be able to shoot under the lights with it. I probably wont do any under the lights but you never know. So shoot tighter, crop if needed, and have fun! Seems like a good way to shoot. Ill be updating soon!

Originally Posted by ipatry So I should shoot with a lower ISO, and lower shutter speed? Then ap should be the lowest I could get it.

Right, choose aperture and ISO to get shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000. For evening or low light games you can try as low as 1/400, but you will see a difference.

Also, for daytime shooting should I get the 100-400 canon lens? Does anyone have experience with it?

"The Trombone", I had one. It has very good image quality and a lot of reach for your dollar. The push-pull zoom mechanism takes some getting used to, and the lens is physically large and pretty heavy. Holding it fully extended is kind of awkward. The results are great, but I enjoy the shooting experience of my 70-200/2.8 better.

And would I be able to shoot under the lights with it.

No, not at all. It is not fast enough. Even in the late afternoon you will find your ISO creeping up. For evening/night games you will need to find a 70-200 f/2.8 that fits your budget. You don't need Image Stabilization for sports. On your camera it will give you an effective view of 112-320mm which will get you enough reach to get some great keepers. Beyond the 70-200/2.8, this sport becomes crazy expensive to photograph.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft "The Trombone", I had one. It has very good image quality and a lot of reach for your dollar. The push-pull zoom mechanism takes some getting used to, and the lens is physically large and pretty heavy. Holding it fully extended is kind of awkward. The results are great, but I enjoy the shooting experience of my 70-200/2.8 better. No, not at all. It is not fast enough. Even in the late afternoon you will find your ISO creeping up. For evening/night games you will need to find a 70-200 f/2.8 that fits your budget. You don't need Image Stabilization for sports. On your camera it will give you an effective view of 112-320mm which will get you enough reach to get some great keepers. Beyond the 70-200/2.8, this sport becomes crazy expensive to photograph.

This was my first sports lens, and it was great for day games: really nice image quality. I needed a monopod for long games, though. Night games are definitely out; you'll need an f/2.8 or better for this...

Ate there any other lenses at least 300-500 max zoom that are good for all around. It can be another company to as long as it gets good results and isn't crazy expensive.

Look for a Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS, you should be able to find one for around $900, that would be your best bet. Zoom with your feet.

I havent seen anything in the same price range that can come even close to that lens.

Originally Posted by ipatry Ate there any other lenses at least 300-500 max zoom that are good for all around. It can be another company to as long as it gets good results and isn't crazy expensive.

Well, there is the Sigma 150-500 for $1069 new, but it's even slower than the 100-400L. If you can't reach the action with 400mm on a crop camera, you're standing (kneeling) in the wrong place. And you won't be able to shoot a night game with anything less than f/2.8.

i can reach the action easily but If it goes away from me I dont want to miss shots. I think the 200 is just not enough. I would like to stay with a 300-400. I like 300 but really expensive lens at 2.8.

Originally Posted by ipatry i can reach the action easily but If it goes away from me I dont want to miss shots. I think the 200 is just not enough. I would like to stay with a 300-400. I like 300 but really expensive lens at 2.8.

I've shot soccer on a 120 yard field with a 7D and a 70-200. It's very doable, you just have to move around. Yes, you are going to come home with fewer images than if you had 300 or 400mm to play with. But even with the 70-200 you can definitely bring home more images than you really want to deal with if you move up and down the field and just wait for the action to come near you and then fire at will. You just have to make peace with the fact that you are not going to get shots of every play, and that is really ok.

There is also the Canon 300 f/4L.

Thanks for the info! I think I will probably go with the 200. Seams like it would be alright. It just seams like I might not get the close up shots like I could. The action will have to be close with I think if I shoot a night game it will pay off. Could I use a teleconverter for sports or avoid it?

Originally Posted by ipatry Thanks for the info! I think I will probably go with the 200. Seams like it would be alright. It just seams like I might not get the close up shots like I could. The action will have to be close with I think if I shoot a night game it will pay off. Could I use a teleconverter for sports or avoid it?

An f/2.8 lens or faster is the only way to shoot evening/night sports. The 70-200/2.8 or the fixed 200/2.8 are the only ways to do it as a hobby without selling a kidney. You can use a teleconverter. Just realize that the 1.4x TC brings the lens down to f/4, and the 2x TC brings it down to f/5.6, so they're really only useful for day games. The Mark III versions of the Canon Teleconverters work better with the camera's autofocus.

These lenses hold their value well, so if you decide you want something longer (100-400L) at the expense of forgetting about night games, you'll be able to sell the 70-200/2.8 at a minimal loss, if any. You could also rent a lens to see if you like it.

So you recommend the mark III. My autofocus will still me sharp and fast right? Now it's just which lens to get. What do I get for more money?

Originally Posted by ipatry So you recommend the mark III.

yep.

My autofocus will still me sharp and fast right?

that is the claim. I haven't compared the Mark II against the Mark III.

Now it's just which lens to get. What do I get for more money?

I think this has been already covered, yes? It is time for you and your parents to make a decision. 70-200/2.8 = day and night games with less reach.
100-400L = day games only, with all the reach you need.

Of course the other option is buy nothing now and work on your technique and find out if this is really something on which you want to spend serious money. You will get some great keepers with your current gear.