Lenses for shooting Ice Hockey

Hello, I'm new to photography but a lot of my friends are majoring in photography, but cannot answer my specific

questions since they don't shoot action photos. I'm an ice hockey player and I like taking photos of players.

What are some lenses that I should look into purchasing in order to capture the perfect shot. I understand the

shutter has to be fast, but should I go for a zoom or primary? I bought a Nikon D300 using my companies money, I

also am taking photographs for our new dance club opening up. Any suggestions for compatible lenses with the

D300. I'd probably want to stick with Nikon lenses.

 

Thanks,

Phillip

Because the D300 can perform admirably at higher ISOs, you might well get away with f/2.8 lenses. For action that's moving back and forth across the ice, a zoom like the 80-200 or the super-duper 70-200VR would be terrific tools on that body. For particularly awful light, the good ol' 50/1.8 (at around $120) is impossible to beat - but it would be for relatively close action. The 85/1.8 would give you some more reach.

<br><Br>

Now, if you have a chance to actually shoot while out ON the ice, you might have some real fun with an ultra-wide. Perhaps Tokina's new 11-16/2.8 when it starts reliably shipping. You can produce some very dramatic images at those focal lengths (though not while the ref is looking, because you'd be right in the middle of things).

<br><br>

You might also give some thought to the <a href="http://www.laurphoto.com/prdr/sigma_30_1-4_hsmSigma 30/1.4 HSM" target="_blank"><b>Sigma 30/1.4 HSM</b></a>. It's the right "normal" perspective focal length for the D300, and can (if you don't mind the shallow depth of field when it's wide open) really deliver a lot of light. Ideal for the nightclub stuff, as well as for some work at the rink.

<br><br>

If you're shooting on the ice, you might want to be sure you have some good protective filters on the more expensive lenses.

<br><br>

Me? I'd get the 70-200/2.8 for now. If that's way outside your budget, the 80-200 is a stellar lens, but doesn't have the VR, which you might find useful for the other social shooting, especially in clubs. Sigma and Tamron also make versatile 2.8 zooms, but they're not quite as indestructible. Have fun!

Hi - the 70-200 is place to start, IMHO. That's what I;ve used for past couple of years shooting HS hockey.

You definitely need constant aperture lenses that open up to 2.8 -2-1.8-1.4.

The 85 1.8 would be good for shooting through the glass at the goal. I think a 50 or 35 wuld be just too wide/loose for much action use. I have a 50 but have not tried it on hockey. Becareful to check some 1.4 versions regarding their focusing speed. The 85 1.4 is not as fast as the 1.8, for instance. Also, at 1.4 you only have inches in focus! tough when shooting fast moving action.

Some PeeWee recent shots I took, many fwere rom one of the penalty boxes. Good if you can get in there.

Phillip, I shoot a lot of hockey and except for a very few situations when a 300 2.8 is called for, a 70-200 is THE lens for

hockey. I also shoot primarily with a D300. Given the typically atrocious lighting in most rinks, the D300's high ISO

performance is just what the doctor ordered. Pick up a used 80-200 or buy a new 70-200 if you have the funds. You'll then

have just what you need for great hockey pics.<div></div>

Hockey is by far the most exciting sport to shoot and having the perfect lens for it helps. Unfortunatley I haven't had the opportunity to shoot with any fast lens except for the 50mm 1.4D. It works very efficiently in getting the shots you want but the downfall of it is you have to be against the glass to get in close to the action and you still may have to do a bit of cropping after. Practically all the photos of hockey I've shot are with the 50mm and I've had no complaints about the final results except for the fact I'd rather be closer to the action. I have 70-200VR 2.8 envy at the moment so if you can budget that lens, I highly recommend it. Good luck shooting!

Sorry Phillip no answer here, just tagging on to your question with one of my own. I am shooting with a Cannon 40D and a 70-200L 2.8 lens. I am also shooting hockey pictures and as was mentioned above, the light is terrible. I can shoot up to an ISO of 1600 and I keep it at 2.8 in Av mode but most of the pictures still come out dark. The camera wants to shoot at 1/2000 shutter speed at times which I think is not allowing enough light. I have tried setting the exposure on a neutral shot, then locking the exposure and taking the shot on the ice and have had mixed success. Any advice for fixing the exposure in this situation other then buying a 1.8 lens.

 

Mike

Like Dan says, the lighting in most rinks is hideous and no where near bright enough. You need to shoot at a high ISO which is where the 40D and D300 do wonders.

 

The ice being white (sort of) and the vast abundance of it will fool the light meter in the camera and under expose your shot, hence it wants to go to 1/2000.

 

Go to the rink find what works 1600iso,1/500sec,f.28 and go from there. lower iso will get better image quality, smaller f stop will get more DoF. And then set it, shoot manual.

 

No matter what you do you still can't get light where there isn't any, there faces are usually covered by their masks so expressions will be tough to get.

 

The 70-200 is excellent for 80% of the shots. Occasionally I'd like a 300/2.8 to get right in (but my wife won't let me get one).<div></div>

Oh yeah, If you pick up a 80-200 make sure it's an AFS. not sure what Canon calls it USM? Anyways you absolutely need the fast autofocus. The 80-200/2.8 AFS is out of production so you have to find a used one. Good news is you can probably get one for less than the 70-200, about a 900 to1000

 

Although I have the 70-200VR-AFS, I don't use the VR shooting hockey so depending what else you want the lense for there is NOTHING wrong with the 80-200AFS

I shoot 40D and 70-200 2.8 or 120-300 2.8. 1600ISO is rarely fast enough to get decent shutter speeds. Also, around the goal, I find 50/1.8 is not bad, 85/1.8 is too long, and both are too long when the players start moving towards you on the boards or towards the corner.

 

In reality, so many of the municipal rinks I shoot at don't have the physical space for moving around too much, so lens choice is really important. If I really want the shots where goalie is a focal point, I'll shoot the length of the ice for it.

 

As my son plays on 2 Summer 3-on-3 teams, I get lots of ice shooting year-round. The 3-on-3 is at private facilities, and they are lit as well as most of the OHL rinks. These rinks are great for getting skills down, except for lighting, which can be worked on more during winter.

 

Shoot RAW and fix WB and Colour Temperature in whatever program you use - that makes a huge difference too.

 

HTH

Wow! Thanks for all the great recommendations, I will definitely look into the 70-200mm. About a year ago or so my friend bought the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED and the 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED together, he wants to sell them both to me so he can buy an 18-200mm lense. Would either lense work for me? Would an 18-200mm lense work for my case as well? Which is the better choice? Gord and Dan those are some really awesome pictures.

 

Thanks, Phillip

Oh yeah, I'm probably going to be taking my camera into the water for some surf photography as well as some shots of the hotel I currently work for from the ocean for extra cash hopefully. I just have to find the right housing decently priced. The Aquapac and Dicapac look really cheap and doesn't look like it could even keep out water. My other options are the Ikelite and Aquatech, anybody know of any other brands to throw out there? I have to keep the price under $2000 for the housing and the port. (I originally thought the housing came with the port, now adding more money than I expected...)

Hey Phillip,

 

The 18-200 is a great carry around all purpose lens but if you want to shoot hockey you absolutely need the 70(80)-200 2.8/AFS.

 

If you want to use the camera to make money save your coin for the 70-200 (or 80-200) and never look back it's a lovely piece of glass. By all means if you have extra cash get the 18-200, I would if I did.

 

Do a search of hockey on this forum, although I'm sure you have already, and you'll find we've been talking about this for a while.

 

Now that 3on3 spring hockey is over I can put on shorts to shoot :)

 

Gord

The answer to your question, no they won't work. Well they will (anything will) but the results will be disappointing 1600 and most likely 3200iso, slow shutter speeds all add to grey, grainy, motion blurred photos

I'd have to agree with Dan, the 70-200 is in fact one of the best lenses for ice hockey, however there are times that I wish I had the 135 f2 for the added speed.

 

Due to poor lighting and the fast pace of the game, it is essential that you have the fastest lens available and of course shoot like mad!

 

 

hockey.jpg

Sorry...I meant to attach this image<div></div>