Fast paced shooting.

<p>Hi, I'm really new to this forum- I have a Nikon D3100, and I just dawdle in photography,<br>

but I was wondering what lens size would be best for shooting hockey games and hunting?</p>

<div></div>

<p>70-200/2.8 would be good for hockey. </p>

<p>Since you "dawdle" in photography I recommend a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 ED AF-S (make sure it is the AF-S one) for hockey, and likely a Nikon 300mm f4 ED AF-S for hunting. You could get by with a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR for hunting.</p>

<p>Looking at the exif, I see you shot this at ISO 100, f/5.3 and 1/200 sec.<br /> Had you upped the ISO to 800 you would have cut down on the blur by getting a higher shutter speed. Also, shooting at base ISO should not normally cause so much noise which leads me to think you might have underexposed this shot and the noise was due to brightening the shot in post.</p>

<p>Do you shoot RAW? What processing software do you use? What lenses do you have now?<br />A lens might help, but not without equal attention to technique as well.</p>

<p>You should know that situations like hockey are very demanding on a camera and it is not surprising that you get less than great results initially.<br /> Like Ilkka suggests, you can reduce your issues by spending vast amounts of money, but you are probably trying to find another way to do this.<br /> It appears as if you are shooting from a very good location. I assume that you are not shooting pro sports so your need for a long lens are probably less. <br /> I suggest two thing. Firstly read up on exposure. Like Steve says, your exposure was messed up for such a situation. Get a good handle on exposure and you will be able to up your iso and shutter speeds. Secondly I suggest you get a bright prime lens such as a 50mm. You will need the 50g to focus with your camera. It is relatively inexpensive, slightly telephoto on your camera, and has a much larger aperture than you likely have now, allowing you more flexibility with exposure.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whats your budget for a lens?</p>

<p>Hi Brittney, good advice above. All I can add is that good shooting technique, including proper camera and lens support, will result in more keepers. If you get a longer/heavier lens like a 70-200mm or a 80-200mm or a 300mm, using a monopod (if allowed indoors or by where you are shooting) will greatly improve the stability and result in better shots. Google "long lens technique" and read up on the subject.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>Hey Brittney,<br /> When you see those "killer" hockey shots, they were most likely taken with high frames-per-second, hi-res, hi - quality ISO cameras by guys with lots of experience, using fast lenses shooting <em>lots</em> of RAW excess shots, using cards with fast write speeds and on a monopod (usually). When you first realize this you might think that you don't have a good setup but the fact is what you already have is very good because it forces to learn how to get the best within given parameters. This is much more essential to good photography than equipment is. Work with what you got and as time goes on you'll see that all the new equipment you get doesn't improve your shots, instead your shots improve the equipment. The pros all started at your level to. Even if you don't want to go pro and just "dawdle" you still want to get the most out of your equipment.</p>

<p>A monopod is a great camera support for shooting sports. It would also be good for carrying around in the woods, much lighter and less bulky than a tripod.</p>

<p>I just want to chime in to reinforce what people are saying about working on technique with the lens you have available.<br>

You should be able to set your camera to ISO 3200 and get pretty nice results. There will still be some visible noise, but it will look a lot better than what you got in your example picture. In a hockey rink, you'll probably need to use such a high ISO. This gives you two advantages: one is that it keeps your shutter speed high enough to have a chance at stopping action, and the other is that it helps compensate for the kit lens, which doesn't let a lot of light in.<br>

It looks like you were shooting that at a focal length of 40 mm and then cropping a lot. If you're using the 18-55mm kit lens, you should take care to zoom in all the way so you don't have to crop as much. If you can get closer to your subject, that will be even better, but I can't really tell from this where you were located. 55mm is not really as long as you'd ideally want, but you should be able to get some interesting shots with it.<br>

For a situation like this, I would recommend taking a little time before the game to do the following:</p>

<ol>

<li>Set your ISO to 3200 (for faster shutter speeds).</li>

<li>Set your camera's exposure mode to M.</li>

<li>Zoom in all the way and open your aperture to the largest it'll go (which should be f/5.6 if you're using the kit lens.)</li>

<li>Then, point your camera at a white part of the ice where there aren't any bright reflections.</li>

<li>Leaving the camera pointed at the ice, adjust your shutter speed until the exposure reading in the display is centered (meaning good exposure.)</li>

<li>What you've now done is picked an exposure that will make the ice look like a midtone gray. Since you actually want it to be closer to white, take your shutter speed (let's imagine it's 1/1600) and multiply it by 4 (making it 1/400) and then set it to that. Every factor of 2 in shutter speed is one stop, and you probably want the ice to be about 2 stops brighter than a midtone gray.</li>

<li>Finally, take a few pictures and make sure that they look pretty good in the display, tweaking from there if you like.</li>

</ol>

<p>Since the light level in the rink is pretty even and isn't going to change, by doing this you've taken one huge annoying variable out of your photography, which is how the autoexposure is going to change as you point the camera around the rink. All you should have to do is point, focus, and shoot at the right moment to catch the action.</p>

<p>Was the image underexposed? What did you do to it in the postprocessing?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Was the image underexposed? What did you do to it in the postprocessing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brittney can speak to her own description of what was done after the fact, but from the metadata in the image, it was shot at ISO 100, f/5.3, and 1/200 sec, which for typical hockey rink lighting is (ballpark guess) 4 or 5 stops underexposed.<br>

From the blotchiness of the dark regions, I'd guess that it was shot in JPEG format and then brightened up in Photoshop, but it's possible it was a raw image.</p>

<p>That is my guess too, Mark. And if it is a jpeg file, it can't take much postprosessing before the quality deteriorates.</p>