It's a Pink Whale

Well, not really, but I tried my hand at some shots at a Plymouth Whalers hockey game last night. The team was having their annual "pink out" event to benefit breast cancer, so the players wore pink uniforms and died their hair pink. The Whalers won 6-1.

Tyler Seguin, who is expected to be one of the top two picks in next June's NHL Draft, scores a goal:



Seguin skating at center ice:


The loser of a fight:


Goalie Matt Hackett (drafted by the Minnesota Wild last June, and the nephew of former NHL goalie Jeff Hackett) clears the puck:

A loose puck:

Thanks, Sam.  The lighting was tricky. I started out shooting in manual mode, but the light differed on different sections of the ice, so I switched to shutter priority mode, with an exposure compensation of +1/3. I probably needed to increase the EC to +2/3, though, as I needed to increase the exposure in most shots during post processing. I used a custom white balance, but used the ice as my source, when in post processing it appears that the white side boards would have been a better source. Since I shot in RAW mode, though, this was simple to correct.

I was also limited by focal length. I used my EF 85mm f/1.8 lens, which is the longest fast lens I own. Later, I attached a Kenko 1.4x teleconvertor to get more reach. The TC did not seem to slow down the auto focus with this lens, so I was happy with the results there.

I'll probably try again this season when the team is wearing its normal green and blue jerseys. We go to a lot of games.

BTW, here is a shot of the banner from the team's championship year in 2007. That team featured James Neal (now a top player for the Dallas Stars), Daniel Ryder (younger brother of Boston Bruin Michael Ryder), and Washington Capitals goalie Mike Neuvirth.

Thanks, Jon. I started at 1/250sec and ISO 800, then later switched to 1/400sec and ISO 1600. Any faster would have pushed me to my max ISO of 3200, and I was trying to avoid that. Next time I will probably try 3200 anyway. I still had a little leeway with my aperture, but I didn't want to go down to f/1.8 if I could avoid it because of the razor thin depth of field. It certainly is a learning process.

We have been going to games there since the arena opened, but I had never brought my camera before, either. Until recently, I didn't have any lens that would even come close to working under these conditions, but I added a EF 85mm f/1.8 lens to my kit for our niece's wedding this summer, and decided to play a little. Ideally, though, I would really need something longer if I was serious about sports shooting. The pro who stands near us has a 300mm L f/2.8, but that's way out of my price range.

Jon, if you plan on going to another game, let me know. My wife and I go to 15-20 games a year -- it would be great to meet a fellow longtime HTF member.

Since I had forgotten about this thread (thanks, Jon), I did want to add a cool action sequence I caught using continuous shooting mode of Seguin's goal:

Jon,

I set a custom white balance, using the ice as my source. However, it was still a little off -- in retrospect the white side boards were a more accurate source. Fortunately, I always shoot RAW, so fixing this was easy.

I am a Canon shooter, not Nikon. I have a Canon 40D with EF-S 10-22mm, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 70-200mm L f/4 IS and EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses. I also have a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter, which I used with the 85mm for some of these shots.

Like you, I shoot mostly landscapes and wildlife, along with indoor family events, so I really do not have the need for super fast telephoto lenses. It's just fun to try new things occasionally.



Sam, those are some cool shots. Did you have any issues getting your camera and lens into the NFL stadium? I know some pro venues can be very restrictive to amateurs. At the Whalers OHL games, they are pretty lenient.

Unfortunately, though, neither the Canon nor Nikon 70-300mm IS/VR lenses are really appropriate for indoor sports -- both have too small of maximum aperture for indoors. You really need lenses with maximum apertures of f/2.8 or larger. I wouldn't even think about trying these shots with my 70-200mm L f/4, even though that is one sweet lens. All the shots I took had an aperture of f/1.8 - f/3.2. I never would have obtained a decent shutter speed at f/4, even with maximum ISO. Besides, both the Canon and Nikon 70-300's are variable aperture, so the aperture would have been even smaller than f/4 when zoomed in.

I used to own the Canon 70-300mm IS lens, and it was decent for it's price, but certainly pales in comparison with the 70-200mm L f/4 IS that I replaced it with. The 70-300's biggest drawback was a slower auto focus, hunting AF in lower light, and it was not as sharp wide open or at 300mm. However, it is about half the cost of the 70-200mm L.

Edited by Scott Merryfield - 11/29/09 at 4:44am

Man, Canon has a EF 200mm L f/2.8 prime that is very well regarded and I have considered. But, even used, it is still over $500, and it's hard to justify that expense when I already have an excellent 70-200mm L f/4 IS that suits most of my real shooting needs. I do not think that Canon makes anything fast in the 180mm range, but their EF 135mm L f/2.0 is highly regarded (but almost $1,000 new). If I was serious about sports photography, it would be easier to justify the expense. But, just to experiment with a few times a year my 85mm f/1.8 with a 1.4x TC will have to suffice.

I am holding off on any new lenses for now. My next purchase will probably be something at 400mm or longer before our next Yellowstone trip, but that will not be in 2010. Last time there I had the Canon 70-300mm IS lens, and it just wasn't long enough for the wildlife in the park. Now, with 200mm being my longest focal length, I will definitely need something longer for our next visit.

I have considered lens rental, but like you Jon, I would probably want to buy the lens anyway. For Yellowstone, we are usually there for 7-8 days, so the cost of a rental can be high. If I decided to try something like the Canon 500mm L f/4, though, rental would be the only option due to the very high purchase cost of that lens. If I buy a 500mm lens, it will have to be the Sigma 150-500mm due to cost. I may be able to handle buying a Canon 100-400mm L IS or Canon 400mm L f/5.6, though.

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8, too, but never use it. Canon's version is decent optically when stopped down a little, but has a very poor AF system -- both slow and inaccurate. However, it only cost $70, so I cannot expect much at that price. My 17-55mm f/2.8 is a much, much better fast lens, so it gets used in any circumstance where the 50mm f/1.8 could be useful.