Some advice on teleconverters please:

Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
I'm planning on going FX with a D700 in the next few months, and considering the fact that I shoot a lot of indoor ice hockey (my son's team) I will lose the DX multiplication factor with my current lenses. I'm looking at getting a teleconverter to replace the reach, but wondering if I should get the TC-14E or the TC-17E?

I'm aware that the TC-14E will increase my 70-200 VR f2.8 to a f4.0, but will the TC-17E make it a f5.6 since it increases the f-stop by 1.5?

A f-stop of 5.6 is too slow (I think) for what I'm shooting without flash considering the D700's better ISO/low noise capability.

What is the Cafe's input?

TIA for your input.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Oh, and before someone just suggests that I strap on the Sigma 120-300 that I already have, trust me the Nikon is a much better lens. Not to take anything away from Sigma, but the Nikon just produces better shots for this particular subject.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Remember you asked:tongue:. Iv shot alot of hockey over the years and your 70-200 2.8 will be fine from the blue line in. And if your standing at the corner's you will get a fine shot in front of the net( from the side) and can see the player's coming accross the blue line. But here is the thing hockey rinks are noterios for being dark cold tombs with little light. So if your wanting to shoot at least 1/500 second and 1600-3200 IS than 2.8 is where you live and die. And adding the 1.4 will do nothing good for the autofocus. So, you might want to look at a 300/400 2.8 :eek: Remember, you asked.
I personally love the 300/400 focal length and standing just beside the goal net. That way the players are looking right at you when they are firing the puck at your face with nothing but a inch of glass between you and it.
Shooting from the penaty box is another option but I still think you need at least a 300 2.8 from there to cover the goal. If you go there wear a helmet to protect the brain from strays bucks. Nothing worse that getting a frozen puck in the head while your attention is on another part of the action with a camera and lens smashed to your face..

Another option is to buy a couple of strobes and pocket wizards and light up the rink. That way you can shoot at f8 all day.

I dislike the high shot you see in most newspapers these days. It lacks the intimacy and grit that is conveyed when your eye to eye with the player's. Any ways good luck. Tell your son to keep his head up when going across the middle.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Remember you asked:tongue:. Iv shot alot of hockey over the years and your 70-200 2.8 will be fine from the blue line in. And if your standing at the corner's you will get a fine shot in front of the net( from the side) and can see the player's coming accross the blue line. But here is the thing hockey rinks are noterios for being dark cold tombs with little light. So if your wanting to shoot at least 1/500 second and 1600-3200 IS than 2.8 is where you live and die. And adding the 1.4 will do nothing good for the autofocus. So, you might want to look at a 300/400 2.8 :eek: Remember, you asked.
I personally love the 300/400 focal length and standing just beside the goal net. That way the players are looking right at you when they are firing the puck at your face with nothing but a inch of glass between you and it.
Shooting from the penaty box is another option but I still think you need at least a 300 2.8 from there to cover the goal. If you go there wear a helmet to protect the brain from strays bucks. Nothing worse that getting a frozen puck in the head while your attention is on another part of the action with a camera and lens smashed to your face..

Another option is to buy a couple of strobes and pocket wizards and light up the rink. That way you can shoot at f8 all day.

I dislike the high shot you see in most newspapers these days. It lacks the intimacy and grit that is conveyed when your eye to eye with the player's. Any ways good luck. Tell your son to keep his head up when going across the middle.
Well, $5k for a lens is out of the question. Period.

I shot the entire last season from the penalty boxes and get stuff like this:



I've found that I shoot at 3.2 or 3.5, as when I shoot 2.8 parts of the player are out of focus. I try to shoot at 1/640 because 1/500 just isn't fast enough.

I'm really interested in the strobe idea. Can you give some suggestions on what it would take to make this happen? Can you strobe shooting continuous high at 8 FPS?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
2,053
Location
Wood-Ridge, NJ
Here is what you would get from the far bench.....D3 70-200 VR.

as a note if I need to be closer I shot in DX mode.....but I am fine with only 4-5 megapixels.

GenoP

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Geno, that's totally acceptable. I may need to wait until I get the D700 before worrying about the TC, but I'm still very interested in the stobe idea...
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
If your going to spend $5,000 than I cant help you:tongue:,

Okay so you in the middle of the rink , more or less. You can light half the rink with two SB-800/900 Vivitar 285 HV. Have you got pocket wizards? Forget about shooting at 8FPS if your using strobes.In fact using studio strobes plugged with there own power pack is even better as you will get faster recycling speeds than the small SB 900/800.

Geno:

Great shot love the mood and action of that capture.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
2,053
Location
Wood-Ridge, NJ
If your going to spend $5,000 than I cant help you:tongue:,

Okay so you in the middle of the rink , more or less. You can light half the rink with two SB-800/900 Vivitar 285 HV. Have you got pocket wizards? Forget about shooting at 8FPS if your using strobes.In fact using studio strobes plugged with there own power pack is even better as you will get faster recycling speeds than the small SB 900/800.

Geno:

Great shot love the mood and action of that capture.
Thanks.......

Also I have been able to light a whole arena with two AB-800's, however I was lucky enough to be able to get the lights up near the ceiling, and also lucky enough to have a white ceiling too.

I have done basketball with 2 SB-800's, but like you said only half of the court.

GenoP
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
If your going to spend $5,000 than I cant help you:tongue:,

Okay so you in the middle of the rink , more or less. You can light half the rink with two SB-800/900 Vivitar 285 HV. Have you got pocket wizards? Forget about shooting at 8FPS if your using strobes.In fact using studio strobes plugged with there own power pack is even better as you will get faster recycling speeds than the small SB 900/800.

I was thinking about getting a couple of strobes bounced off the ceiling, but I would have no clue where to start. I have no lighting equipment whatsoever at this point. All I have is a SB-800.

$1500 would be doable at this point. Could that get me a couple of strobes and some type of commander?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
2,053
Location
Wood-Ridge, NJ
I was thinking about getting a couple of strobes bounced off the ceiling, but I would have no clue where to start. I have no lighting equipment whatsoever at this point. All I have is a SB-800.

$1500 would be doable at this point. Could that get me a couple of strobes and some type of commander?
You probably could get a few Allien Bees AB-800's and pocketwizards for that. You would also need some stands or clamps. And don't forget extetion cords. You could save on the triggers by using Allien Bees, but I have no experience with them. Pocket Wizards seem to be the way to go for distance.

I had AB-1600's, but I think the AB-800's worked out better as the flash duration is shorter. BY the way, that is the whole key to shooting sports with strobes. You want the shortest flash duration as possible, with the most power you can get.

If you want to go for more professional lights, Dynalight Uni400's are real nice.

Also don't worry about getting a lot of gear all at once. I have a lot of friends that shoot for major papers that only use one strobe with a real high stand and get great results.

GenoP
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Geno is giving you good advice. Keep it simple. The fact is shooting with strobes is a pain in tush. I only do it when there is no other option. You lose the option of quick 'two/three frame burst at 9 frames a second which is really useful with a sport as fast as hockey. The other thing is I think it distracts everyone in the arena. I HATE going to flames games when the card shooters are there. When those strobes POP from the ceilings every two seconds, it feels like Im going to have a seizer. But there pro's, so that is one thing.
But your talking about your sons games. Sure you want some great catures but at what cost. Setting up light's, having the libility of someone knocking them over. Having a player coach complain about the flash. Iv seen it al happen. And it does have an impact on the players, especially in a dark rink and white ice. It messes with there concentration.
And I mean what are we talking about. I mean after all, it amateur sports, what is wrong with shooting available light and having a little grain/noise. Look at Geno's example. Nothing wrong with that. I personally cant stand the hockey card type lighting. Sure the images are bright and colorful, but to me they all look the same. Seen one seen them all. Every rink has it's own look and I think shooting available light adds a important element into the mix.
I hope you and your son have a great season.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Is a 400ws head enough light?

What if I went with some kind of continuous lighting system that would allow me to shoot 8fps without the annoying flashes?
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Geno is giving you good advice. Keep it simple. The fact is shooting with strobes is a pain in tush. I only do it when there is no other option. You lose the option of quick 'two/three frame burst at 9 frames a second which is really useful with a sport as fast as hockey. The other thing is I think it distracts everyone in the arena. I HATE going to flames games when the card shooters are there. When those strobes POP from the ceilings every two seconds, it feels like Im going to have a seizer. But there pro's, so that is one thing.
But your talking about your sons games. Sure you want some great catures but at what cost. Setting up light's, having the libility of someone knocking them over. Having a player coach complain about the flash. Iv seen it al happen. And it does have an impact on the players, especially in a dark rink and white ice. It messes with there concentration.
And I mean what are we talking about. I mean after all, it amateur sports, what is wrong with shooting available light and having a little grain/noise. Look at Geno's example. Nothing wrong with that. I personally cant stand the hockey card type lighting. Sure the images are bright and colorful, but to me they all look the same. Seen one seen them all. Every rink has it's own look and I think shooting available light adds a important element into the mix.
I hope you and your son have a great season.
Is a 400ws head enough light?

What if I went with some kind of continuous lighting system that would allow me to shoot 8fps without the annoying flashes?

I guess you were posting yours while I was posting mine. What do you think about coninuous lights?
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
I am not aware of a local HS or Little League for that matter that allows the use of pro strobes during games....?

The BOE of our town only allows on camera flash and you need a 'press pass' they only give a few each season for each sport and they are usually reserved for the local newspapers and connected parents to get down low enough....

Could you tell me you go about using AB's or even SBXXX's?
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
3,678
Location
St Louis MO
***noob questions follow***

I wont be doing thin any time soon but do you guys diffse the strobes at all? you you aim them up then off a reflector?

or do you just have them fire for as much light as possible.

i'm asking because i have my Sb-400 and if i'm ever at a spot i can use it, i just need the basics lol

** end noob**
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
2,053
Location
Wood-Ridge, NJ
Is a 400ws head enough light?

What if I went with some kind of continuous lighting system that would allow me to shoot 8fps without the annoying flashes?
I don't think anyone would allow you to set up continuous lighting....plus they usually get very hot.

About 400's, the 800's are a lot more power for not so much more money. If your going that far you might as well go for 800's.

I would stick with cheap flashes if not going with strobes, as they can work well also...

Some good reading.....can be found here.

You can use the same concept, but scale it down to afford-ability.

GenoP
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
835
Location
Fort Worth, TX
I talked to a friend of mine (the pro that got me started with my first D100) that said what I was trying to do (continuous lighting) would be useless.

He strongly suggested I buy a D700 before spending money on lighting.

So, I'll probably just hold off for a while until I can save up for the 700.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
2,296
Location
Maryland USA
I'm planning on going FX with a D700 in the next few months, and considering the fact that I shoot a lot of indoor ice hockey (my son's team) I will lose the DX multiplication factor with my current lenses. I'm looking at getting a teleconverter to replace the reach, but wondering if I should get the TC-14E or the TC-17E?

I'm aware that the TC-14E will increase my 70-200 VR f2.8 to a f4.0, but will the TC-17E make it a f5.6 since it increases the f-stop by 1.5?

A f-stop of 5.6 is too slow (I think) for what I'm shooting without flash considering the D700's better ISO/low noise capability.

What is the Cafe's input?

TIA for your input.


With the 1.7 TC it will be about f/4.8 and a 2.0 TC is f/5.6
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom