Hockey Lens for End Zone Action

[Tumbleweed]

Hi there,

I shoot hockey at various levels with a Nikon D7100 (DX), Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8. I have pretty good success from the stands where I can cover the ice from the one end to the other including the action in front of the net. This does have some limititations depending where I am standing, especially near center ice, catching the back of the players in many cases. I would like to get those action shots in the end zone, in front of the net and the offensive players charging the net. Generally, I'm looking to stand behind the net and along the boards out to just inside the blue line. I have tried a 50mm f/1.8 without success. Is there a suitable lens that would work? Perhaps a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or ? The local news photographer gets great end zone photos with a Nikon D500 but he avoids telling what he is using when I asked. Help? : )

Thanks,

Dave

[NorthernFocus]

Why didn't the 50mm work? How tight are you looking too shoot? Based on what little I know about hockey rinks I'd have thought the 70-200 would be ideal. But I tend to favor tight/isolation shots. If the 70-200 is too long then maybe 16-80 or 16-85. That covers the rest of the range below the 70mm.

[Shadowman]

Just wondering if you'll have access to the eyeholes, also if shooting from that vantage point you'll probably need a stool. Depending on the lens you'll need you should be able to estimate what focal length you'll need based on how much of the player you want to get in the frame.

[Black Pearl]

I would have thought the lens to go with the one you have would be the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8

[Shadowman]

Here's a quick video with tips. I usually shoot from the nosebleed section, would love to get down below for a few periods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9CR2TqmFmU

[RBSinTo]

Hi there,

I shoot hockey at various levels with a Nikon D7100 (DX), Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8. I have pretty good success from the stands where I can cover the ice from the one end to the other including the action in front of the net. This does have some limititations depending where I am standing, especially near center ice, catching the back of the players in many cases. I would like to get those action shots in the end zone, in front of the net and the offensive players charging the net. Generally, I'm looking to stand behind the net and along the boards out to just inside the blue line. I have tried a 50mm f/1.8 without success. Is there a suitable lens that would work? Perhaps a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or ? The local news photographer gets great end zone photos with a Nikon D500 but he avoids telling what he is using when I asked. Help? : )
Thanks,
Dave

David,
As you are having no success with the local paper's photographer, I'd suggest contacting the PJs at the Star, Globe or Sun. They won't feel threatened by your questions as the local person likely is. He's afraid you're out to steal his job. They won't be and should give you some help.
Robert

[Manfred M]

I would suggest the same thing that Robin has - the f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200mm are the two lenses we see most pros shooting with. Both are fast and good. A two body setup with each lens on a separate body is a pretty common shooting technique.

[rpcrowe]

Nikon, Sigma and Tamron have 24-70mm lenses that will fit your Nikon. If you were shooting Canon, I would have recommended the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

The two body setup like Manfred suggested would be neat and efficient way to go!

[Tumbleweed]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your reply. The 50mm works but the focal length is very limited. When shooting the front of the goal net, I need that extra room to get the players making the shot from 10 -15 in the photo. The 70-200 works well from the penalty box or the spectator stands but it's too tight along the glass in the end zone. I have will be looking at your suggestions, my preference would be a fixed aperture at around f/2.8. Great input!

[Tumbleweed]

Robin,

I am looking at the 24-70, 16-80, 16-85 or 17-50. If I shoot with a 24-70 and let's say a 17-50 will there be much difference in the end? That's my quandary. It would nice to try different lenses but not very practical.
Dave

[rpcrowe]

In addition to the restrictive focal length, the problem with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 (all issues) is that the autofocus of that lens is not all that fast or accurate.

[Tumbleweed]

Manfred,

Good idea! I do have an extra D7000 which would work. Would you stay with a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a Nikon FX camera or possibly go with a 17-50mm f/2.8.? Thx Dave

[rpcrowe]

The closer you get to the action the faster the apparent speed of the action will be. I may be wrong, but, I think that ice hockey is one of the fastest sports out there!

[Shadowman]

The closer you get to the action the faster the apparent speed of the action will be. I may be wrong, but, I think that ice hockey is one of the fastest sports out there!

Jai Alai, ball travel once held the world record (188 mph).

[RBSinTo]

Jai Alai, ball travel once held the world record (188 mph).

John,
I think Richard may be referring to the player's skating speed rather than the speed of their shots.
The fastest NHL skaters can get up to about 33 mph., and as an aside the fastest NHL slap shots travel about 108 mph.
So chasing elite hockey players with a camera is akin to chasing cars, except that the cars don't stop on a dime and change directions every few seconds.
Robert

[Shadowman]

John,
I think Richard may be referring to the player's skating speed rather than the speed of their shots.
The fastest NHL skaters can get up to about 33 mph., and as an aside the fastest NHL slap shots travel about 108 mph.
So chasing elite hockey players with a camera is akin to chasing cars, except that the cars don't stop on a dime and change directions every few seconds.
Robert

Robert,

Horses can go faster than that, so again hockey is a relatively slow sport. I will concede that the puck is hard to follow with the human eye.

[RBSinTo]

Robert,

Horses can go faster than that, so again hockey is a relatively slow sport. I will concede that the puck is hard to follow with the human eye.

Yeah, but just think how fast hockey would be if they got horses to play it.
Robert

[Shadowman]

Yeah, but just think how fast hockey would be if they got horses to play it.
Robert

Don't give the league any ideas.

[Pippan]

I think they call it polo, don't they?

[Shadowman]

I think they call it polo, don't they?