Soligor 2.8/135 Used under lights at the rugby

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Carried on from this link
Well I went to the rugby and these are the results from the lens I chose to take.Most were taken at F4 and the main ISO used was 400 and I think some were 800.I found that the stadium lighting was not as bad as I thought it may have been.These are all hand held,You can see they are not sharp and also the limitations of the short length.But on a whole I was pleased with the results...but will be looking for another lens to try.
#1The Stadium

#2 The warm up

#3 Practicing the lift in the lineout.

#4

#5

#6 The Crowd

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11 You have the put in to the scrum

#12 The scrum...push!!!

#13

#14

#15 The short length of the 135 at a rugby game.

#16

#17 The lineout...I can jump higher than you!

#18 The try...right in front but hard to change focus when it happens so fast!!

#19

#20

#21 Guess who won

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Some very spectacular captures Mo !
My favourites: #3 #11 #12 #17
_

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Great effort and some look really sharp, I'm surprised at how good the lighting was! If you are OK with shooting ISO 400 and 800, perhaps take a lens a little longer e.g. a 200/4 and shoot at ISO 800-1600. That way you will see less shake and get a little closer too Smile

I guess a 300/5.6 would be too slow then (one stop slower than the 135/2.8 at f4 and double the shutter speed would be needed because of the focal length, so overall 2 stops worse).

martyn_bannister · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 1151

Great shots Mo. Especially the "lifts" in the lineout. Don't think you really needed much more length, unless it was a zoom.

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Thanks for the encouragement...would a AF lens do better?I am looking at buying one but really have no idea of what to look for...It would be mainly for this type of shooting.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Not bad, Mo! Not bad at all! I like the scrums, they came out well, I think.

You know, the manual focus lens you need, I think, is a lens I have: the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD. It's a sharp lens, and the constant f/4 aperture makes for easier use in manual modes. But a 300mm f/4 is a pretty fast optic, and there were a few situations where it looked like you could have used some more focal length.

Still, I think you did an admirable job considering this was all done with a 135mm lens. Not really what a sports photographer would consider as a first choice, methinks.

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Hey Mo,

Well, I haven't weighed my Tokina. You can probably find its specs that will list weight online. But it's pretty big, has a 72mm front filter size, and definitely not a lightweight:

But I used to own a Canon FD 300mm f/4, and this Tokina is about the same size. 300/4s are not small.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

Kudos for shooting a moving target in bad lighting.

Most of the images (apart from #11) look a little soft to me, which could be because you were shooting wide open, missed focus or motion blur. What shutter speeds were you getting?

Would an AF lens do better? Well, it would focus quickly and accurately (dare I say better than MF).

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

I agree on the softness, as for shutter speeds I did not notice as I was taking a lot of images. Rolling Eyes

We are about to get into rugby season so I will have a lot more opportunities to practice.

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

Borderline low speed for lens & camera combo which is why I suspect they are a little soft.

Try a monopod or extra couple of stops if ISO can be boosted.

another thought; did you have noise reduction turned on?

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Sorry I forget I can look at the exif.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Definately shoot RAW. That way you can shoot at higher ISO and manage the levels of noise yourself, which will likely vary between shots, depending on shadows etc.

Olivier · Expire: 2015-08-06

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Thanks for the AF lens tip,I recently used my mamiya 200/3.5 in the day time the images were not to bad.Wow 6.3 would have been tough ...but hey I would try it! Very Happy

Olivier · Expire: 2015-08-06

Fujinonuser · Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany

May I suggest that the 3.5 / 135mm version of this lens is just a little bit sharper due to the smaller diameter of its glass elements? This lens was built about 43 years ago. It had to satisfy photographers' expectations of sharpness in b/w photography. At that time, even orthochromatic film material was used alongside of the panchromatic films. If I remember correctly what I have read, these lenses were made of heavy glass, crown and flint, that was corrected for a cooler section of the light spectrum yielding greater resolution and less distortion and barring "warmer" colors, similar to Nikon's ED glasses. I like this professional look, no thinning out of color spaces like in newer computer-designed lenses. On the downside is the strong overall contrast when you have to accommodate contrast ratios of 1:10000 and more. Nevertheless, your shots look pretty sharp and professional to me.