Photographing Cheerleaders

[DisneydaveCT]

Two of my daughters have made their respective cheerleading squads (1 HS & 1MS). I am hoping to photograph them in action during basketball games.

I will be using a Pentax K100D. My two lenses are the Pentax DA 18-55 3.5/5.6, and a Sigma 28-80 3.5/5.6. I have found over time that the Sigma is a bit soft unless in well lit environments.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

BTW, I posted this on a photography site, and everyone so far has suggested getting a faster lens, which makes sense. But if the budget does not allow for such a purchase, does anyone have some tips for using my current equipment?

Many thanks,
Dave

 

[ukcatfan]

For indoor basketball, you are going to just have to push the ISO up as far as you can handle. That is probably going to have to be 1600 at least. I have had some decent 3200 shots from my K100D, but they end up a bit soft after noise reduction. IMO they are just too noisy at that ISO to not use NR. Then you are going to have to use as wide an aperture as possible. Unfortunately the kit is going to be a bit softer if you do not stop it down a little. I would go at a minimum of one stop smaller than the max. Then you are going to make sure the shutter stays fast enough to prevent subject motion blur. It is not going to be easy, so try to get as close as possible. If you end up in the 20th row for example, just forget about it and enjoy the show. Have you considered a used 50mm? I bought a SMC-A 50mm f/2 from KEH for about $60. Sure it is manual focus, but it served its purpose until I was able to buy the SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

These shots will be taken inside the school gyms with artificial light.

 

[Michele]

I would 2nd the recommendation to get the 50mm. It is under $100. I use it for basketball games and get good results.

The settings for this one were ISO 640 f1.8 1/160

You will be able to get much closer to the cheerleaders than the players on the court.

 

[ukcatfan]

I would 2nd the recommendation to get the 50mm. It is under $100. I use it for basketball games and get good results.

The settings for this one were ISO 640 f1.8 1/160

You will be able to get much closer to the cheerleaders than the players on the court.

It is around $175-200 for Pentax, but it is a f/1.4 instead of f/1.8. It is a very nice lens. While there are pretty much only manual focus models available used for Pentax, they are also very nice lenses. It is hard to find a used SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4 b/c nobody wants to get rid of theirs. There might be a flood of them used once the SMC-DA* 55mm comes out though. If looking at used ones, be aware the the SMC-A are auto aperture while the F and M models require an extra step to set the exposure and you set the aperture on the actual ring.

 

[Michele]

It is around $175-200 for Pentax, but it is a f/1.4 instead of f/1.8. It is a very nice lens. While there are pretty much only manual focus models available used for Pentax, they are also very nice lenses. It is hard to find a used SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4 b/c nobody wants to get rid of theirs. There might be a flood of them used once the SMC-DA* 55mm comes out though. If looking at used ones, be aware the the SMC-A are auto aperture while the F and M models require an extra step to set the exposure and you set the aperture on the actual ring.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm only familiar with the Canon.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

Thanks to everyone's good suggestions so far.

While reading them, I remembered that I have a Pentax-M 50mm F2 sitting on my K1000 that I can use in the short term. And I think I know where I may be able to get my hands on a Sigma zoom, that if I remember correctly has a F2.8.

I think I may also be finding a monopod under the tree next week.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

The Sigma F2.8 does not appear to be an option at this point. A friend has suggested a Pentax-A F1.7 instead of my M F2...any thoughts?

 

[MICKEY88]

taken at f 4 1/125 1600

taken at f 2.8 1/200 1600

you will find that lighting varies greatly from HS gym to gym

 

[ukcatfan]

The Sigma F2.8 does not appear to be an option at this point. A friend has suggested a Pentax-A F1.7 instead of my M F2...any thoughts?

That would not make too much of a difference. If you could trade in yours and end up paying a small amount then it might be worth it.

 

[seashoreCM]

Do not zoom. Any lens gets slower when you use zoom.

Check the aperture of the lens that is soft except in good lighting. All lenses have a shorter range of distances in focus when the aperture is larger (shorter depth of field) and choosing the focus distance is more critical. Now if the lens is soft no matter how you focus it when at maximum aperture, it's a lousy lens.

 

[DizzyV6P]

Rent A nice 70-200 f/2.8 would do nicely.

If its during a basketball game, I'm assuming your seating will change each time. Depending on the popularity of the school, it might be tough to get the front row seats unless you get their really early. If you get seats closer to the front, a prime would be good. If you are further back in the stands, you'll need something more than 70mm depending on how far back you are.

What exactly is your budget? That will give us a better idea on what else to recommend and where you might find them

Not all lenses get "slower" when you zoom. Some lenses such as the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 stay fixed at f/2.8 and can be found online for 350-450 respectively.

 

[MICKEY88]

Do not zoom. Any lens gets slower when you use zoom.

Check the aperture of the lens that is soft except in good lighting. All lenses have a shorter range of distances in focus when the aperture is larger (shorter depth of field) and choosing the focus distance is more critical. Now if the lens is soft no matter how you focus it when at maximum aperture, it's a lousy lens.

not all lenses get slower as you zoom, I shoot with a 28-75 2.8 and an 80-200 2.8 they are fast thruout the zoom range,

another factor that most people forget is that yes you have less depth of field aat 2.8 than you do at f8.. however the depth of field increases as your distance to your subject increases, so shooting my 2.8 at a subject 50 feet away, I get greater DOF, than if I shoot the same subject only 5 feet away..

so your depth of field of that group of cheerleaders out on the court is not quite as shallow as you would think

 

[DisneydaveCT]

Nice shots Mickey88. What equipment and focal length did you use to catch those shots?

By the way, that crowd looks like the crowds at our schools. We live in a small town. The total HS population is probably 400 or so students. And the games I went to last year, did not attact very large crowds. Sometimes, I would arrive around the 2nd quarter, and still get a seat in the front row.

Given the other expenses this time of year, my budget for a new lens is probably tops out around $100, although I would love to get the 28-75 f2.8. Maybe there is a Santa Clause ?

 

[MICKEY88]

Nice shots Mickey88. What equipment and focal length did you use to catch those shots?

By the way, that crowd looks like the crowds at our schools. We live in a small town. The total HS population is probably 400 or so students. And the games I went to last year, did not attact very large crowds. Sometimes, I would arrive around the 2nd quarter, and still get a seat in the front row.

Given the other expenses this time of year, my budget for a new lens is probably tops out around $100, although I would love to get the 28-75 f2.8. Maybe there is a Santa Clause ?

those shots are a little misleading, the bleachers on the opposite side of the gym are at least twice as high and were fairly full,

you can see all the shots here..

http://www.starrrshots.com/p275617820

if you do a mouse over of the upper right corner you can get the exif data..

the cheerleaders are easier to shoot than the basketball players, since the cheerleaders arent running perpendicular to you

 

[DisneydaveCT]

Thanks for everyone's advice and thoughts.

At this point, I will keep my eye out for a faster 50mm (A or newer) and save up for the 28-75, f2.8. From talking with others and checking other people's photos who have taken pics of cheerleaders, many photos appear to be shot between 40-70. Given the smallness of the two schools, I doubt I will have trouble getting a front row seat. Although getting a 70+ prime or zoom may also be in my future lens purchases.

 

[Brad M]

A follow-up question for the group... Why not use a flash? That would allow you to use the slower lens and still stop the action with less grainy ISO.

 

[MICKEY88]

A follow-up question for the group... Why not use a flash? That would allow you to use the slower lens and still stop the action with less grainy ISO.

a lot of venues prohibit flash, especially HS sports

 

[giantstu]

Do not zoom. Any lens gets slower when you use zoom.

Check the aperture of the lens that is soft except in good lighting. All lenses have a shorter range of distances in focus when the aperture is larger (shorter depth of field) and choosing the focus distance is more critical. Now if the lens is soft no matter how you focus it when at maximum aperture, it's a lousy lens.

Not true, my Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS , is 2.8 all the way through the zoom range.
I photograph gymnastics and R/C aircraft and use the above lens, i also have a 100-400L and a 50mm F1.8 in my bag that get the most use.
Not pentax i know, but in the UK you don't see many Pentax cameras.

 

[Groucho]

Another option is a manual-focus prime. 135mm F2.8 lenses are widely available used and many are excellent. If you pick up an M42 adapter (about $30 or so), you can choose from dozens and dozens of fast 135mm lenses, many for very cheap. You could easily get set up for under $100, or less if you find a K-mount fast 135mm or similar focal length lens.

I suspect that the cheerleaders aren't moving too much in terms of distance from you, so manual focusing should be fairly easy, and there's consistent lighting so you only have to adjust the exposure settings once (the camera can do it for you but you need to press a button and it takes an quarter of a second or so to do it.)

As for flash, you probably won't be able to get nearly close enough to have your flash be effective at all. This is one of the great oddities you seen in stadiums and sporting events, flashbulbs going off all over the stands, which are completely ineffective (onboard flashes are rarely any good past 12 feet or so), and the resulting quality is usually poor (lots of redeye, black backgrounds, etc.)