What is the Best Lens for Ice Hockey Photography?
You’re up against low light and fast action. Without a little bit of planning, it’s the perfect recipe for blurry pictures.
You ready for a challenge?
Sure, you’re going to be dealing with some pretty extreme boundaries if you’re shooting with the standard 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. But restrictions just teach creativity, so go out there and get creative!
I’m going to compile a list of some excellent lenses that you should think about getting if you want to take your hockey photography to the next level.
(Note that I’m referring to Canon lenses in this article, but that all camera companies make very similar lenses so you should be able to find an equivalent depending on your setup.)
What to look for in an ice hockey lens
It’s important to note that simply going out and spending lots of money on a lens won’t automatically make your hockey pictures amazing.
You need to have a working knowledge of aperture, shutter speed and ISO in order to make the most of your lens.
The typical environment of a hockey arena is incredibly demanding even for top level cameras and lenses, so you need to know how to adjust your settings to get the most out of the light you have.
Our top choices for ice hockey lenses are going to have:
1. A wide aperture for collecting as much light as possible.
This is essential, as you aren’t working with much light to begin with. Any light lost to a narrow aperture will have to be made up with in a slower shutter speed (increasing the potential for blur) or ISO (which adds noise to the shot)
2. Decent range to let you get close to the action.
As we’ll read later, wide angles have their place in hockey photography, but unless you plan to get on the ice and skate around with the players you’re going to need a lens with some reach.
Bonus: Adjustable zoom.
It isn’t 100% necessary for getting the shot but certainly makes life much more convenient.
Alright, let’s get down to it. Which lens is the top dog for hockey photography?
Top Choice: 70-200mm f/2.8
Was there ever any doubt? Anyone who has ever used this lens knows it is a fantastic choice for sports photography.
An aperture that opens up to f/2.8 means you can collect a lot of light, and it allows a shallow depth of field that can help blur out distracting advertisements on the boards or spectators in the background.
This is a great lens to use from just about anywhere at the rink. Use it in the bench, the corner or up in the stands and you’ll have great angles and options.
Bear in mind that depending on your ability to track the play and the camera’s ability to focus, f/2.8 might result in a lot of missed focus shots. Considering moving down to f/4 if you notice that your shots are coming out soft.
A disadvantage of relying solely on a zoom lens like the 70-200 is that you can lose the atmosphere and ambience of a setting. Zoom lenses compress the background, meaning you can’t show as much of the arena. If you want to give a perspective of the entire scene, you’re going to have to go with our second choice lens.
This play happened in the perfect spot for a 70-200mm lens shooting from the bench. The wide aperture gives lots of light to work with and the spray of ice from the skate is frozen in time.
Backup Choice: 24-70mm f/2.8 or your favourite wide angle lens
There’s a battle for the puck in the corner. You’re crouched behind the glass as the players beat each other up inches away from you. What’s the right lens for this situation?
Once the action gets close, your 70-200mm lens isn’t going to be an option anymore. Then it’s time to pull out your 24-70mm or a roughly equivalent wide angle lens, such as the 17-40mm f/4.
Mid-range zoom or wide angle lenses let you get right against the glass for a different perspective. The shorter focal length shows more of the setting, which is great if you’re in a packed arena with dramatic lighting.
Image by Jason Franson. using a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, similar to the 24-70mm f/2.8. It shows the players in full, as well as the goalie and arena in the background.
Not to be Underestimated: 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8
Fixed lenses present a new challenge as you won’t be able to adjust as the play moves towards and away from you.
All camera companies offer some great lenses in the 50 and 85mm ranges. An advantage with them is their super wide aperture, giving you lots of light.
Building a shot around the goalie, for example, will let you make the most of a fixed lens. Since he isn’t going to move around too much, your shot will be in focus and you can compose the image with that in mind.
An old shot taken with the 50mm 1.8. Super cheap lens but decent results, with all things considered.
Shoot with what you’ve got!
I started the article by mentioning the challenge of shooting hockey with the standard kit lens that comes with a hobbyist camera.
Yes, there are lots of challenges. You won’t have the aperture to collect lots of light and your shutter speed will suffer as a result.
But you still have options. With good technique, a kit lens can be used for a dramatic panning action shot, where the player is in focus and the background is blurred. This technique requires a steady hand and a slow shutter speed, but can be very fulfilling if you get it right.
Alternatively, you can wait for a break in the play and grab some snaps of players on the bench or waiting for the face-off. You might not have the money shot of ice chips flying and the puck frozen just before the goalline, but you’ll have shots you can be proud of.
Make it happen!
So what are you waiting for? Hockey photography is a fun challenge for any photographer and with a bit of planning, preparation and knowledge you can come back from the rink with some excellent and dramatic action shots.
Got any questions or comments about what I’ve written?
Let me know in the comments below!
About the Author
Hi, my name is Frank Myrland and I'm a photographer based near Orangeville, Ontario. While I am active in most types of photography, I mostly enjoy sports, events, family and commercial photography.
I like to learn by doing — and also to share my own experiences for the benefit of others, whether they are just getting into photography or if they are well on their way to mastering their style and craft.
Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions at all at [email protected]
The latest posts from the Photography Blog
Preparing for Your Family Photography Shoot: 6 Important Things to Consider
Preparing for Your Family Photography Shoot: 6 Important Things to ConsiderPlanning a family photoshoot? This short guide will give a list of what to consider in advance to make sure to get the most out of the time and have confidence you'll get some great...
How to Take Photos from the Grandstands of the Canadian Formula One Grand Prix in Montreal
How to Take Photos from the Grandstands of the Canadian Formula One Grand Prix in MontrealWhile all sports are challenging to photograph in their own way, Formula One is an especially difficult event to capture for the casual photographer. This guide is a summary of...
The Top 5 Reasons to Book a Corporate Headshot Photoshoot for Yourself or Your Team
The Top 5 Reasons to Book a Corporate Headshot Photoshoot for Yourself or Your TeamA professional, current headshot is a must in today’s digital-first society. For many lines of work, the difference between a good or a not-so-good headshot might be the dealbreaker in...
What are the best camera settings for hockey photography?
Have you ever tried to shoot hockey with your camera set to “Auto” or “Sport” and been disappointed with the results?
Cameras are getting smarter every day — but they still struggle with the challenges that come with photographing hockey.
The good news is that you can learn to set up your camera in manual mode and make the most of your time at rink.
What are the benefits of commercial photography for your small business?
What are the benefits of commercial photography for your small business?How do you quickly grab a potential customer’s attention? People don’t read anymore and there are a million different distractions competing for interest, so anything mundane or expected...
5 Tricks for Getting Great Natural Smiles for your Family Portraits
5 Tricks for Getting Great Natural Smiles for your Family Portraits One of the most important skills you can learn as a family photographer is how to coax natural smiles out of your subjects, whether they are young or old, during a photoshoot. Taking great...
Thanks for posting this blog about the lenses you recommend. Even though it is several years old, I am glad to have run across it to explain a few things that I was assuming, but didn’t know for sure. This past weekend, I tried to get back into hockey photography. It’s been forever and for this one, it was at a simple ice rink, not an arena since our arena bans DSLR lenses over 3″ and my seats aren’t close enough.
The lenses I used at this adult league game though, I found that the best images I got were from standing behind the goalie to almost the blue line using a 35mm f/1.8. The other lenses ranged from okay to not usable depending on how I was trying to use them. I feel like I got no good shots with the 55-200mm f4-5.6 (even when pulled back to get the best f-stop it could provide) since that is normally the one I use for rugby which is outdoors in the sun (not indoors under flourescents) and I got some good ones from the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 when it was pulled back all the way. But I think the 35mm gave the best “feel” to the pics. I did shoot everything in RAW+JPG. I might see about turning off the JPG to allow more burst photos since I was having a buffering issue getting more than about 8 continuous shots. (Using a Nikon D5100 w/ a 170Mb/s SD card). But that is a test for next time.
But, no matter which lens I used and what settings for ISO, aperture, and shutter speed… all of these did require some degree of post-production white balance, temperature, and de-noising corrections. Especially since a regular ice rink isn’t that bright to begin with.
If by any chance you still monitor this blog (since it has been almost 5 years since you wrote this article)… what is a good next lens for a hobbyist that you would recommend (in the <$500 range since I can't drop $11k on a lens). I think I need something to get more mid-ice range photos since the 35mm is good for the closer ones.
– 35mm f/1.8 – favorite right now
– 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 – meh
– 55-200mm f/4-5.6 – mostly unusable
Hi John — thanks for leaving a comment!
Cool to hear your experiences so far! I agree that the 35mm does give a very interesting “feel” compared to anything you’d get from a zoom. I’ve found it gives the viewer the feel of actually sitting at the arena, as 35mm is fairly close to what our eye naturally sees.
That’s the cool part with using different lenses .. none are “wrong”, they just give a different perspective.
The disadvantage with the 35 is that you need to wait until the play comes to you, but personally I think waiting for the play to develop on the parts of the ice that your lens can cover best is better than “chasing” the play all around the ice with a long lens.
That said, zoom definitely helps bring you closer to the action and bring some more variety to your photos. It’s correct that your 55-200 will struggle under bad lighting conditions because of the variable aperture.
For a next lens, it’s hard to recommend one within the budget you have in mind.
A lens like a 85mm 1.8 will bring you closer to the action though with some similar limitations as the 35mm. It’s a great portrait lens as well, if you’re looking for doing more photography besides hockey. A 50mm 1.8 would do the same thing but with less reach.
Or you could look on the used lens market and see if a 70-200mm 2.8 lens ever becomes available at a favourable price. This lens really is the ultimate choice for hockey, from what I’ve experienced.
And lastly, yes, all hockey photos require some post production. An arena is a very challenging environment in terms of lights, and the difference between the bright ice and players wearing dark hockey jerseys is difficult for cameras.
If you are shooting through glass, it also means that you will need to add a fair amount of contrast or dehaze to bring the colours back to life.
Best of luck with your hockey photos!
New photographer here 🙂 what do you mean by post production and dehaze? Is it when you are uploading the pictures and using a computer program?
Hi Rebecca! Yes, that is correct — post production is the editing process when you load photos into a program like Adobe Lightroom.
“Dehaze” is one of the settings within Lightroom that helps control contrast. There are several slides that serve a similar purpose (mostly notably, the “contrast” slider) though they are influence the photo in a slightly different way.
While dehaze was primarily meant for misty landscape shots, in my experience I’ve found it to be quite good at fixing issues that come from shooting through dirty glass at a hockey arena as well.
Hope that helps!
New Photographer: New to Ice Hockey Photography – Frank, thanks so much for the blog and details for shooting Ice Hockey. I’ve been photographing birds (mostly for my elderly Mom) for the last few years, but I decided to try and photograph some local ice hockey (I use to play) down here in Houston, Tx. The players and teams were only too happy to have someone taking photographs. Let me cut to the chase. I brought with me a 70-200mm f/2.8 f-mount lens for Nikon (but recently moved to mirrorless). I shot from ground level through really scuffed up plexiglass. I quickly realized that a 24-70mm f/2.8 would have been nice as well – and perhaps a 14-24mm f/2.8. The games played my first time out included first high school age youth and then 40+ (asked me if I could help them look fast). Light was fair for indoors. Prior to shooting, it was suggested I shoot at shutter speeds between 1/1250th – 1/1600th and f/stops between f/2.8 and f/3.2 (no mention of EC in auto-ISO) by folks like Jeff Cable (US Olympic team) and Jeff Bottari (Las Vegas Golden Knights). I’m sure you know these guys, but I was really surprised to see how slow the shutter speed recommendations were on the blog (starting with 1/500th). Now I realize that NHL players and Olympic players move darn fast, and I am certainly willing to try and go slower than where I was (ISO ranged from 2,300-4500). I was tempted to use a shutter drag, but shooting through plexiglass I thought it was probably a lose/lose proposition. Any thoughts for a new photographer taking on his passion of youth (the game) and a hobby in later years? 😉 Thank in advance.
Hi Bruce, thanks for the comment and welcome to the world of hockey photography!
For your question about settings, yes, 100% agreed that the goal is to have a fast shutter speed.
Everything is a balance, of course, so if a super fast shutter speed means your ISO is so high that you give up a lot with image quality, the trade off may not be worth it.
But lower image quality is preferable to a blurry picture, of course!
The best setting will also depends on the amount of available light in the arena. A modern rink with excellent lighting with give more options than an aging rink with flickering lights.
Fortunately modern cameras do handle high ISOs much better than in the past. When I started years ago with a camera with a crop sensor, the noise and quality loss was terrible at 1600. I still try to avoid going over ISO 3200 on full frame just because I feel the colours in the image start falling apart and are difficult to recover when editing afterwards.
But shoot to your personal taste! If you can balance image quality while shooting with a shutter speed over 1/1000, it will certainly result in crisper pictures.
The 24-70 2.8 is a fantastic lens to have when standing against the boards and gives good variety. My only real complaint with the 70-200 is that pictures start to look very similar. The 24-70 can capture very dynamic shots that also showcase the environment in a way that a zoom lens can’t.
Good luck with your shooting!
Thank you for these amazing articles.
I love taking photos as a hobby and have people ask me to take them often. I get nervous as sometimes they look amazing and other times not good at all. I have a Sony A6000 camera that came with 2 lenses. 16-50 & 55-210. I tend to use the long lens during hockey and zoom from up high to avoid the glass, or sometimes I go to the corners or on the glass. I take a lot of club hockey photos and usually get some great action shots, however they tend to be dark. If I try to edit them or lighten them before printing they come out grainy or distorted looking, but on the camera they look clear. I wonder if that is because I’m shooting in Jpeg vs Raw? I’ve been looking at getting a different lens, but now just wonder if its user error? Is there an editing program you recommend?
Hi Trisha! Lighting is the biggest challenge for hockey photos. In the same way that our eyes adjust to different lighting conditions, it’s possible to adjust camera settings to best suit the conditions .. but in low light conditions there are necessary compromises – typically the ones you mentioned .. pictures coming our dark or grainy.
It’s true that if you shoot in RAW you can “save” pictures a bit better when editing than when using JPG. If you try to brighten an image shot in JPG, the image quality really deteriorates, while RAWs have a bit more “flexibility” when brightening. So I’d definitely suggest trying it out to see if it helps your workflow!
But ideally, you want to get as close as possible to the final lighting conditions using your in-camera settings.
Here’s a key detail: Both the lenses you named have variable apertures … meaning the max aperture (amount of light the camera can let in) shrinks as you zoom. For example, the Sony 55-210 is F4.5-6.3 .. so max aperture of F4.5 when you are zoomed out but this changes to a max of F6.3 when you are fully zoomed in.
To put it more simply, this means that your camera is “losing light” when you zoom in farther.
Professional lenses will have a set aperture with a much lower F number, something like 2.8 for example, meaning the lens brings in a lot more light.
With more light coming through the lens, the less the camera has to compensate with other settings and the less grain you’ll have in the end image.
I’d recommend checking out this article, if you haven’t already, to learn more about how aperture plays a big role in the final shot: https://frankmyrland.com/hockey-photography-guide-aperture/
For editing programs, I’d recommend checking out Adobe Lightroom.
In terms of solutions: If it’s in the budget you could look for a lens with a wider aperture, but these can be pricey. No lens will “solve” the problem of low light though .. it’s all about balancing the capabilities of your lens and camera with the conditions.
Otherwise your best bet is to continue to practice, practice, practice and you’ll learn how to manage the compromises that come as a result of the poor lighting in most hockey arenas. Good luck!
Hi Frank – I’ve returned to this article and your others on hockey photography many times as I’ve gotten more serious about photographing my son’s HS hockey games. I am currently working with a Nikon D780 (recently upgraded to FF and love it!) with an older Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I also have the kit lens that came with the D780 – a 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. I usually use the Tamron 70-200, but occasionally want to capture more closeups. I tried closeups with the 24-120 recently, and didn’t love it, as it was hard to get enough light. I’m wondering if you think using a 50mm f/1.4 for those closeup situations is a better choice and would make a good complementary lens. Or is it overkill? Is there a better option that is not crazy expensive?
Also, recently have read some advice about turning off image stabilization on lenses when shooting at higher shutter speed. I usually shoot at 1/1000 or higher, so would it be better to turn off the image stabilization? I haven’t experimented with that yet, but am interested in your thoughts.
Thanks for the great info you provide!
The 50mm 1.4 is a great portrait lens although using a fixed focal length is a challenge for the speed and movement involved in hockey. It also can bring in a ton of light with the wide aperture, so it’s a nice option for hockey photography.
The 24-70mm 2.8 is a more ideal lens for closeup action, but that comes at a much higher price point.
I’d suggest renting the 50mm and see if it works for you or if you find it too limiting. If you pick your spots well, you can get great results even with a prime lens, but sometimes the action is just a bit too close or a bit too far away.
Regarding image stabilization, that feature is meant to help prevent blur from camera shake when shooting at slow shutter speeds. As a general rule, without image stabilization your shutter speed should be at least the inverse of your focal length (example: 1/250 when shooting at 250mm). With image stabilization, you can shoot slower but still get sharp results.
At fast shutter speeds, however, this doesn’t apply so you’re correct that it won’t provide any real benefit. I have never tested to see whether image quality is better with image stabilization turned off altogether, or if it just doesn’t make a difference.
Thanks for the questions!
Tamron 35-150mm question
Thank you for such detailed coverage of challenges and techniques of shooting ice hockey games! I’ve read your guides about lens selection, manual camera settings and focus technics – all three are great pieces and helped me a lot to push the limits of my kit 55-210mm lens and to start getting much better and consistent shots with it. I found that 1/200 shutter and +3.7 expo produce best shots that this lens can allow at its max aperture, but they are still grainy since ISO doesn’t get any lower than 3200 in entire focus range.
I’m an amateur photographer who is discovering the art of sport photography while documenting my son’s travel hockey team games and occasionally junior/college hockey games. These type of games allow me to position up close to the glass in the corners and near the center line. I use Sony a6000 with 55-210mm lens and this combo makes me miss many game plays when they happen relatively close to where I’m positioned even at 55mm (82.5mm equivalent on my APC-S). For this reason I’m highly hesitant to get the 70-200mm F/2.8 lens that is on top of the list for ice hockey photography. Also, I can’t count on 28-75mm F/2.8 because it doesn’t have enough reach.
I would like to keep my Sony A6000 for its compact size. What other considerations I should take for lens selection? Will an F/4 lens produce much better shots than the kit 55-210mm F/4.5-6.3 OSS? Or should I stick with F/2.8 lens selection only?
What is your take on the newly released Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 for E-mount (currently on pre-order only)? It appears this lens is hitting the sweet spot for my needs except the $1900 price tag.
Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers!
Hi Oleg. Thanks for the question and the kind words about my articles!
The problem of being able to cover all areas of the ice is a difficult one to solve. Ultimately it’s why professional sports teams will have multiple photographers covering multiple angles … simply because it’s not possible for one person to cover all angles at once.
I have found more success in picking certain “sweet spots” on the ice where my camera/lens combination is best suited to capture the action if it develops in those areas. That may be in front of the net, along one side of the boards, etc.
But when action switches to the other side of the arena (or if it gets too close for my focal length), I tend to lower my camera and enjoy the game until it comes back to me again!
Sometimes you get lucky and the key moment of the game happens in the right spot … but sometimes it happens on the other end of the rink. That’s life!
One possible solution would be to have a two camera setup — with a zoom lens on one camera and a shorter focal length on the other — but it may be more trouble than it’s worth to keep switching cameras!
As for which lens is the right choice, it does depends on what sort of lighting you are working with. Some arenas are bright and some are quite dark. If you’re fortunate enough to have a well-lit arena, you may be able to get away with shooting upwards of F/4 at high ISOs.
That said, a wider maximum aperture certainly does give you a more freedom with your settings and the opportunity to lower your ISO … so consider renting the lenses you had in mind and shooting a game with them before committing to a full purchase?
I’m not familiar with the Tamron 35-150mm lens you mentioned, but it sounds like it fits quite well in the range for hockey photography!
Good luck!
What are your thoughts on the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 with a Sony A7iii for those on a budget? Aspiring to start shooting my kid’s hockey games for fun and memories. Looking at this lens to keep the budget happy.
Hello! I don’t have experience with either the camera or the lens, unfortunately. I’ve heard good things about the Sony A7iii and it’s actually been on my radar for a while as a compact secondary camera.
For hockey photography specifically I’d be looking at a camera’s focus speed and accuracy, and my online searches suggest that the Sony A7iii would do a great job. In addition, it’s a full frame camera, so you’ll get better performance in low light conditions than a cheaper camera would.
The Tamron 28-200mm is a bit of an all-around lens, and while all-around lenses do a pretty good job in most lighting situations, there are definitely some compromises in the low light of a hockey rink.
The variable aperture on the lens (f/2.8-5.6) means you only get 2.8 when you are zoomed all the way out. When you zoom all the way in, your minimum aperture becomes 5.6.
In other words, the more you zoom in, the less light the camera can “collect” from the surrounding environment.
But this doesn’t mean you can’t get great shots with the lens. It just means the camera will need to push the ISO higher (resulting in images that are more grainy) than it would if you had a lens that could stay at 2.8 when zooming.
Also, as a full-frame camera, the Sony A7iii will handle high ISOs fairly well.
When buying lenses, there’s always a compromise. Prime lenses take in more light and have great quality, but they don’t zoom so they aren’t overly ideal for photographing hockey. Zoom lenses with low apertures like the 70-200 2.8 are usually the go-to lenses for hockey, but they often cost more and don’t have the same flexibility of range as the 28-200 would.
Unless your local arena is a dungeon that is missing half of its lights, you should be able to get great shots with the camera and lens combination — just remember that practice makes perfect!
If you’re hesitant to make a purchase, you could also try renting. That’s a great way to test the capabilities of a lens before committing to buying. Just make sure to treat the lens carefully or to have insurance in case an accident happens!
Hello Frank. I have your basic Nikon D3000 camera. Last year I rented a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Len for my D3000 which I used to shoot my son’s hockey tournament in central Wisconsin. It was only $75 for the weekend so it was a no brainer. I took a ton of shots and a lot came out really nice.
This year I was debating between 1)renting the same lens. 2) renting a different lens or 3) renting a body/lens combo. I guess I’m asking your opinion on the above 3 choices? Is the lens too much for my basic camera or would a different lens work better if I kept my camera and only rented a lens……OR should I spend the $$$ and get a killer combo set up? And I so, what do you suggest? Our next tournament is in La Crosse Wisc. at the end of Feb. 2021 so I’m looking now for rental options. Thanks in advance Danny P
Thanks for the question, Dan!
It will always depend on your budget, of course. Personally, if I was forced to choose between a great camera or a great lens for hockey, I would choose the lens every time as I think it has a greater impact on getting the shot in a demanding lighting situation like a hockey rink.
That said, since you’re open to the idea of renting already, I’d recommend a short term rental of a full frame camera along with the lens. I’m a Canon user and don’t know Nikon as well, but looks like you could consider either the D780 or D850?
Going to a full frame sensor is a sizeable leap in what you’re able to do with the lighting, since full frame will handle high ISOs much, much better than a crop sensor. Plus there’s the benefit of smarter and faster auto focus.
The only real drawback is that it’s hard to go back to a crop sensor camera after having some time to play with a full frame camera!
Hello! I am new to photography, and sadly our hockey season is being put on “pause” by our wonderful governor in the State of Hockey in about 24hrs. So, I figure I will try to learn as much as I can in the event my senior gets to play his final season.
I recently purchased a 70-200 2.8 Tamron, a 24-70 2.8 Tamron, and a 50mm 1.8 Nikon, all for my D5600.
I am having some serious problems determining what exactly I got for my money vs the kit lenses that came with the camera. I’m fairly certain there’s a few settings I need to figure out, but all of my photos are very dull grey, and honestly not real impressive? I figured out how to set the white balance each time I switch lenses, but that still doesn’t seem to get rid of the grey. Our arena is only about 10yrs, old, and to the naked eye, it’s very well lit, with even some outdoor light that makes its way in. Any advice you can give about brightening up these photos with my limited photography vocabulary would be fantastic!!! Thank you so much for your time.
Hi Steve! Thanks for the question. If I’m understanding the issue correctly, dull grey photos would be a consequence of your exposure, not the white balance.
On digital cameras, white balance is a handled on a sliding scale of yellow to blue (as well as magenta to green, but that’s a less common issue). So if a picture looks too blue or too yellow, you will know the issue with your shot is that the camera incorrectly interpreted the white balance of a scene.
If I had to guess, I’d say that gray or dull photos is because your camera is underexposing the shot. Cameras determine how “bright” to make a final picture by taking all the tones in an image and balancing it out to 18% gray.
For example, if you point your camera just at the ice surface and take a picture while on “Auto”, the resulting image will come out gray, rather than white. Cameras don’t know what they are looking at, so they don’t know that ice is supposed to be white. This means you need to tell you camera to take a brighter picture than it thinks it is supposed to.
Since lighting in an arena is generally consistent, the best approach to use with hockey photography to use the manual mode on your camera. Exposures taken in auto modes will bounce around a lot, depending on how much of the bright ice surface is in the frame of your shot.
On manual, start with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action (say, 1/500 or so), then select an aperture that brings in lots of light (say, 3.2) and then adjust the ISO up until the picture in your camera looks bright as real life. Once you find the right balance, you can simply leave those settings for the entire time that you are taking pictures in the arena and you will know that each shot will come out with consistent lighting.
Regarding white balance, you can also manually set the white balance of your camera to match the lighting conditions. Your camera manual will have more information on how to do this and it may be worth the effort if you regularly find that images are too blue, too yellow, too green or too magenta.
Hopefully that makes sense? Feel free to follow up if anything I shared here wasn’t clear or is different than the problem you are experiencing!
I’m an amateur photographer of hockey games and concerts. Typically, I sit as close to the ice/stage as physically possible. I use a Canan Rebel T6, and I plan to purchase a 70-200 mm lens. I have priced the
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens, and the Tamron 70-200 mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 lens. My first question is which of the thre lenses would you most recommend? My second question is how important is image stabilization for the two activities? Money IS a serious consideration, as I am a single mother who teaches.
The question about image stabilization is a common one.
Here’s an important point: Image Stabilization only helps when your subject is either stationary or moving slowly. This is because image stabilization counteracts ‘camera shake’, or the tiny movements we make when we take the picture, which can slightly blur an image.
If you are photographing a hockey player at full speed or a band member jumping, image stabilization won’t change a thing.
But if you are photographing a hockey player waiting for a face-off or the band in a more stoic moment between songs, image stabilization will help a lot.
Regarding lenses, one important point is that your camera (T6) has a cropped sensor, which essentially means that these lenses will ‘zoom farther’ then if they were on a full size sensor camera like a Canon 5D Mk4.
For this reason, I think that the Sigma 120-300mm lens might bring you a bit too close to the action in a hockey rink, especially if you are sitting as close as possible.
I can vouch for the Canon 70-200 2.8 as it’s my “go to” lens — haven’t used the Tamron 70-200 but have heard good things and imagine it handles similarly to the Canon.
I would recommend maybe renting each one and giving it a test before committing to a purchase. You’ll also definitely want to see if the crop sensor means you’re zooming a bit more than you expected.
If you do like sitting close to the action, a 24-70mm 2.8 might also be one to consider and test.
If you’re on a tight budget, I’ve gotten great results with a 50mm 1.4 – you just have to be a bit more patient with waiting for the right moment since there’s no option to zoom!
Concerts can be a challenge depending on if they allow you to bring a camera into the venue. You definitely can’t be inconspicuous with a 70-200 lens.
Good luck!
Thank you for your information. I love to take pictures but by no means a photographer. My son started playing hockey and I am now looking for a new camera. I have been researching but dont really understand any of it… I dont want to spend more than 4-5,000 on a camera and a lens. DO you have any suggestions with that price range? TIA
$4-5,000 is a decent amount to work with.
For the best results, you would want a full-frame camera. With Canon that would probably mean a Canon 6D (or possibly a 5D). I don’t know Nikon as well, but I think the comparable would be a D750.
Even after getting your camera there should be enough left over to get a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, which is a great lens for sports photography (and photography in general, really).
I was looking for advice on the Canon R for sports photography, and came across this article…good advice. I’d also add the 135 f2 L to the list of primes on Canon to use – especially APS-C. I’ve shot thousands on my 80D with this lens, and the results are fanastic – very sharp at f2 (slightly sharper at 2.2 or 2.5), and very quick to focus (I use the center point only). In fact, the results are slightly sharper than my 70-200 f2.8L III lens, with the bonus of an extra stop of light in dimly lit arenas. It’s a perfect length to stand behind one of the ends and shoot players coming into one end, or standing behind the blue line shooting towards the goalie.
The 135 f2 is a fantastic lens and getting the extra stops is definitely worth it in a dark arena. Shooting hockey on a prime requires a bit of patience, as there are more factors that you can’t control in your composition. However, this can also lead to shooting some compositions that you wouldn’t normally do with a zoom lens. Definitely worth trying!
Hi Frank,
I run a Men’s hockey league in Vancouver, and started to take pictures a few years ago. I’m a rookie in every sens of the word. I have an original Canon Rebel XT and am looking to upgrade and also get the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens you recommend. I’m also looking at some photography courses for Beginners. I do get the odd Sports Illustrated shot sandwhiched between 200 blurry shots. Which Camera would you recommend to compliment the lens ?
When it comes to recommending a camera, the answer always depends on the budget.
There’s a big jump in quality (especially when you’re shooting in low light and with high ISOs) if you get a full-frame camera. This simply means that the camera has a larger sensor (larger = better).
In the Canon series of cameras, the Canon 6D is the cheapest full-frame camera.
But I shot for a long time with a Canon 7D as well and got some great pics, so I would say don’t worry so much about the camera as practicing working with what you have.
The 70-200 f/2.8 will help a lot, regardless of what camera you are using.
Remember that the most expensive camera in the world won’t magically add any more light into the arena – it will just help the camera perform better at high ISOs and focus faster.
But a blurry picture on a cheap camera will still be a blurry picture on an expensive camera.
Blur often means your shutter speed is too slow (or that you missed your focus) – not that your camera is bad.
I hope that answer made sense — feel free to ask if you have any more questions!
I have a 35 mm f2 prime that I have not yet been able to try ice level in hockey.
(I have the 70-200 f2.8:for upper level)
The 35mm seems to work well for volley ball. Usually shows feet and court when players are close and leap for a spike, but still super wide when they are 30 feet away on the other side of the court.
I led with that because …
I am torn between keeping the 35mm only to cut costs or getting the 16-35 mm that Mr. Fransen used in his shot above, or the 24-70 mm.
I can only afford one, as I am shooting on spec and for free at colleges to build the portfolio. ( I am a former NBC, CBS Hand-held video sports photographer, making the switch to stills.)
I am afraid the 16-35 may be too wide for hockey and basketball, having seen the volleyball results. Yet I can zoom in to specific points or faces quite well in post.
Any thoughts and guidance are greatly appreciated.
NH
Hi there and thanks for the comment!
Your lens selection really will just determine which areas of the ice you can photograph from your position and what the feel of the final shot will be.
A wider lens will capture more of the arena in a way that a zoom lens can’t.
The drawback is that with a wider lens, you really have to wait until the play comes to you rather than being able to “cover” the majority of the ice with your zoom.
If you’re trying to get a shot of the team scoring on the opposite net, then yes a 16-35 will be too wide.
But once the play comes down to your corner then, as long as you are prepared, you can get some very cool shot.
Good luck!