Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2006, 7:16 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

leeraff wrote:
Quote:
Learning enough to realize those lenses mentioned with only one number (e.g. 85mm 1.8 are Prime lenses. Right?

What is it that makes prime lenses better for portraits and for these close up sports shots?

Assume they still "focus," just don't "zoom." They focus only at that specified range, example 85mm?

What makes them better for low light sports shots is they have a wider aperture thus they let in more light. If, for instance, you have a shutter speed of 1/250 at f4.0, going down a stop to f2.8 doubles the shutter speed to 1/500, etc.

What makes them good for portraits is also what makes them sometimes difficult for sports - you have a very shallow depth of field. That means not much before or behind your focus point will be in focus. This is what blurs the background to create subject isolation. Others can give you a better explanation than me but in general, the longer the focal length and the wider the aperture the more background blur you'll have.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 2:44 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 189
Default

leeraff wrote:
Quote:
Holy Cow, radiocontrolguy! That is all I'm trying to get for family and friends sporting events. I've been led to believe pictures would be inadequate with less than $1000 lenses. For me needs (family and friends, amateur shots) that's INCREDIBLE! (Subjective, yes.)

Can anyone post pictures that look "bad?" The effect you get in these low-light, HS gyms or less? Point me to a link that will display these "bad" pictures?


leeraff, Thanks for the compliment.

You definetly DO NOT "need" $1000+ lens in order to take compelling sports photos. The cheap 50mm 1.8 (around $75) and 85mm 1.8 (around $360) are very good for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. The 70-200 F4L (around $600) is also very good for outdoor sports in the day time (baseball, footbal, etc.)

You just have to know which lenses people have had success with. Price level doesn't necessarily mean it is "better" for your application. For example, the expensive 85mm 1.2L lens (over $1500), is very good for portraits, but it is actually a slower focusing lens when compared to the cheaper 1.8 version. For sports application, the 1.8 version is a better choice.

Oh by the way, the number 85mm does not refer to the length or specific location of a focusing spot. The number refers to the distance between a specific part inside the lens and the mirror inside the camera. So it is an internal distance measurement...nothing to do with anything outside the camera.
RadioControlGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 12:12 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

I also am looking for less expensive lenses and decided on the sigma 70-200 2.8ex for long and the canon 50 1.8 or 85 1.8. That would give me two after deciding on which one of the two one number guys to go with. I just need a little help on which wide angle would be good. What do you guys recommend on that. What would be low enough? I will be shooting some nice Mt. Rainier shots with the wide. I might also try it indoors under lower light.But mostly outdoor landscaping shots. I read every night, and you guys are making me smarter everyday. Just so you know your posts are a HUGE learning tool for us armatures.

Thanks again,

BG
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 12:28 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 189
Default

picturethis62 wrote:
Quote:
I also am looking for less expensive lenses and decided on the sigma 70-200 2.8ex for long and the canon 50 1.8 or 85 1.8. That would give me two after deciding on which one of the two one number guys to go with. I just need a little help on which wide angle would be good. What do you guys recommend on that. What would be low enough? I will be shooting some nice Mt. Rainier shots with the wide. I might also try it indoors under lower light.But mostly outdoor landscaping shots. I read every night, and you guys are making me smarter everyday. Just so you know your posts are a HUGE learning tool for us armatures.

Thanks again,

BG
What Camera do you have?

If you have a Rebel, Rebel XT, or 20D (or the new 30D), for a wide angle choice, you can use the new Canon 10-22mm. I have used it and I like it alot. People have said that the only thing that seprates this lens from an "L" lens is the build quality. Image wise, is is right up there with any of the "L" series lens.
RadioControlGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 8:04 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
What Camera do you have?

If you have a Rebel, Rebel XT, or 20D (or the new 30D), for a wide angle choice, you can use the new Canon 10-22mm. I have used it and I like it alot. People have said that the only thing that seprates this lens from an "L" lens is the build quality. Image wise, is is right up there with any of the "L" series lens.
I couldn't agree more, the 10-22 is a very, VERY nice lens. All of my other glass is "L" and theimage quality of the 10-22 is right up there. It's just too bad that it's an EF-S, I even tried some other full frame(non-Canon) wides and returned them.

Joe


jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 4:37 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

I have the Rebel xt. I'll check into that lens. Thanks for your help.
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:04 PM.