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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 8, 2007, 12:11 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

I currently use a 24-70 2.8 Sigma but I am not happy with the results.

My other lens I use is a 50mm 1.8 Canon.

I am able to be on the sidelines most of the time but would like a little zoom if possible, for those other low light occasions. Any help on this? Would I do better to get a 2x or 1.4 teleconverter for my 50mm? Is there a good lens new or used for $350 to $500?

My camera is a Canon 20D

RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 8, 2007, 12:46 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

RP33 wrote:
Quote:
Any help on this? Would I do better to get a 2x or 1.4 teleconverter for my 50mm? Is there a good lens new or used for $350 to $500?

My camera is a Canon 20D
If you're willing to consider a TC and $350 is the low-end of your price range, why not get the 85mm f1.8EF lens instead? It'll be a sharper option.Split the time up during the game, shooting things the 85mm lens is good at catching and then switch to the 50mm for a while.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 12:52 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

What is the lowest Aperture of the 1.8f with a TC on it? I am not familiar at how that is affected. Any other Ideas?
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 7:51 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

50mm and 85mm primes were not designed to be used with a TC. I'm not even sure the placement of the lens elements would allow it.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Now, the problem with the 50mm 1.8 is you can only count on accurate focusing to about 15 feet - especially at wide apertures and in servo mode. This lens is best used for shooting from under the basket.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The 85mm 1.8 is a much better lens for basketball - good for shooting from the corner of the baselline or from a row or two up (but you'll only get action of near court stuff - don't try to shoot cross court) - basically the lens is good for focusing out to 25 feet or so.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Unfortunately, unless you're in an incredibly lit gym, 2.8 lenses are just too slow - and even if it is good enough light you want a fast focusing lens - so you're looking at a 70-200 2.8 lens. That's a bit pricey and still not great for low light gyms - they're more suitable for college level gyms.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 9:52 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

RP33 wrote:
Quote:
What is the lowest Aperture of the 1.8f with a TC on it? I am not familiar at how that is affected. Any other Ideas?
Most f/1.8 is practically an f/2.0 - It sounds more exciting when it's 1. something on the specs so a stop up with a generic (i.e. not Canon/Sigma) 1.4x TC will be close to f/2.8 (and f/4 with a 2x)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 12:45 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

I shoot in college level and pro level gyms most of the time.

So is the only choices that I haveare the 70-200 2.8 and the 85mm?
Is the 70-200f4 to slow?

RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 2:51 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Post an unprocessed shot from one of the gyms you typically shoot in along wiith the exif data. I say unprocessed because I don't want to see it after you've adjusted levels so I can tell if the exposure was on or not. Based on that, we can determine what shutter speeds you would get with an f4 lens. Even if possible, it might force you to ISO 3200 AND you'd likely see poor autofocus performance. And poor autofocus is one of the things you're trying to correct.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 3:05 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

Just resized for posting.

This is the dimmest that I shoot on a normal basis.
Attached Images
 
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 3:25 PM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Exposure looks fine. I don't have a good EXIF viewer on this computer so I can't see the ISO setting - only aperture and shutter speed. But I see f2.2 and 1/800. A 2.8 lens would have given you 1/500 for same exposure and f4 would have given 1/250 = too slow for that ISO.

Now, if this shot was ISO 800 then there is hope an f4 might work OK at ISO 1600. If you were already at ISO 1600 I'm inclined to think f4 would be sub-par. If you already owned the 70-200 f4 it would be worth a try. But spending $560 only to find out the results aren't that great is kind of a waste of money IMO.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2007, 4:03 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It's already @ ISO1600 (with 1/800s & f/2.2)!
-> for the same shot with f/2.8 the shutter has to slow down or the ISO has to go up... An f/4 would require twice the amount (or a combination of both)
NHL 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 2:28 AM.