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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 20, 2009, 9:03 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

HI peripatetic

Thanks that's an interesting suggestion...I was not aware of that lens but I will do a little research on it.

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 10:47 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

Hi again JohnG, Mark1616 and peripatetic
To update this topic-- I made some test shots at a basketball game on Tuesday night and had some confusing results. I used the 20D and 50mm f1.8 prime lens for several shots. I set aperture and shutter speed manually at F2.0 and 1/1000th and ISO set at 3200 with the metering mode in center weighted. In taking several shots the exposure indicator was at or very close to "0" ( so I did not adjust the aperture and shutter speed settings) but the photos when viewed later on my computer varied considerably in exposure from under to over exposed. I am puzzled how that happened. In addition I noticed that the focus seemed quite soft and the shots generally poor, but the large variation in exposure is puzzling. I am not sure my 50 mm lens is very sharp at the range I was shooting.

I tried to attach several of the shots but apparently that was beyond my skill level since in the process I lost my reply write up and had to start over.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks
Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 11:04 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

coachjerry wrote:
Quote:
I tried to attach several of the shots but apparently that was beyond my skill level since in the process I lost my reply write up and had to start over.
I really hate it when that happens, especially if I've written a long reply. I've taken to copying all the text before I post just in case something goes wrong.

Anyway, it sounds like you are shooting in a gym with hotspots from the the light positions. These are not visible to the naked eye but the camera picks them up. The other thing it could be is a cycling in the lights, usually you will see the colour temperature vary as well as exposure.

As for slow focus I do agree that is where the 50 is a little weak especially compared to the 70-200 which is lightning fast. If you are tracking and getting a good 'lock' on your subject as they come to the basket then you should do OK, if you are trying to point and get a quick shot off then the speed is a problem. This is where the Sigma 50mm f1.4 does much better but then it is a lot more expensive too.


Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 1:19 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

Mark
I believe you are right about the lighting hot spots and cycling--I have seen that often both in this gym and other gyms and especially with cycling in outdoor field lighting--I should have recognized it.

Assuming that is what I am seeing as far as the exposure issue is concerned..does that not suggest that in this gym I would be better of shooting in either aperture priority or shutter priority rather than manual exposure settings so the the camera metering can adjust for it automatically??

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 3:12 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

coachjerry wrote:
Quote:
Assuming that is what I am seeing as far as the exposure issue is concerned..does that not suggest that in this gym I would be better of shooting in either aperture priority or shutter priority rather than manual exposure settings so the the camera metering can adjust for it automatically??
Potentially yes, but this can be affected in a big way by colour of the kit that the players are wearing. If they are the extremes of brightness/darkness then there will be a big exposure swing, if they are middle colours you are pretty fine..... however if adopting this method use centre weighted exposure otherwise the dark background can then come into play.

Basically there is no easy answer. Also I didn't mention that between the time of the metering and the shot being taken there might have been a shift but give it a bash.

Oh, when do we get to see the results
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 3:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

"Oh, when do we get to see the results"

Once I figure out how to attach several shots to my reply I will send some.

Thanks your your advise. I have to shoot a game tonight in a different but brightly lit gym and hopefully I'll get some better results.

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 4:22 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Check out How to post your photos for the available methods.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2009, 2:51 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
a-beginner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 197
Default

There is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 which has received very good reviews. Some liken it to an L lens of the EF-S series.
a-beginner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2009, 9:10 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

a-beginner wrote:
Quote:
There is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 which has received very good reviews. Some liken it to an L lens of the EF-S series.
But at about the same price as the 24-70 it has the same drawbacks if the primary use is sports. It's just not a great return on investment for the type of work the OP is doing (i.e.freelancing for small local newspaper). There just aren't that many additional shots the OP would get with the wider lens to justify the hefty cost.

But yes, from all accounts it is supposed to be a very sharp lens.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2009, 9:45 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

JohnG
After using my 50 mm 1.8 prime lens at a basketball game the other night, I definitely agree with your point that there aren't enough additional shots to justify the cost. FYI, I was not happy with the results trying the 50mm 1.8 lens in this recent shoot. The focus was not sharp at the short shooting distance and framing the shots well was a real challenge. An additional factor having a negative influence on the close in shots was achieving proper exposure because the lighting under the basket in this gym, and most others I shoot in, is dimmer than at other parts of the floor. As a result, I had better overall success using the 70-200 mm 2.8 lens. I also found that using my 85mm f1.8 prime lens for subjects a little further out from the basket yielded better overall results than using my 50mm f1.8 prime lens on closer in subjects considering focus, framing and exposure--but of course the 70-200 covers that range albeit at 2.8 not 1.8. (I hope all this makes some sense.)

Jerry
coachjerry 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 8:01 AM.