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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2005, 11:54 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 40
Default

NHL: Thanks for teaching me that macros don't focus fast enough for action shots!

Since I don't think I can swing for a 70-200 zoom, I am now thinking of the 100 2.0 (Not the macro!) for shooting in the gym. Reasonable? Any reason to favor the 85 1.8 over the 100 2.0? Thanks again.
gordonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2005, 9:52 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
convergent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 29
Default

I assume from your initial post that you are shooting in high school gyms. If so, unless the gym is unusually bright, you will find that f/2.8 is not fast enough to stop the action well (without strobes). I shoot in about a dozen high school gyms and none of them are bright enough. I use a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 to shoot baskeball from the baseline and corner. I use an 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2 to shoot volleyball from various spots around the gym. I just got the 135 and absolutely love it, but its a lot more expensive than the other two. If you are going to go with an f/2.8, you will have to really time the action to catch peaks... and in volleyball that is VERY hard. I would also add that the bulk of a big zoom lens is going to make it hard to follow the action... harder than a prime anyways. Volleyball is a very fast and erratic game with a lot of things in your way when trying to compose a shot. For outdoor sports, the f/2.8 lenses are great, but I just don't have venues that work with them around here.
convergent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 1:40 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 40
Default

Thanks for your input. I used a rented 85 1.8 for a volleyball match this evening, and I liked it, but I was wishing for maybe just a little more range...thus my question about whether the 100 mm f/2.0 might be my best bet. Opinions?
gordonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2005, 2:12 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
Default

As G35Guy quoted the 70-200 would be better imo.

I went for the full on 70-200L IS USM and am very, very happy with it. I very rarely turn the IS on as I only do Motor Sports.

If you can try fleabay for a cheaper price or go for the non-is model. Or indeed the Sigma version!

Carl.
CarlsPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 2:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

Gordon, I have the 100mm f2 and I shoot alot of basketball. If you look at my profile and go back to some of my early womens basketball posts, there should be some examples of pictures shot in a college gym with the canon 100mm f2

I also have the 85mm f1.8, which I just got. I really like both lenses. The 85 is a little faster but really, you dont want to shoot at f1.8 or even f2.0 because the shallow DOF presents focus issues

Bottom line, I love both lenses!
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 8:42 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

Hi guys,

I just faced this same question. I shoot mainly sports right now and lately it's been basketball. This past weekend I had the displeasure of shooting in the worst gym I"ve ever shot in. I have a 20D and a Mark II N (I keep my 70-200 f/2.8L on the 20D and a 24-70 f/2.8 L on the Mark II). Typically I can get nice results with these f/2.8's. I tend to keep the 20D at ISO 3200 and the Mark II at 1600 (IMHO the Mark II N although an unreal camera doesn't hold up as well as the 20D at 3200).

Basically I need faster glass for this tournament (this weekend is part two in the same gym). After poking around, I decided on the 85mm f/1.8 (it will bedelivered form B&H today) It's the best that Canon has at this point for indoor sports. The new 85mm f1/2 is due out in April but the original 1.2 AF focused way to slow for sports, it's designed as a portrait lens. The newer model is supposed to be 1.8x faster but I don't know if even that will be quick enough. The other thing is that the new 85mm f/1.2 I'm thinking will be around $2100.00 or so a big difference over the f/1.8.

I haven't shot with the 1.8 yet, but the MFT charts for it look very good and I've not read a bad review on it. Seems to be a bargin for the price, and a nice option to have when f/2.8 just won't cut it.

Joe
jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 3:14 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

The 85 1.8 is a nice lens. The only comment I would make is that at f1.8 or f2.0 or even f2.2, the DOF is really shallow and you will find that the closer to f1.8 you get the more out of focus issues you will have. Take lots of shots and remember that the higher up the aperature scale you go, the better chance you have of getting everything in focus.

That aside, I love my 85 1.8


I also agree with jl that there are alot of venues where f2.8 wont let you get the shutter speed you need to properly freeze the action and you will be forced to drop down to f.2., f2.0, f1.8 territory to get the shutter speed you need.

HS gyms are really hit and miss. The older ones typically have poor lighting forcing you to drop your aperature setting as low as it can go. While shooting at f1.8 or f2.0 isnt the preferred range to shoot in, there will be many occasions you are forced into that.

Both the 100 f2 or the 85 1.8 are lenses you will be very happy with at a fraction of the cost of the 135 f2. The nice thing about 8mp images is that you cancrop to get a good look but still have enough image information to get a great print.


davidreeves 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 11:37 AM.