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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 16, 2006, 7:40 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I'm one of those that lean to low light - no flash type of photography... Even with my 30 f/1.4 on the xt, my lowest possible shutter is 1/50... I try to generally keep it around 1/80 to give tolerance for subject movement... And there are lots of times where 1.4 / 1600 iso is still not enough for a decent shutter. So it always makes me wonder how the guys with f/2.8 zooms can say 2.8 can handle indoor situations.:?

Even if you are limited to one focal length, shutter is priority - and with that, aperture becomes priority indoors

What I would find very very useful is high aperture coupled with IS - rather than having IS to compensate a slow lens. that's why I really liked the 70-200 2.8 IS when I tried it out.

Well, I don't know a good lens for indoor sports... but for general photography indoors, i.e. people shots, the sigma 30 is nice, although sometimes I wish it was a little wider.

BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 3:09 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

And there you have it.

The answer to your question is that there is no answer, just a whole bunch of options that vary depending on personal predelictions and preferences.

You really won't know what you need until you just take the plunge with something and then find out that you can't do something specific that you would like to.




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 7:12 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I have to disagree with JohnG.

I regularily use an F2.8 lens for indoor venues with much less light than a gym.

Many pro's I work with use nothing faster than an F2.8 lens indoors.

Also, an F1.8 lens wide open provides so little depth of field that you may find yourself missing quite a few shots due to depth of field / focus problems.

Most of my indoor shooting occurs between F2.8 and F4.

Mind you, I'm shooting ISO3200 most of the time whereas a rebel xt goes to ISO1600.

Something like a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 would do the job, and I've seen many sports photos, indoor and outdoor, from that lens posted to this forum and PBASE.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with getting a Canon 85mm F1.8 lens, as it's a great lens all round.

Also, there is no such thing as an all round "sports lens".

Football could be best served by a zoom with 300 or even 400mm at the long end.

Whereas for basketball, it would be hard to justify needing a lens at even 200mm at the long end.

I shoot inddor track with a 28-75 and sometimes a 17-35 and other times a 70-200 F4, mind you I'm trackside .

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 11:14 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
I regularily use an F2.8 lens for indoor venues with much less light than a gym.

Many pro's I work with use nothing faster than an F2.8 lens indoors.

Well, I guess I'm outnumbered here :blah:

Sports shooting is primarily about catching peak action and emotion. The 'emotion' shots give you a lot more leeway. But for the 'action' shots most people prefer to freeze the action and eliminate motion blur. For little kids you have more leeway. By the time you get up to teenagers though, hands, feet and balls are moving faster. 1/250 will be way too slow to freeze action. Even at 1/320 you'll see some motion blur - most shooters prefer to keep shutter speeds above 1/400. I have yet to see good consistant shots from anyone shooting indoor high school levelbasketball without flash/strobes at shutter speeds of 1/250 or lower.

So, the question is: can you obtain shutter speeds of 1/400 or higher with an ISO 1600 camera. If you can do that at 2.8 or narrower then great! If you can't then you have the wrong tool for the job. That's the beauty of an SLR system - you get to use the right lens for the job. And with sports with a lot of movement like basketball - shutter speeds are paramount.

Quote:
Also, there is no such thing as an all round "sports lens".
I think this is probably the best statement in this whole discussion of sports lenses. And I think it's finally something Terry and I can agree on about sports shooting

Bottom line - there is you have to evaluate each sport individually to see what focal lengths you'll need and what max apertures you'll need to get the shutter speeds that particular sport requires to freeze the action.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 1:28 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I agree with you John, as we're both members of the sports photography fraternity!

I usually shoot at 1/250th, F2.8 at ISO3200 for very dreary indoor situations, with some minor hand and foot blur.

For better lit indoor situations, I'd gladly get that shutter speed to 1/500th if I can get it.

If I was shooting in the same situation with a DSLR with max ISO1600, I'd probably shoot RAW format, knowing full well I'd need to lift the exposure compensation by a full stop using software (like RAWSHOOTER).

As John pointed out, having a lens faster than F2.8 is definitely an advantage, as F1.8 gives you another full stop of light (and a hair extra) to work with.

However, whenever I use my 50mm F1.4 lens at F2 or F1.4, I find that some of my shots aren't in focus, because I'm often prefocusing my shotsthen panning "on the fly" and the limited depth of field at those apertures can be a little difficult to work with, specailly if your subject is moving fast.

Having said all the above, we'd all agree that this indoor sports photography pushesthe limits of our equipment and our photographic knowledge if we want to improve our images.


And John and I agree, there isn't one all purpose sports lens. There's the lens at the time that catpured the moment, the light andcomposition sonicely that after you can sit back and look at the shot on your monitor with a beer in your hand and say "Yup, I did a pretty good job on that one!".

-- Terry

terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2006, 8:59 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Terry,
I assume I could find this in some post, but what camera do you shoot?
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2006, 9:06 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Thanks to all. By the way, as a newbie, I'm certainly one of those posting obnoxious messages bordering on "what should I do."

Please know, as Peripatetic states, "no right answer" and "take the plunge," I agree completely. I just don't often plunge into $1000+ investments without SOME research. That could be more of a freefall than a plunge! (Especially realizing the camera investment is just the start and $1000-1500 will become $2000, will become $3000...)

Thanks to all for the feedback. Answers that sometimes border on slaps on the wrists and others causing debates amongst you more experienced folks helps us newbies tremendously. Thanks to all and this site for providing this forum.

leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2006, 10:58 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6
Default

I use a Canon 20D.

I've never heard anyone who owns a Rebel XT seriously complain about it, and I've handled one and I thought it was a pretty smart, basic DSLR with very good image quality.

So I doubt you'd be disappointed with the XT.

I love my 20D, probably one of the best investments I've ever made except for my retirement.

-- Terry


duxbid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2006, 2:54 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

short and sweet...

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX HSM
Canon 50mm f1.8

I did not have money to purchase everything new, so bought all from ebay for about $900.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2006, 2:55 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

short and sweet...

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX HSM
Canon 50mm f1.8

I did not have money to purchase everything new, so bought all from ebay for about $900.
AlpineMan 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 6:46 AM.