indoor volleyball - DPChallenge Forums

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/11/2006 09:01:27 PM · #1

These photos are the beginning of my sports photography venture, as discussed in this thread.

All are shot with my DRebel and 50 f/1.8 at f/1.8, and I think all are at ISO 800. It seems to me that 50mm is too short, both for field-of-view and depth-of-field (they are too wide with too much DOF). I would also like faster autofocus. The 85 f/1.8 usm seems to be the answer to my problem. What I would like to know is this:

Would the 85 (as opposed to the 50) improve these photos significantly? Would someone crop one of the photos to represent the FOV of an 85? Would the bokeh be noticeably better with an 85?

Also, any critique is welcome. Aside from compression, all are 100% unedited, so please ignore any flaws that could be eliminated with reasonable processing.

Thank you,
Luke

Message edited by author 2006-08-11 21:01:58.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

08/11/2006 09:03:55 PM · #2

85mm f1.2L. Wow.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/11/2006 09:04:57 PM · #3

Not bad considering the worst lighting imaginable is inside a school gym.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/11/2006 09:57:49 PM · #4

Originally posted by dunnewold:

All are shot with my DRebel and 50 f/1.8 at f/1.8,

That is an awful lot of background detail for shooting with that lense at F1.8 - you sure? I've never been to good with the math, but looking at your photos and making some guesses at distances I tend to be getting blurred out backgrounds in circumstances like these. Just curious (you aren't sure on your iso, maybe misremembering aperture?)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/12/2006 12:12:24 AM · #5

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by dunnewold:

All are shot with my DRebel and 50 f/1.8 at f/1.8,

That is an awful lot of background detail for shooting with that lense at F1.8 - you sure? I've never been to good with the math, but looking at your photos and making some guesses at distances I tend to be getting blurred out backgrounds in circumstances like these. Just curious (you aren't sure on your iso, maybe misremembering aperture?)

thanks for the post.

I was also shocked to see so much background detail. All are at f/1.8. My understanding of DOF is that it is affected by focusing distance and physical aperture size - that is, the focal length divided by the f/stop. 50mm/1.8=27.77mm
28mm is, physically, not a very large aperture. 85/1.8=47.22 Therefore if I got an 85 f/1.8, bokeh, in theory, would be greatly improved. (focusing distance would, in most cases, make little difference, as many of my shots are too wide)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 00:13:35.

jpochard

Canon EOS-40D

08/12/2006 12:28:35 AM · #6

Those are not bad at all. All I can say is good luck! I have a 24 yr. old daughter who has played volleyball since the 7th grade and now my youngest is entering 7th grade and also playing (and has played on club teams for two years.) I find this to be very difficult to get decent shots.

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

08/12/2006 11:21:27 AM · #7

Originally posted by jpochard:

Thanks, Judy!

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

08/12/2006 11:28:52 AM · #8

I read in some review about the 85 f1.2 that it has such a narrow dof that on portraits, it is sometimes hard to keep both eyes in focus. I have been very happy with the 85 f1.8, very sharp and still gives great bokeh. A lot cheaper too.

yakatme

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/12/2006 11:49:42 AM · #9

Nice shots, all. Maybe I missed it, and maybe it's just obvious, but I just wanted to confirm that these were all taken in available light without a flash.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/12/2006 10:54:25 PM · #10

Originally posted by faidoi:

85mm f1.2L. Wow. ...

...Not bad considering the worst lighting imaginable is inside a school gym.

Sorry, Welland, I somehow missed yours earlier. Yes, the lighting is dreadful. And for that I would like the 85L. Doesn't quite fit the budget, though.

Originally posted by yakatme:

Nice shots, all. Maybe I missed it, and maybe it's just obvious, but I just wanted to confirm that these were all taken in available light without a flash.

I'm glad to hear you like the shots. Indeed, no flash, just dismal gym lights.

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I have been very happy with the 85 f1.8, very sharp and still gives great bokeh.

Is the bokeh that much better than the 50 f1.8?

-----

Thanks to all for posting your responses.

wavelength

Nikon D300

08/12/2006 11:11:43 PM · #11

I'd get a 70-200 2.8, get a snoot and use just a bit of fill flash or a hihger ISO. Thats just me though. I like to zoom and get the right shot rather than being worried how much noise I have or have to filter.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Nikon

08/13/2006 02:45:30 PM · #12

Originally posted by wavelength:

price becomes an issue here.
all the same, your advice is appreciated.

Message edited by author 2007-04-14 22:02:15.

kgeary

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/13/2006 03:09:55 PM · #13

I have the 85mm 1.8 - the lens is supurb, comparable to L quality. I wouldn't shoot sports with it, or any prime for that matter. It is definately a portrait lens. You need a good zoom lens. I would recommend the tamron 24-105 2.8 (if i remember correctly) for sports. Also it depends on how close you get. I'm not surprised about the background detail on your shots...the 50 is such a short lens and the background wasn't too far away from the focal point.

I Enjoy Ham