dslr - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/25/2004 01:44:21 PM · #26

I think it really depends on where you are shooting. I have a good friend here in town who makes quite a bit of money selling photos of hockey games/ice skating and he is using an EOS 10D with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. Most of his shots are at ISO 400 and he has no problem stopping the action, I guess the places he shoots have better lighting than where you are shooting. I do agree though that for sports the faster the lens the better.

Greg

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by hsteg:
If i get a digital slr, i need a lens to shoot hockey. Ice and roller hockey, sometimes indoors with very poor lighting. ... The question is, is the 2.8 really worth amost 300 more than the f4?

In a word - YES.

In fact, f/2.8 is the very maximum you want to use. I shoot and sell shots for a fair amount of indoor horse driving (BP - my shots along with two fellow DPCers), and I tend to use a Canon 85mm/1.8 @ ISO 1600. The Canon 50mm/1.8, which both colleagues own, also works well.

Quick note regarding the D70.. It certainly has the edge over the 300D on shot throughput/etc, but it's also noisier at high ISO I believe (from what I saw in Setz's tests), which is not what you want for indoor sports.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/25/2004 01:48:22 PM · #27

I would look also at the 200mm 2.8 for hockey, a very well respected prime in the canon range. As to the speed of the d3oo i don't find it to be a limiter, but most of my sports are outside.

One pitch three frames, fairly fast, but four is the limit for a few seconds and slower to clear if you are shooting RAW

Message edited by author 2004-05-25 13:56:10.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/25/2004 01:48:27 PM · #28

Originally posted by dadas115:

I'm just going off what hsteg said: "Ice and roller hockey, sometimes indoors with very poor lighting". Unfortunately my experience is only for very poor lighting, hence me jumping in. ;-) My colleagues do use 70-200/2.8's, so I'm not saying they're unreasonable, just that f/2.8 is the max f-stop you want.

EDIT: Here's an example, shot at f/2.8 ISO 1600.

Message edited by author 2004-05-25 13:52:51.

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/25/2004 04:07:56 PM · #29

thanks for alll the responses. Im wondering now if the focusing of the canon is faster, and the same with the optical quality wide open.

05/25/2004 04:17:57 PM · #30

Yes, but unfortunately 85mm is still pretty short and doesnâ��t give you as much flexibility when the players are moving all over the rink. If you want to go with a longer fast lens they get expensive very quickly. If you want a 135mm f/2 or 200mm f/1.8 you are talking almost as much as and much more than what the body cost. I agree that the 85mm lens can get excellent results for this type of photography. Unfortunately when you are on a limited budget lots of compromises must be made.

Greg

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by dadas115:
I think it really depends on where you are shooting. I have a good friend here in town who makes quite a bit of money selling photos of hockey games/ice skating and he is using an EOS 10D with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. Most of his shots are at ISO 400 and he has no problem stopping the action, I guess the places he shoots have better lighting than where you are shooting. I do agree though that for sports the faster the lens the better.

I'm just going off what hsteg said: "Ice and roller hockey, sometimes indoors with very poor lighting". Unfortunately my experience is only for very poor lighting, hence me jumping in. ;-) My colleagues do use 70-200/2.8's, so I'm not saying they're unreasonable, just that f/2.8 is the max f-stop you want.

EDIT: Here's an example, shot at f/2.8 ISO 1600.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

05/25/2004 04:26:11 PM · #31

To me the focusing on the Canon feels a bit faster in good light but honestly the difference is very small. As PaulMdx said, f/2.8 is the minimum I would go as far as aperture is concerned for indoor sports, especially if the light isnâ��t very good. With the f/4 lens you are going to have a tougher time locking focus than you will with the f/2.8. In poor lighting I think you will find that the AF on the f/2.8 lens is much more accurate and is also faster. If I were on a limited budget I would either go for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or a couple of primes. The zoom will be more flexible for focal length and the prime more flexible in terms of aperture. If you are able to get close to the action and the lighting is bad then the 85mm f/1.8 would be an excellent choice. If you canâ��t get as close and want to cover more of the floor and the light isnâ��t too bad then the 70-200 f/2.8 EX would be the way to go. It really depends on where you are shooting and what you hope to achieve. The prime is also nice if you have the freedom to move around the rink.

Greg

Originally posted by hsteg:

thanks for alll the responses. Im wondering now if the focusing of the canon is faster, and the same with the optical quality wide open.

Pedro

Nikon D200

05/25/2004 04:27:20 PM · #32

Originally posted by faidoi:

Quick everybody pony up some funds to send Pedro to the Stanley Cup so he can try both the N70 and the Rebel :P

Preesh...but Pedro already gots himself some tickets..I'll be there ;)

P

ps more importantly I'll be on 17th avenue after the game taking mardi Gras like pictures like last week :)

The Chaos on 17th avenue (a little nudity ahead...you've been warned)

ps it's a huge video download from www.flamesgirls.com

Message edited by author 2004-05-25 16:28:47.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/26/2004 12:17:10 AM · #33

Canon 200 mm f1.8 WOW ! Check these Photos

Nikon owners can only dream about it !