| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2005 09:24:22 PM · #1 |
I work for a private school in Anaheim, CA. I do their web pages and most of their photography. Unfortunately, the school has not felt the need to spend $1,600 on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. They want good pictures, but they don't want to spend the money. So I'm considering buying it myself. But I need some input from DP users.
The other night I was taking pictures at a football game. It was dark outside. The stadium lights were on. Needless to say, the lighting wasn't great. I was using my Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 to take pictures. They turned out really bad. I could only open the aperature to a maximum of 4...and the camera would usually bump that up to at least 5 (I'm not sure why). I had the ISO set at 1600...the highest it could go. But even with those settings, I could not set the shutter speed to faster than 1/80 sec. For good action shots, I need to be at around 250 minimum.
Here's my question. Would buying the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM allow me to get good shots, with a relatively fast shutter speed in the same lighting conditions? Would the 2.8 make THAT much of a difference? Also, in normal, every day shooting, what advantages does having a larger aperature give you?
Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:27:24 PM · #2 |
I shoot in those conditions with the 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS version) and get decent results. I can't say that the results of the IS would make my photos any better.
I'm using the Canon 550EX flash also.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 21:27:56. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:39:48 PM · #3 |
I can't speak for the 70-200, but a fast lens in everyday shooting will give you shallow DOF, if you so desire, and high shutter speeds for handholding with long tele lenses. The rule being shutter speed equal to 1/focal length.
What exposure mode are you using, matrix? Try manual or shutter priority and setting the shutter speed to what you want and if you're still underexposing then shoot in raw. It may slow your sequencing down, but you'll be able to recover some of the underexposed shots in pp. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:40:56 PM · #4 |
I second John's recommendation. f/2.8 is definitely necessary, but IS isn't. For football, its best to have a shutter speed of at least 1/500 to ensure sharp, motion-blur-free shots. Such a high shutter speed negates the use of image stabilization for a 200mm focal length. You can get good results at less than 1/500, it's just more difficult.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:50:42 PM · #5 |
Its just a matter of multiplication. One stop above f/2.8 is about f/4, two stops are f/5.6. You were at f/5, so thats about 1.7 f/stops above f/2.8. If you got 1/80 at f/5, you should get about 1/250 with f/2.8.
Note that the 20D should go to ISO 3200.
The reason you get f/5 and not f/4 is that your lens is f/4 only when zoomed to 70mm, it will be f5.6 at 300mm, and you were probably zoomed to around 200mm.
Large aperature gives you a brighter viewfinder (the aperature only closes when you take the shot) and a shallow depth of field.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:52:40 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Maverick:
I second John's recommendation. f/2.8 is definitely necessary, but IS isn't. For football, its best to have a shutter speed of at least 1/500 to ensure sharp, motion-blur-free shots. Such a high shutter speed negates the use of image stabilization for a 200mm focal length. You can get good results at less than 1/500, it's just more difficult. |
And if budget is an issue, check out Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8
If budget's not an issue, check out Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 05:19:53 PM EDT.
