|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2004 12:34:30 AM · #1 |
I'm looking at doing quite a bit of indoor photography, primarily basketball games and other sites that have less than ideal lighting. I'm looking at buying my first "L" lens and think that I have it narrowed to one of the following two after I make up my mind what type of focal length I want.
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L
My main question is that some reviews I have read suggest f/2.0 is an absolute requirement. Some say that f/2.8 is acceptable. My understanding is that aperture is a function of focal length and the width of the lens and that f/2.8 on a lens with a big barrel might be the equivalent of f/2.0 on a smaller lens. As you can see I'm totally confused. So my real question is this... does anyone have experience shooting action indoors with either of these two lenses? If not, can anyone educate me on how to compare the effective apertures on two unlike lenses?
Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
02/08/2004 12:49:20 AM · #2 |
If your primary goal is to shoot indoor sports, then you almost certanly will need something like the 70-200 focal length range. Certainly the faster the lens, the better. f/2.8 is without a doubt the slowest you want to go, and at that you will be shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 to achieve the 1/250 to 1/500s you will need to stop action. f/2 would certainly be a benefit, but that limits your choices to fast primes; that's a direction you don't want to go unless you have big $ to burn.
The 70-200 2.8L IS is definitely the right focal length range, but whether it is really fast enough, I leave for others with more experience with indoor sports. I own the lens, but have only had it for a month, and have not shot any indoor sports as yet.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2004 02:00:21 AM · #3 |
Indoor sports are tough to photograph as you have several things conspiring against you - low light and fast action.
It's totally false that f-stops on lenses 'with longer barrels' will be equivalent of wider apertures on shorter lenses. f/2.8 is f/2.8 whether on a 15mm fisheye or a 1200mm telephoto. It lets in the same amount of light. In fact, from an effective shutter speed point of view the opposite tends to be true - the 1/focal length rule of thumb when hand-holding a shot requires a faster shutter speed at the longer focal lengths as longer lenses = higher magnification = more blur from camera shake. The 1/focal length rule with a 1.6x crop-factor camera is actually 1/effective focal length, too, so shooting your 200mm lens with the 300D means 1/320mm just to counteract the effects of normal shake from hand-holding. These are guidelines and good technique can lower these numbers.
I'd say that f/2.8 is still a bit dodgy for really low-light indoor stuff, but is probably the only reasonable solution from a price perspective. Ideally you'd like an 85 F1.2L, 135 F2L or a 200 F1.8L for their large apertures and quick autofocus, but they're frightfully expensive and can't zoom. I have used my 50 F1.4 for some indoor stuff and while it's passable, the autofocus is noticeably slower than an L-series lens. AI Servo focus is a bit of a nightmare with that lens.
It really depends on the lighting conditions that you'll typically be facing. If you're needing to go to ISO 1600 or 3200 at f/2.8, I'd say get a brighter prime and crop when necessary. There's nothing more frustrating than running into metering limits - I'd rather have slow autofocus than blurry shots. With sport stuff you can usually crop quite heavily and still produce a usable image, so in effect you're using the prime like a zoom. Photojournalistic image quality can always suffer a bit before it becomes a real issue, especially if you're using the images for the internet.
If you're doing a lot of indoor sports, and the lighting isn't overly dim, I'd say that an L zoom like a 70-200 F2.8L would be a good bet. It's a good focal length for basketball. I think you'd find the 24-70 a bit short most of the time, even on a 1.6x. If the lighting is really dim, try a 135 F2L or a 100 F2. The 100 F2's focus is supposed to be quite acceptably fast, though I've never used one.
Above all, keep in mind that you're going to need at least 1/500th for a good action freeze, so you'll really need all the aperture you can afford. Personally I'd go 135 F2L if I were shooting basketball, but that's just me...
Hope that helps.
Originally posted by l99057j:
I'm looking at doing quite a bit of indoor photography, primarily basketball games and other sites that have less than ideal lighting. I'm looking at buying my first "L" lens and think that I have it narrowed to one of the following two after I make up my mind what type of focal length I want.
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L
My main question is that some reviews I have read suggest f/2.0 is an absolute requirement. Some say that f/2.8 is acceptable. My understanding is that aperture is a function of focal length and the width of the lens and that f/2.8 on a lens with a big barrel might be the equivalent of f/2.0 on a smaller lens. As you can see I'm totally confused. So my real question is this... does anyone have experience shooting action indoors with either of these two lenses? If not, can anyone educate me on how to compare the effective apertures on two unlike lenses?
Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
|
02/08/2004 03:18:31 AM · #4 |
This is more a personal comment as I know Larry in RL. Just figured you'd read this sometime Sunday before calling me.
I posted some of the shots from the horse show in our Groove space. The flourescent lighting was completely tricky with one end of the building opened so that it looked like enough light to your eye but the camera didn't lie. During the barrel racing I had to use the tripod and remote release with ISO 1600 on the EF 50mm f/1.8 wide opened to just get into the 1/500th" range. Some of the shots turned out but I'm starting to feel pretty antsy about the 2.8L. I'll bring a couple of CD's to work for you to pick through and see the settings but if you have the Groove space you can pull them up in the photos area and give me a call Sunday.
P.S. -
The shots where people are standing with the horses or walking them turned out great with the f/4 lenses using ISO 800 and 1/60th".
Kev
|
|
|
|
02/08/2004 03:57:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by l99057j:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L |
I have a Sigma 28-70/2.8, which will be similar to the Canon 24-70/2.8L, apart from mine doesn't have IS.
The 2.8 is nice, but I do find it not wide enough. I shot a badmington match last weekend (see here), and as you can see, even at ISO 1600 I couldn't get action very fixed.
My friend has the Sigma 70-200/2.8, and I've used that a little. Again, it doesn't have IS, which will be worse than your L. The problem with this sort of range is you're having to deal with camera shake as well as player motion, which doesn't exactly help.
If it helps you decide, this:
was shot with a fixed 55mm/1.2 fixed focus lens. I have a lot of respect for the cheaper fixed lenses, because the low f-stop helps a LOT. Jimmy has mentioned the 135/1.2, which is a lens I saw being used by a pro at the badmington event I went to (national finals, so pretty good pros).
Personally for indoor sports I'm considering, to compliment my 28-70 (which is reasonable if it's fairly bright), a 50mm/1.8 (£80) or 50mm/1.4 (~£400) and a 85mm/1.8. Both of these are relatively cheap, and seem to be very good quality (owing to them being fixed focus).
The key is basically wide aperture - otherwise you WILL get blurry shots, which are basically useless. And believe me, I've got a lot of them. :-)
Edit: Changed 50 to 55mm on Talya's lens.
Message edited by author 2004-02-08 04:04:33. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 02:11:34 PM  |
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: 06/25/2025 02:11:34 PM EDT.
|
