Indoor sports low light 135 or 70-200

[Rleka]

Hi

Thank you for the advice yesterday about lenses. I'm looking for more advice.

I am purchasing the 20D and trying to figure out the best lens, within a reasonable price, for taking my daughter's picture at her gymnastics competitions. She is 7 years old and I want to capture these moments.

I "think" I have it narrowed down to either the 135 f/2L or the 70-200 f2.8L (not sure about the IS part, yet). I worry that the 135 might be too limiting in reach since I'm stuck in the stands and can't move around too much. Plus, it seems more limiting for my other uses (taking everyday picures, candids and portraits of my children). With the 70-200, I worry that it won't be fast enough to get clear sharp pictures with nice background blur. With no flash I want to make sure the picture isn't dark and that she is clear. If I get the 70-200 should I skip the IS, save the $500?


I keep going back and forth as I read more. I am new to all of this so a lot of it I don't understand, yet. Any advice would be appreciated!


Thank you for your help!
Laura

[tim]

You gain one stop by getting the 135, but you lose flexability. You could just raise your ISO one stop to get the same shutter speed. It really depends on how much light you have to play with - use a light meter to work it out, or take a few snaps using your existing lens and see how it goes.

Re IS/no IS, I love my 70-200 IS, if you decide you don't need IS go for the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, it's meant to be a great lens and it's a lot cheaper than the Canon non-IS. IS will be VERY helpful if you're hand holding in low light.

[etaf]

I worry that the 135 might be too limiting in reach since I'm stuck in the stands and can't move around too much. Plus, it seems more limiting for my other uses
I think you have answered this yourself.
You may want to consider IS as it will allow you to shoot with a slower shutter speed which you may need in low light conditions.
as to qaulity of the lens I'll let others answer...

[Michael L]

True the IS will let you shoot with slower shutter speeds, but to freeze action you dont want slow shutter speeds. To freeze your daughter in gymnastics you are going to want at least 1/500s shutter speed. At 1/500s hand shake is not much of an issue, and I dont think IS will help you.

The owners manual of my 28-135 with IS recommeds turning IS off when in panning. You will find panning useful for sporting photography. So once again IS not going to help you. Some IS lenses have a panning mode. I dont know how well IS in panning mode works.

My vote skip the IS you should not need it at higher shutter speeds, and you need higher shutter speeds for gymnastics.

[Jon]

The owners manual of my 28-135 with IS recommeds turning IS off when in panning. You will find panning useful for sporting photography. So once again IS not going to help you. Some IS lenses have a panning mode. I dont know how well IS in panning mode works.
The 70-200 IS does have a panning mode. And the panning mode on my 100-400 works great. The 28-135 is an earlier version of IS which didn't have "Mode 2" (panning).

As you'll be shooting right on the edge of hand-holdability, IS will help. The "rule of thumb" doesn't mean that you can shoot sharp pictures right up to 1/efl and pictures abruptly get worse after you cross that point to slower speeds. It's a continuum, and that's the point at which most people start getting noticeable shake. But try hand-holding at what you consider your "safe" speed, then take the same shot using your tripod and compare the results. You'll probably be surprised.

[genewch]

I'd rate lens speed first in hostile low light environment while maintaining a high shutter speed. You can crop a pic, but you can't make a action-blurred pic to a clean one. Therefore I choose the 135mm. Whether this focal length is limiting depends on how you shoot and your photography habits.

[Andy_T]

You gain one stop by getting the 135, but you lose flexability. You could just raise your ISO one stop to get the same shutter speed.

Theoretically correct ... unless you are at ISO 3200 and can't increase it any more.

The 135/2.0 plus 1.4 t-con will allow you to get 135@f/2.0 and 190@f/2.8.
The 70-200/2.8 will limit you to f/2.8 over the entire zoom range.

Best regards,
Andy

[kidpower]

I'd rate lens speed first in hostile low light environment while maintaining a high shutter speed. You can crop a pic, but you can't make a action-blurred pic to a clean one. Therefore I choose the 135mm. Whether this focal length is limiting depends on how you shoot and your photography habits.

I tend to agree with the above. I shoot lots of indoor basketball with a 85 1.8. Dim lighting and fast shutter speed are the biggest obstacles. I try to shoot at around 1/500 or 1/600. Sometimes, depending where I sit that can be a challenge. Many times I'll get a tremendous shot only to have it blurred because my shutterspeed wasn't fast enough. I experiment between modes manual, AV, TV etc. Many times I wish I had a zoom, but that's not in the cards right now. I'm learning quickly how to get the shots I want with an 85 1.8. Personally, I'd go with the 135L, but everybody has their own opinion.

[schmoelzel]

Ask Drisley! He does a lot of sports shooting and has used the 135L w/extender quite a bit. He recently sold that lens to me (goodie for me!!:) ) and now uses the 70-200f2.8 L....I am sure once his BB shows start again he will have some interesting viewpoints on shooting with the zoom instead of the prime!