Looking ofr the best lens for 20D low light/ sports

[20d user]

I need opinions before I spend the $$$ for a new telephoto lens. I need a lens $2000 or less. It is for cheerleading events. The kids are moving fast, in low light. Any suggestions? (Canon 20D)

[In2Photos]

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM

[20d user]

I forgort to mention: I need to be able to pan with the kids as they tumble accross the mat. No tripod.

[Tee Why]

Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS, about $1600. Good lens.

[20d user]

That's actually the one I've been considering most. Is the 2 stage IS really effective? Any different from the original IS of earlier lenses?

[stevefossimages]

I use stage II IS on my 100-400L IS a lot while shooting sports. It works great. You also might consider the 85mm f1.8. Depends on how far away from the action you'll be. The crop factor will give you more apparent magnification than 85mm.

[liza]

If you can get relatively close to the action, the 85mm f1.8 or the 100mm f/2 are good choices. I prefer primes to zooms for their low light performance.

[stevefossimages]

The 135mm f2L is a possibility, too.

[Tee Why]

new generation of IS can be used on tripods, is good for 3 vs 2 stops, and helps stabilize with panning if I remember correctly.

[20d user]

Sometimes I'll be only 10- 15 ft away. Other times, I'll be in stadium seating quite far away. So I guess I need something that can bridge the gap.

[20d user]

By the way, Steve, your green poem is a riot.

[mebailey]

Sometimes I'll be only 10- 15 ft away. Other times, I'll be in stadium seating quite far away. So I guess I need something that can bridge the gap.

As I see it the 70-200L IS is about the only choice.... Maybe a TC or two thrown in if you dont have one for the longer shots.

[Sean-Mcr]

Sometimes I'll be only 10- 15 ft away. Other times, I'll be in stadium seating quite far away. So I guess I need something that can bridge the gap.

There are no one size fits all solution for what you want to cover. 100-400 is a good range, but it's such a slow lens for people in available light. What use is IS when you're subjects are all over the show in difficult lighting? Not much;

You need fast lenses, 2.8 minimum and that's not going to be enough a lot of the time. I think as Liza said, it should be primes or at least a couple of primes and the 70-200 2.8 IS. Personally it would be primes all the way for me, well it is already.

[20d user]

Here are some sample shots from one event. I'm guessing most of the blur is caused by my own movement, trying to keep up with the kids tumbling accross the floor. I used IS, but it is one of the original IS lenes. Not the newer 2 stage IS.http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/sample_1.jpghttp://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/sample_2.jpghttp://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/sample_3.jpghttp://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/sample_4.jpg

[20d user]

I see some people loving the 70- 300. Anyone have both the 200 and the 300? Any great differences?

[nicmo]

I would go with a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS and/or Canon 85mm f/1.8.

[Sean-Mcr]

Yeah, the shutter'ss not fast enough, you're not getting enough light in to the lens. IS is of no use for such conditions. You need fast lenses and often in conjuncture with high iso's to freez your subjects in such light

[Sean-Mcr]

The light looks poor in the gym, i doubt 2.8 would be enough.

[Sean-Mcr]

Wooow, way off!!

Just chekced your exif

1/60 sec is no where near enough to freeze that kind of motion
F/5.6 is much too small an aperture for such light

With a 2.8 lens you could have had a shutter of at least 1/200 and i think you would have needed more.

[20d user]

If I up the speed to 3200, do you think the 70- 200 would do the job? Or do I need more from there?

[Sean-Mcr]

Well its a hell of a lot better then what you're doing now that's for sure. But i really think you should get it with a prime like the 85 1.8. I don't mind noise it suits some images better then others, i don't think sports is one of them, and 3200 is going to show a fair bit of noise. Though you could use neat image ect to filter the noise out to a degree

But you need at least 2.8 for what you're doing. That's the minimum for such conditions, and i'd want the back up of a faster prime.

But i've checked the exifs, you can't shoot at F/7.1 or F/5.6 in that light. What lens do you use

[mebailey]

If you need more than f2.8, I would consider the 135f2 L. It will be like a 216mm on a FF when mounted on your 20D. I understand its super sharp as well!

[dandan]

i say go with either the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM or the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There it pretty much comes down to if you want more on the long end, or the short end. IS will probaly not be of much use for indor sports as it only effects camera shake. If you are using a shutterspeed to slow to be able to hand hold without IS, any motion will be a total blur.

If I up the speed to 3200, do you think the 70- 200 would do the job? Or do I need more from there?


Yes, if you use ISO 3200 and f/2.8 you should get a fast enough shutterspeed to freeze motion.

[20d user]

I shot those with a lens that I usually use for studio portraits. Not meant for low light or moving targets at all, but that was what I happened to have on me at the time. I didn't even adjust the speed because I was in a hurry to catch the kids. I think the speed was only around 400 or 800. Can't remember. The lens was a 17- 85 with IS (single stage)

[liza]

I have the 200 f/2.8L and love it. It's an amazing piece of glass.

[20d user]

Have you used it in low light at all? How did it perform?

[20d user]

OK. So I'm stuck between the EF 135mm f/2L USM (makes me nervous to go without IS) and the 200 f/2.8L with IS. I had thought that the second stage IS was made for panning. Am I off?

[mebailey]

OK. So I'm stuck between the EF 135mm f/2L USM (makes me nervous to go without IS) and the 200 f/2.8L with IS. I had thought that the second stage IS was made for panning. Am I off?

I dont think the 200L has IS. Do you mean the 70-200 2.8 IS? I think the extra stop of the 135 more than makes up for IS because IS cant stop motion blur of the subject but extra light can.....

[20d user]

Sorry for the lazy typing. I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM vs. the EF 135mm f/2L USM

[20d user]

So if I'm panning with my camera to follow a tumbler across the mat, the EF 135mm f/2L USM will still shoot clearer than a lens with IS?

[mebailey]

You know for your 2 grand budget you can have both the 70-200 2.8 non IS and the 135 L!;)

[20d user]

That would be great, but I'm afraid the lack of IS is what has me worried. My current lens have IS. I've never shot DSLR without it.

[mebailey]

Not trying to push you one way or another, but IS is nothing more than a substitute for light when its not available because of dark conditions or because the lens is too slow. If you shoot these cheerleaders at a speed were you need IS to prevent camera shake blur, the cheerleaders are going to be moving too fast and will be blurred eventhough the IS is holding the camera still. I would guess you need at least 1/200 to shoot these girls (and maybe guys too) well. It would be better to go even faster if possible. To prevent camera shake blur you only need a shutter speed which is the inverse of the focal length you are using (ie for the 135 you need 1/135 SS). What Iam saying (not too well) is that shutter speeds that will be required to shoot the cheerleaders well will be beyond the shutter speed required to keep camera shake from ruining your pictures imo. Thus IS is not as good as twice as much light (the f2 lens vs the f2.8 lens) for fast action shooting.

[20d user]

I see. You actually explained it very well. So the 135 is so fast, it will freeze the shot even if I am moving. Did I get it?

[mebailey]

I see. You actually explained it very well. So the 135 is so fast, it will freeze the shot even if I am moving. Did I get it?

Yes, thats what I mean. Just my opinion however...:)

[20d user]

So how do you make up for the lack of zoom?

[mebailey]

So how do you make up for the lack of zoom?

You have to use your feet!!!:D

[tdaugharty]

If you can get relatively close to the action, the 85mm f1.8 or the 100mm f/2 are good choices. I prefer primes to zooms for their low light performance.

Second that

[liza]

Have you used it in low light at all? How did it perform?

I used the 200L in a very dimly lit gym this past week, and it did well with the correct camera settings. And, no, it doesn't have IS. I've never felt the need for IS, as I have a very steady hand. The 200L really isn't that heavy anyhow.

The comment about making up for the lack of zoom made me smile. I used nothing but primes when I shot film for 18 years. I feel that primes force you to innovate and explore your subject more. At this point, I rarely put my zooms in the bag when I shoot a game or event.

[20d user]

"My feet" won't work when the kids are on a mat that I can't get near. If it's stadium seating, I'm far away. Even when I can get closer, I can't walk right up to the mat. I can't get in the way of the judges view. I have to be able to stand back and pan as the kids go back and forth, up and down, etc... In other circumstances, I don't mind running around and following my target.
I'm loving all of the advice I'm getting from all of you. I'd love to hear recommended camera settings for this type of shooting as well.

[Frank M.]

IMG_4997 filtered JPG
This picture was taken with my XT with a 70-200 2.8 non IS. The ISO was set on 1600.
The shoot was indoors in a gym with poor lighting. the shutter speed was 1/500.

[mebailey]

"My feet" won't work when the kids are on a mat that I can't get near. If it's stadium seating, I'm far away. Even when I can get closer, I can't walk right up to the mat. I can't get in the way of the judges view. I have to be able to stand back and pan as the kids go back and forth, up and down, etc... In other circumstances, I don't mind running around and following my target.
I'm loving all of the advice I'm getting from all of you. I'd love to hear recommended camera settings for this type of shooting as well.

Think of the telephoto prime as a zoom which is already zoomed to the max focal length. Position yourself to capture the action if you need a wider perspective you can almost always move back. If you need more reach and cant move up you can go for a longer focal length tele (but beyond 200mm teles with f2.8 get very expensive). Another possibility is to try to make arrangements with the event organizers in advance to try to get special dispensation to approach closer to the action. You may get the cheerleader sponsor to vouch for you as the squad photographer. Its worth a try...

[mebailey]

Another consideration which occurred to me... Look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 zoom. is in your budget and available at B&H...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=263422&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Thats if you dont mind Sigma lenses. It would give significantly more reach....

[20d user]

I've never used Sigma. Any opinions on how they compare?

[Sean-Mcr]

I simply would not touch the 70-200 2.8 is for the light you want to shoot in.
God almighty, 2.8 is the very least i'd want, and not what i'd desire.

I'm sorry but as the above shot shows, the zoom is not the best lens for the task

[BullsEyePhotos]

Here's one that I took on a cloudy rainy day last spring. I was about 35 yards out using a Canon 20D and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I cropped this and printed up a 16" poster for his room (to remind him to stay in the crease :lol: ). Funny thing is that I had just purchased my new equipment to get back into a hobby that I had gotten out of due to not being able to afford all the film processing and captured some great shots. Now I have a great paying job and loving my refound hobby.

http://static.flickr.com/38/104342916_5d28a56ccd.jpg?v=0

[20d user]

That's too good!

[Sean-Mcr]

To be fair, a poorly lit gym, is not a cloudy day in spring. It's another world

[BullsEyePhotos]

I have to agree Sean and so I'll post this photo that I took several hours ago. This gym had 18 lights spaced in a 3x6 pattern and roughly 35-40 feet above the floor and no outside windows. I used a Canon 20D with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with an iso of 1600 and 2.8 for the aperture. Still you can see the hands of the girls were quite blurred but the young star is in good focus even though she was moving slightly. I was about 10 yards away from the action. I have others using an iso of 800 but they were not as sharp. All I did here was crop and use Auto Contrast in Photoshop so as not to change the photo to much.

http://www.bullseyephotos.com/Online_Photos/basketball-1S.jpg

[Sean-Mcr]

Very difficult at such an aperture to get the subject with in the dof Billy even more of a challenge at 1.8 ect, as you well know. Not far of the limit of the lens/cam there Billy, alls you could have done was to increase the ISO as you know already.

Fine lens you have there, myself i'd like to have as fast as i could get, as you can't predict the light

But good grace shown Billy, and thanks for sharing

[mebailey]

I guess your best bet is the 135 f2L in the Canon line. There are probably other good fast tele in Sigma, Tamron, ect...

[DavidEB]

In addition to faster aperature letting in more light and giving you a faster shutter speed, the primes also focus faster, which is important in tracking moving subjects.

In your budget, I'd get an 85 f1.8, 135 f2, and a 1.4x t-con.

As for zooming, your camera has plenty of megapixels. Get the best position you can, then crop.

[20d user]

To be fair, a poorly lit gym, is not a cloudy day in spring. It's another world

I wasn't even thinking along the lines of the photo quality. I just think it's a great shot because of the positions of the players. I love the fact that it was made into a "reminder poster" as well. Fun.

It's a tough decision at this point. Everyone has such good arguments. I decide on one, then change my mind to the other,.......

[20d user]

Anyone have both the 135 f2L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? Any comparison shots from the same game? That would be great to see.

[Sean-Mcr]

I wasn't even thinking along the lines of the photo quality. I just think it's a great shot because of the positions of the players. I love the fact that it was made into a "reminder poster" as well. Fun.

It's a tough decision at this point. Everyone has such good arguments. I decide on one, then change my mind to the other,.......

The shot is with out question a fine shot, just not what you're likely to be able to capture in the conditions you shoot in. If you really want a 2.8 then i'd suggest a prime to for back up.

[20d user]

Sean, you seem sold on primes. Do you have any low light action shots from them?

[Sean-Mcr]

Nothing as fast as you shoot i'm afraid, but i know about the difficulties of shooting in bad light. Often much worse then you'll be shooting in. You may well get a good balance between the the 70-200 and the 85 1.8 (which i have). The 135 (which i also have) could be a little long indoors

[mdm]

My vote is for the 350 dollar canon 85mm 1.8. Shoot manual iso 1600, aperture 2.0, and shutter speed 640.

[20d user]

My vote is for the 350 dollar canon 85mm 1.8. Shoot manual iso 1600, aperture 2.0, and shutter speed 640.

Any samples? "A picture is worth a thousand words."

[mdm]

Here is one of my kids basketball game with them running. I thought this was a poorly lighted gym.

[liza]

Here's one with the 85mm, shot in a dungeon of a gym.

http://static.flickr.com/6/77689303_197360fc95.jpg

[liza]

And here's one with the 200mm f/2.8L.

http://static.flickr.com/37/83646992_010af74caa.jpg

[20d user]

All good shots. When it comes down to it, it looks like all three lenses are able to do the job.
In the photo of the kids running, it is definitely low light. The shot isn't totally crisp, but there isn't a real blur in their movement.
The boys basketball shot is very impressive. Both boys are very sharp.
The girls basketball shot is terrific, too. It doesn't look like they were moving as fast as the boys, but the basketball is bouncing. The ball is a bit soft, but not super blurry.
If anyone comes across a low light action shot with the 350, I'd love to see that too.

[JennB]

I highly recommend the 85mm f/1.8 for cheerleading. That's the one I've been using the most when it comes to my daughter's competitions.:D It's great for low light/indoor sports photography. I usually have my settings on Manual, 1/500 or 1/640, ISO 1600, Al Servo, and f/2.0 or f/2.2. I also like using my 50mm f/1.4. Hope this helps!:)

[20d user]

That's a lot of help. Do you have any sample shots by chance?

[JennB]

Here's a couple of pics I took yesterday from one of our teams' practices. Just adjusted levels, reduced noise, and cropped to save for web.

Hope this helps in making your decision!:)

59850

59851

[JennB]

Here's one more! All these images taken with 85mm f/1.8 lens.

59852

[rklepper]

Under those conditions I think you will find that f2.8 is just too slow. Check out the 85 f1.8.