Is there any real difference between a f/2.8 and a f/3.5 whe

[JABACo]

I'm torn between buying a lens with a f/2.8 aperature and one with a f/3.5. I have a 420ex flash and have been shooting basketball with my 70-200 f/2.8.

My 70-200 f/2.8 is too much lens and I need to drop down.

My questions, "Is there a huge difference between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 when shooting basketball or any other indoor sport?"

Any comments or suggestions!!! If you need more information let me know.

Thanks

[scottbergerphoto]

The difference with flash is easy to determine:

For the 2.8 : Maximum flash distance = 42m/2.8 = 15meters

For the 3.5 : Maximum flash distance = 42m/3.5 = 12 meters

So with the 2.8, you flash will have a useable range 3 meters more then the 3.5.

The real benefit to the 2.8 is the fact that for sports or other fast action, the faster the lens the better. The 2.8 gives you 1/2 stop advantage.
Scott

[Burninfilm2]

Hi, I shoot basketball as well, but in the places where I shoot, we aren't allowed to use flash at all. Although I have Canon gear, my fastest glass is Nikon (all primes) so I use a D-1 Nikon with an 85mm 1.8 lens. A 3.5 would be too slow for me and a 2.8 is ok, but the 1.8 gives me a little extra in the way of shutter speed and sometimes that makes all of the difference.. Good Luck..Bob

[DaveG]

JABACo wrote:
I'm torn between buying a lens with a f/2.8 aperature and one with a f/3.5. I have a 420ex flash and have been shooting basketball with my 70-200 f/2.8.

My 70-200 f/2.8 is too much lens and I need to drop down.

My questions, "Is there a huge difference between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 when shooting basketball or any other indoor sport?"

Any comments or suggestions!!! If you need more information let me know.

Thanks

You might want to think about the 50 mm f1.4 for basketball. You'll pick up two stops of shutterspeed over a 2.8 lens. And as important as that is you'll be moving a much lighter lens around.

Now I've assumed that you are shooting these games from the sidelines. If you have to shoot from the stands then a longer lens is likely to be the only way. But from the baseline a small lens without much mass is going to be a lot better than something like a 70-200.

Perhaps I misunderstand your reference to the 420 flash but I would NEVER shoot basketball with a flash in the hotshoe. The results are horrible. You either need pro monolight flashes, radio synched and placed in the rafters (not likely) or you have to make due with available light.

[JABACo]

DaveG,

I am able to shoot from anywhere I want. I have free range. I have considered the 50mm f/1.8 because it seems to fit my budget at this time.

As for the flash (420ex), the lighting in the gyms I shoot in are horrible. Maybe with a better lens I could overcome that.

What settings do you use. I've been using f/2.8 to f/8.0 with the flash at 800 ISO and a shutter speed at 250. All in manual of course and sometimes in TV letting the camera choose the aperature.

Thanks for you insight.

Bradley

[JABACo]

burninfilm2 wrote:
Hi, I shoot basketball as well, but in the places where I shoot, we aren't allowed to use flash at all. Although I have Canon gear, my fastest glass is Nikon (all primes) so I use a D-1 Nikon with an 85mm 1.8 lens. A 3.5 would be too slow for me and a 2.8 is ok, but the 1.8 gives me a little extra in the way of shutter speed and sometimes that makes all of the difference.. Good Luck..Bob

Bob,

When I use my 70-200 f/2.8, I usually shoot it around 70-75mm and it seems to limit me to what I'm trying to capture. It's important for me to get a full head to toe action shot so that I can enlarge the photo to 13x19. This is what I sell directly to the parents, grandparents, etc.

I guess I need a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 to do this. What is your thinking on this.

Thanks

Bradley

[JABACo]

scottbergerphoto wrote:
The difference with flash is easy to determine:

For the 2.8 : Maximum flash distance = 42m/2.8 = 15meters

For the 3.5 : Maximum flash distance = 42m/3.5 = 12 meters

So with the 2.8, you flash will have a useable range 3 meters more then the 3.5.

The real benefit to the 2.8 is the fact that for sports or other fast action, the faster the lens the better. The 2.8 gives you 1/2 stop advantage.
Scott


Thanks Scott. I guess I should learn to apply the mathmatics of all of this.

[Burninfilm2]

Hi Bradley, The 70-200 is certainly a good choice, but I don't have one...yet..(still waiting on Dell), so I don't use my Canon 10d. I work for a newspaper and they have furnished a nice bag of (nikon) digital gear to me, as they do to all of our photographers (20 +) but all lenses are primes. The fastest lens in the bag is the 85mm 1.8, so that is what I use most of the time. I also have 60mm & 20mm 2.8's and they do see some limited use shooting basketball. I also use ISO 800 most of the time & try for 1/250. I almost always shoot on manual at the widest aperture, which gives me enough light and by reducing my depth of focus (field), really makes for a nice soft non-distracting background There are a couple of gyms in the area that are bright enough for ISO 400, but they are the exception. The 85mm seems to work pretty well, because it is a very sharp lens and I can usually get some nice facial expressions. and since I usually shoot from the corner area, rather than near the goal, I can pretty much get most of the action. Anyway, it interesting to hear how others shoot and to learn from their experiences..Happy Shooting...Bob

[DaveG]

JABACo wrote:
DaveG,

I am able to shoot from anywhere I want. I have free range. I have considered the 50mm f/1.8 because it seems to fit my budget at this time.

As for the flash (420ex), the lighting in the gyms I shoot in are horrible. Maybe with a better lens I could overcome that.

What settings do you use. I've been using f/2.8 to f/8.0 with the flash at 800 ISO and a shutter speed at 250. All in manual of course and sometimes in TV letting the camera choose the aperature.

Thanks for you insight.

Bradley

That's the reason that I suggested the 50 f1.4. The extra stop over the 1.8 (which is really
an f2) can make the difference in freezing action or not.

I usually use a shutterspeed of at least 1/500 @ wide open. If I can get to 1/1000 that's
even better, but unlikely. Once I’m at 1/1000 @ f2 I’d be looking to lower the ISO rather
than increasing the shutterspeed.

You write about using a flash because the gyms are so dark, but the problem with using
one flash is that it's two dimensional. The light goes out from the flash and is going to
produce a correct exposure at one distance. Anything closer than this correct distance
will be overexposed, while anything farther back will be underexposed to the point of
being black. A player’s arm crossing in front of you will be pure white, while the
background is black. In modern sports photography neither is acceptable

You can't slow down the shutterspeed in this case to "drag the shutter", which is a
technique I use at weddings to get good light (flash) on the still subjects along with
ambient light that removes the flash fall off. But this requires absolutely still subjects or
you will get ghosting.

The top sports photographers (Sports Illustrated) will take very powerful monolights and
secure them in the rafters of the stadium. The will use at least a few of these flashes.
They tend to be very expensive ones too, that have a very brief flash burst. The brief flash burst become effectively the shutterspeed. They aim
the monlights at preselected areas of the court and when a player is doing something interesting in
that "spot" they will shoot. All of this is linked together with a radio slave system.

If you can't get a shutterspeed of 1/500 @ wide open then you either need to forget all
about it, get a faster lens or perhaps try a “mini” multiflash set up of your own. A couple
of regular flashes like a Vivitar 283's will do the trick. You'd have one in your hot shoe
and then have a friend hold the other one. The second flash would have a inexpensive
light slave attached - and anyone else that's using a flash will trigger yours - but that's
they way it goes. Your friend would aim the second flash back at the players and this
would make the images look more three dimensional.

If you can, you should try this with borrowed gear before you buy it since it may not be
practicable for you. Keep in mind that you CANNOT use a 420 or 550 flash on E-TTL to
trigger a regular light slave as the first pulse that comes out of the flash will prematurely
trigger your slaved flash.

Of course you could get the 550EX flash and then a 420 to take advantage of Canon's
wireless TTL but that's a pretty big investment.

Email me and I'll send you some available light basketball shots, which in the end will be
the way you will really do this anyway.

[DNHayashida]

JABACo wrote:
I'm torn between buying a lens with a f/2.8 aperature and one with a f/3.5. I have a 420ex flash and have been shooting basketball with my 70-200 f/2.8.

My 70-200 f/2.8 is too much lens and I need to drop down.

My questions, "Is there a huge difference between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 when shooting basketball or any other indoor sport?"

Any comments or suggestions!!! If you need more information let me know.

Thanks

I would be real surprised if you were allowed to use a flash to photograph an indoors basketball game. Most coaches and referees will ask you to stop if you try. Players don't like having a flash distract them as they are shooting. Sometimes you can get away with it from the stands, but from the end lines I guarantee someone will say something. To be courteous you should ask both coaches and the refs if you are going to try to use a flash.

For your question about if 2.8 is a big difference from 3.5 - no it is not. You would be very lucky to be in a situation where changing from 3.5 to 2.8 would make any difference. It would have to be in a lighting situation where you are just on the edge at 3.5, and even then a change to 2.8 will not make a big difference. For instance it might just allow you to use 1/125 instead of 1/100, but it won't allow you to go to 1/250 without some underexposure.

After saying all that, a f2.8 constant aperture zoom lens over a variable 3.5 to whatever zoom lens is a big advantage. If you are at say 135mm and 2.8 you will get a lot more light than 135mm and 5.6, where there wasn't a lot of difference at the wide end at 2.8 and 3.5. I haven't seen any zoom lenses with a 3.5 constant aperture. If there was, and it was cheaper than the 2.8 zoom constant aperture, I would get it.

As far as some of the other recommendations for prime lenes, I find most of them to be too limiting in coverage. Basketball is a game where a few wide pictures of the way the players are set up along with individual closeups makes a much more interesting series of pictures than all wide angle or all isolated individual pictures. So a zoom lens is much more useful unless you like changing your lenses a lot.
Darryl Hayashida

[Motorsports Photo]

JABACo wrote:
I'm torn between buying a lens with a f/2.8 aperature and one with a f/3.5. I have a 420ex flash and have been shooting basketball with my 70-200 f/2.8.

My 70-200 f/2.8 is too much lens and I need to drop down.


I've found that at around 70-100 you have reached the limit of the flash. a 28-70 or 28-80 will give you decent flash pics.

I recently got a 28-70 f2.8 Tokina that seems to work quite well in the "dark" (You think your basketball court has lousy lighting, try an indoor motocross!!) I'm learning to like it better than my old 28-80 f3.5-5.6.

Happy New year everyone!

-Pete