Enough screwing around...i'm sick of this.

[timmyquest]

I'm merely weeks away from my first expensive lens purchase which will be a telephoto zoom.

The reason for this is because i own a very very crappy sigma zoom. It is soft trough the entire focal range and only becomes decent at f/11.

So what do i use it for? Typically birds and the such...but i have made a semi commitment to myself and my former coach to take pictures for the football team next year. These are highschool games so they are friday night. The fields we play at are fairly well lit considering...but i just question if the f/5.6 of the 100-400 will be fast enough. Deep down i know it wont be, but the added price of faster zooms is an annoyance as well as the smaller focal length.

I'm mostly refering to the 70-200 f/2.8. I know it's a great lens both because of it's speed and more so it's sharpness, but it is only 200mm and i question if i will miss that 200mm once football season is done.

Another thing to think about is that focal length on the football field. I will have as much access as i'd like with the exception of stepping over the white out-of-bounds line. I took my 300mm sigma to the field a few months ago and was suprised at how much 300mm really is when your on the field.

So in that aspect i'm not too worried about 200mm.

I really have to question thoug hif the 2.8 is absolutely needed with typical football highschool lighting, and a 550EX flash.

Depending on how much money i end up making in the next few months at work i may just spring for the 120-300 f/2.8 sigma...but thats pretty much a grand over what i would like to spend, which is a lot of money for someone who does this for fun.

Discuss...

[Olegis]

If you need the 200mm lens for your shooting I doubt that the 550EX flash is going to help much at such distances. Why not take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is highly praised across various photography forums (deltainternational.com sell them for about $650) and add to it some x1.4 TC ? You'll end up with 448mm lens which will still maintain AF and help you to produce some nice photographs (after some post-processing of course - noise removal as you'll be shooting at high ISO volumes and some USM).

[timmyquest]

If you need the 200mm lens for your shooting I doubt that the 550EX flash is going to help much at such distances. Why not take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is highly praised across various photography forums (deltainternational.com sell them for about $650) and add to it some x1.4 TC ? You'll end up with 448mm lens which will still maintain AF and help you to produce some nice photographs (after some post-processing of course - noise removal as you'll be shooting at high ISO volumes and some USM).

I'd rather not rely on extream Post. and extenders to get my photographs.

I recall reading that the 550 is good up to 55 meters...which is roughly half a football field??? (just tell me if i'm wrong, i dont need a flash debate started here)

[Olegis]

From the 550EX specs (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/cameras_speedlite/550exspec.html) - "With normal flash: 0.5-30 meters/ 1.6- 100 feet", that's maximum. I guess that the "normal" working distance with the 550EX would be about 20-25 meters.

I myself have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS version) which I dearly and truly love, if you can find it used in good condition - just grab it ! The question is - what will your working distance be ? If you can get pretty close to the field, then I can recomend the fast primes line - 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L (expensive).

[timmyquest]

You've inspired me

I'm going to go take a drive to the field right now :-)

[Olegis]

Good luck ! 8) Just remember - you don't buy a lens for a single event (unless of course you are a pro and this is some special event that absolutely NEEDS this specific lens). The 85 f/1.8 is good for all kinds of photography - low light concerts, plays, theatre, low and normal light portraits etc, and so is the 70-200. My point is - whichever you buy, just try and use it to the maximum, you won't be dissapointed :)

[CoolToolGuy]

Flash at a football game? I don't think I would try it. There are large distances to cover, and subjects at many varying distances. Even if you mounted a 550EX on each pole of the field lights, :shock: you may find yourself with one player properly exposed (probably the closest), and the rest just shadowy figures. :roll:

Lens speed is your friend. 2.8 is a good number to keep in mind, and if the 135 f2L is a length you can use, you get 1 more stop. I don't like the thought of fixing things in post-processing either, but cropping a well-exposed shot from a 135mm lens would be preferable to trying to reclaim a poorly-exposed shot from a longer, slower lens, IMHO. But I could be wrong.

[timmyquest]

At this point i'm just going to try my best to see if i can afford the 120-300 f/2.8 sigma.

[2new]

I am not sure what is available in your area but the Pro camera shops rent quality equipment by me. I would rent the 2 or 3 lenses you are considering before making a purchase. You may find the results helpful.


I have never looked into it but you may even be able to rent from store outside of your local area and have them ship the lens to you (and back).

Michael

[roanjohn]

If you have money for the Sigma.............what about searching for the ever elusive 200 f1.8 ;-)

If I were in your situation, I would spring for the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

--------------------and a really fast prime if 2.8 is not enough------

ie

Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 135 f2 L

Ro1

[timmyquest]

If you have money for the Sigma.............what about searching for the ever elusive 200 f1.8 ;-)

If I were in your situation, I would spring for the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

--------------------and a really fast prime if 2.8 is not enough------

ie

Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 135 f2 L

Ro1

Actually that may not be a bad idea...i could get the 70-200 and the 17-24 L for the price of the sigma...but again it's sitll only 200mm

[flyfishnj]

It's really 200 X 1.6 if you cam has a multiplication factor. You're talking more like 310mm and you can crop a little too. I was wondering today if my 400mm would be enough to shoot a baseball game .... Then I remembered multiplication :wink:

[ron chappel]

YOU ****WILL**** NEED THE 70-200 IS lens !!!!!!!!!!!!
Anything else (including standard f2.8 zooms) just won't be bright enough so the f2.8 combined with the IS feature will be essential! If you can't afford this lens then rent it

To prove how much you need a superfast lens,try you sigma lens at the same ground at night-you can very easily work out what kind of shutter speed the camera would want even at f2.8

I tried a night rodeo recently.I'd estimate the lights were several stops dimmer than a good football field, but even so i was only getting shutter speeds around 1/20th-1/40th using iso400 and an f1.8 lens.All i could get that night were arty motion shots

[cmM]

hey Tim if you wanna rent, you can take a drive to Calumet photographic in chicago. They rent a lot of stuff, including the Canon 70-200 lenses. They have pretty fair prices too...

[Longwatcher]

First a serious note:
I highly recommend the 70-200/2.8 w/wo IS I have used this lens with a 550EX flash and find it gets very good results to at least 10 meters with okay at speed 1/125, ISO 100 to 15 meters (about 45 feet) at ISO 400 should get close to 25 meters. It will go out 30, but not enough to make a difference in average stadium lighting. In the meantime just having the f2.8 will make a huge difference. When not at the game, The 1.4X extender does not affect quality too much and on a bright day even the 2X is not bad.

On a not so serious note. Get a couple of AB1600 and a vagabond with radio remotes (or pocket wizards) and set them about 5 feet back from the side lines and flash away. (Not that they will let you do this, but it couldn't hurt to ask :roll: . Those puppies will light up the sky at full power. Be sure to aim them at the opposing team so they are blinded and can't see. 8)

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Lincoln_Mennuti]

Something folks haven't mentioned yet is Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com)

I've only tried the Demo version, but I'm impressed thus far...If you're stuck with having to use HIGH ISO to get the image, Neat Image is going to help.

[nosquare2003]

Neat Image helps but it cannot replace a large aperture lens.

Using Neat Image to clear significant noisy photos may cause loss of details or fake appearance. (Certainly, there are settings in Neat Image to lower the extent of noise cleaning...). And a large aperture lens is always better.

[Lincoln_Mennuti]

Neat Image helps but it cannot replace a large aperture lens.

Using Neat Image to clear significant noisy photos may cause loss of details or fake appearance. (Certainly, there are settings in Neat Image to lower the extent of noise cleaning...). And a large aperture lens is always better.

Hence my saying "If you're stuck with having to use HIGH ISO to get the image, Neat Image is going to help."

Of course it's always preferred to have the better equipment, and even so there's going to be situations where you're still stuck with having to use higher ISO to get the image.

Neat Image is just another software tool to help.

[timmyquest]

I thought about this some tonight at work.

I think what i'm going to do is to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My reasoning for this is the following:

1.)Based on my testing at the football field, 200mm should suffice for distance.

2.) Having 70mm on the camera will help with closer sideline shots, much more so then 100mm

3.) F/2.8, need i say more? it was never something i denyed, but based on some testing i did last night at the park which has similer lighting...f/5.6 just is too much...or, not enough (you know what i mean)

4.) Although i want a nice telephoto lens for things like birds and the like, the truth is that i'm in a rush to get this before football season begins, that gives me roughly 2 and a half months to come up with $1500+. The point is, my ture desire right now for this lens is for the football...after football season i will more then likely start to save up for something longer.

5.) The 120-300 sigma seems to be a great lens, but at a much higher price...and for what? 100mm and no IS? Not to mention...i'd rather not put sigma gear on my camera, i know it matters not, but lets be honest, if you had the choice between two lenses that gave you identical shots (not to say they will) and one was white with a red stripe, and the other was black and said "sigma" (rahter then canon, which just about any shmuck knows). And then you have to take this to sporting events? I know what i'd pick.

So yeah...i think that this will work for me...thanks for the input folks :-)

[roanjohn]

I think what i'm going to do is to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My reasoning for this is the following:



I'm sure you won't be sorry...............

And with a 2x TC, you still get a 400 f5.6 at the long end.

Ro1

[timmyquest]

I think what i'm going to do is to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My reasoning for this is the following:



I'm sure you won't be sorry...............

Ro1

My bank account will be

I wont be able to afford it for about a month, maybe two...and this means i wont be getting a printer anytime soon, which is ok as i can always print them later...it's kind of hard to take pictures without a lens though ;-)

[mjordan]

Keep in mind that IS will not help you with getting sharp pictures of motion. It is great for low light of static shots, but if you are shooting at 1/30th to 1/125 of fast moving football players, you are still going to get blur, even with IS.

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and love it. I take a lot of pictures in low light arenas, barns, convention centers and other big, poorly lit buildings. The IS helps me hand hold down to about 1/30th now, where without it I couldn't go much below 1/60th and still get good 8x10 quality images.

So if you are thinking that the IS will help with action in low light, it won't.

Mike

[Olegis]

You can always get the non-IS version and add a good monopod to it - that way you'll be able to shoot at speeds as low as 1/60s at 200mm end. Of course it's not so convenient as having IS, but the $$$ difference is definitely there ...
Just one more thing - IS isn't needed when shooting fast moving action, as the shutter speeds have to stay high anyway (at least 1/250s I guess). At speeds that you'll need the IS (1/100, 1/60 etc) the fast moving subject will be blurry because of its motion.

[drisley]

After shooting bodybuilding shows in dark theatres, and recently a diving event in a large pool with TV lights which still required ISO1600, I would say "crank up the ISO, and make sure the image is properly exposed, or slightly to the right".

The 10D and 200D have amazingly low noise at high ISO's.
If your picture is slightly dark though, and you have to compensate later with software (raw or jpg), you are going to get alot of noise.

I NEVER use/need to use Noise Ninja (the best NR software imho) at ISO100-800. Even at ISO1600 I find I dont need it unless the image was underexposed slightly.

Thes bodybuilding shots were all at ISO400 and ISO800 with no noise reduction:
http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/index.htm

Here is a 100% crop of one of the ISO800 shots, no noise reduction:
http://www.sharpnsmart.com/mabba2004/iso800.jpg

These diving shots were all at ISO1600 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/diving/), but I made sure to properly expose, or slightly over expose.

Here is a 100% crop (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/iso1600.jpg) with no noise reduction.

When shooting the bb shows, even though I am using a f1.8 lens, I often tend to shoot at f2.8 and increase the iso because at f1.8 the dof is so small, subjects tend to be soft unless they are dead center of focus.
This is just my experience.

PS. The 85mm f1.8 is an awesome lens for low light.

[timmyquest]

I didnt realize the non IS version was so much less, for some reason i thought it was only a 100 or 2.

Just wondering, it doenst matter all that much, but does the non IS version also have an 8 bladed appature?

[droosan]

I got a 10D this winter so I haven't taken football pictures with it. However I got excellent football pictures with my EOS 3, 200/2.8L and a 550ex. Yes, the 550 is useful for football pictures. Use it to fill in. Personally, if it's night, I set the camera to M, aperture to 2.8, and adjust the shutter speed as needed, letting the 550 fill in. This fall, I will shoot raw in order to best deal with exposure problems that are bound to occur.

Now, the 10D will turn my 200 into a 300mm. I haven't decided whether I will like that or whether I will prefer my 100/2.0 which the 10D will make a 160mm.

Focusing on football action at night is going to be more of a problem for the 10D than it was for the EOS 3, I bet. In order to help the camera focus, I am going to want as much aperture as I can get.

[Sendide]

for fast sports action, yes the IS version will not help much, but you can also reduce the blur effect on your subject by following the motion with your camera/lens to "immobilize"your subject relatively to the seen which then will come out blurry. depends on what your needs are (known technique but just a reminder).
1.6 factor in 10D will not make anything you shoort closer. with 200mm for instance, it'll still be 200mm, jsut cropped to give an image width of 320mm. you loose some sides of your image compared to full frame thet's it.
I did some shots to compare with Elan IIe and 10D and results jsut comfirmed what I thought.
regards
Khalid

[droosan]

1.6 factor in 10D will not make anything you shoort closer. with 200mm for instance, it'll still be 200mm, jsut cropped to give an image width of 320mm. you loose some sides of your image compared to full frame thet's it.


True. That's what I meant. I don't know whether I will prefer the angle of view of a 300mm (the EF200/2.8L's angle of view is actually about 190mm) lens or of a 160mm lens.