PDA

View Full Version : 200 f/2.8 indoor sports


dharmon
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 00:43
Can anyone give me their opinions on this lens for indoor sports? I'll be shooting gymnastics and dance. Just used a 135 f/2L for my 1st attempt and in my novice opinion the pics were good. I'm hoping for much better as I gain some experience. The 135 exceeded my expectations ,but I would also like a bit more reach w/o sacrificing low light performance.

Is the 2.8 going to be fast enough for this application?

bigjon0107
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:09
Depends on how much light you have. What settings were you shooting with when you were using the 135? But in most cases for gymnastics, you are going to need faster glass then 2.8

dharmon
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:21
Av 2.0 from 1/160 - 1/250 I think. I'd have to check to make sure. I;m a rank novice.
I literally did some research on lenses bought the 135 2 and an 85 f/1.8 , then an XTi to put them on ... shot 6 frames, packed my new gear, went to the gym 2 days later and started shooting.
I figured the best way to learn is to jump in the deep end!

Sooo.. any help is appreciated:D

bigjon0107
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:28
Av 2.0 from 1/160 - 1/250 I think. I'd have to check to make sure. I;m a rank novice.
I literally did some research on lenses bought the 135 2 and an 85 f/1.8 , then an XTi to put them on ... shot 6 frames, packed my new gear, went to the gym 2 days later and started shooting.
I figured the best way to learn is to jump in the deep end!

Sooo.. any help is appreciated:D


haha, well that is one way to do it. What ISO were you at? That way we can give more accurate information.

dharmon
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:40
I shot some @ 800 and then some @ 1600 just to see if I could tell a difference. I'm confused about ISO . I think I have the basics, but not sure which ISO to set and how it affects the other variables??? Tell you what. I'll just have to post some pics. Maybe tomorrow, time permitting,then you can give me your best shot:-P THanks!

bigjon0107
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:46
In short Higher ISO=higher shutter speeds, which for sports you want. But with the data that you have provided the 200 2.8 would be way to slow. Your shutter speeds would be 1/2 of what you were currently getting.

metalman1010
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 01:49
I shot some @ 800 and then some @ 1600 just to see if I could tell a difference. I'm confused about ISO . I think I have the basics, but not sure which ISO to set and how it affects the other variables??? Tell you what. I'll just have to post some pics. Maybe tomorrow, time permitting,then you can give me your best shot:-P THanks!

Think of things as a triangle.

ISO-speed-aperature. When you get all three of them correct you have a perfect triangle.

When you change one of them your triangle changes and you could get a right triangle or an obtuse or acute triangle depending on what you alter.

When shooting indoors you should start around 800 ISO. And you want to get depending on what sports you shoot around 1/250 or faster shutter speed. You have purchased two very nice lenses that alot of sports shooters use indoors.

Now when it comes to the 200mm 2.8 it's a good lens. But considering that you were getting speeds of 1/250 with your 135mm you won't be able to touch that speed unless you really start bumping up your ISO.

ISO is what film is rated at. ISO in Digital is considered "equivalent". Think of ISO's as worker bees completing a task. The higher the ISO (number of bees) the quicker the task will be done (the faster speed you can shoot) at an available aperature.

Hope this helps out.

Ross

dharmon
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 13:33
All good info. Thanks Guys!

Would the 2.8 work under these conditions if it was IS. I hear the IS gives you the equivalent 0f additional 4 f/stops. Then again I think some believe the IS not usable for sports?

eigga
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 13:54
IS does not help when the subject is moving other than panning

fiveFPS
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 15:10
I shot some @ 800 and then some @ 1600 just to see if I could tell a difference. I'm confused about ISO . I think I have the basics, but not sure which ISO to set and how it affects the other variables??? Tell you what. I'll just have to post some pics. Maybe tomorrow, time permitting,then you can give me your best shot:-P THanks!



can you post up both shots to show differences? Thanks

dharmon
25th of September 2007 (Tue), 16:15
Tried to post pics , but having problems w/sizing

superdiver
25th of September 2007 (Tue), 17:51
You are going to want to get shutter speeds upwards of 1/500 to get a good crisp picture of gymnastics action.

You WERE getting 1/160 at f2 which is noticably faster then you would be able to ge twith the f2.8 (IOW, with all things being the same you would only be able to get 1/40th or 1/60th with the f2.8 = ALOT of blur!)

Even being able to increase you ISO alot I doubt you would have good enough light to use the f2.8 effecively. Dont get me wrong, its a great lens, just not for this application...

kidpower
25th of September 2007 (Tue), 19:11
In the long run you will not be happy with the 200 2.8 for indoor sports. Chances are you have plans to shoot in a wide variety of venues. While 2.8 may be perfect in some settings, in others you'll want that little bit of extra speed, and in some you will absolutely need it.

This assumes a typical sports shooter who is trying to maintain a decently high shutter speed to freeze action (1/400 to 1/600 and up). If you are mostly concerned about capturing the "still" part of sports (a huddle, foul shot etc) then shutter speed will be less of an issue and 2.8 will most likely be fine.

Lots of people use 2.8 indoors. Depends again on the lighting. Unless you are using some sort of lighting setup, 2.8 will be close to unusable in many gyms/venues (at least in my experience).

I would think fast prime (85 1.8, 100 F2, 135L). All are outstanding for indoor sports of any kind.

Good luck.

dharmon
25th of September 2007 (Tue), 21:24
Looks like I should just keep shooting the 85 1.8 and 135

Thanks for all the input!

Ruffio
26th of September 2007 (Wed), 02:03
If you could get your hands on/borrow a 1.4x TC, that would give you a good idea if it would work for you.

cookie99
26th of September 2007 (Wed), 06:06
Get a 1.4X Kenko and you can use it on both lenses.

convergent
26th of September 2007 (Wed), 07:42
Guys, this is not debatable based on the information he provided... the shutter speeds at anything over f/2 will be way to slow for shooting anything moving... it will actually be slow for capturing a person just standing there. While I agree that a TC1.4 is a great addition to the 135 f/2, it won't be usable in the scenario he described. I actually use the 135 + TC1.4 as a lighter travel lens than the 70-200 if I expect I'm going to be in low light situations. They work well together, but that's because I can take the TC off it if gets to be too dark and dim.