Anyone switch between the 85 and a 50 during basketball?

[USMCWayne]

The 85 1.8 is a great lens, probably helping any bonehead (like me) be a better sports photographer, but I'm wondering if the "limitations" result in anyone here switching back and forth (maybe between quarters?) between the 85 and a 50 1.8?

A couple from last night with the 85.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s308/USMCWayne/Montana%20boys%20basketball/IMG_5023_filtered.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s308/USMCWayne/Montana%20boys%20basketball/IMG_5016_filtered.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s308/USMCWayne/Montana%20boys%20basketball/IMG_5045_filtered.jpg

I start each trip down the floor from the baseline, about ten feet in from the corner and sideline. If (when) one of the officials get in my way, I usually take a few steps and move a few feet down the sideline.

I'm finding the 85 gives me a good look at baseline drives, occasional jump shots from the three-point line and closer, some under the basket action, and top of the key and closer dribbling, passing, and defense.

But the frustation, if you can call it that, is all of that great close-in action under the basket, which is too tight for the 85, that I'm missing.

For the next game, I'm thinking seriously about using my 50 1.8 for at least a quarter, and wonder if anyone else has done a lens swap for similar reasons?

[Sauk]

looks like you guys have great lighting! Seems like your underexposed by a touch. Have you tried dropping down your shutter to 640 or even 500. Seems like that would give you perfect exposure!

[royv]

I'd probably wouldn't use my 50 1.8 for that purpose. It just isn't fast enough.
Would be nice to switch to an UWA like the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 for some nice wide angle shots from under the basket.

[USMCWayne]

"Would be nice to switch to an UWA like the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 for some nice wide angle shots from under the basket."

Shooting college ball in the 70's, I always liked the perspective and look with a 20 mm below and behind the hoop. I probably won't get one in time for this season, but a 10-22 is pretty high on my list for next year.

"looks like you guys have great lighting!"

Yes we do. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but less than ten years ago this particular High School and gymnasium burned to the ground. The administrators replaced it with a high quality facility for school and sports.

Currently, they've got the bleachers folded and the lights turned off above one balcony, which makes it a bit harder to shoot in one direction than another. Once the post-season tournaments start, in about a month, all of the lights will be on.

"Seems like your underexposed by a touch."

I did some post processing which gives the photos that look. They seem to reproduce a bit better in the local newspaper, which prints only B&W, and the two State dailies I freelance for.

[Bumgardnern]

I have done some basketball shots with that 50mm f1.4 but never with the 1.8. I can say that the 1.4 performs very well in dark gyms when you cant cut it with something else. My go to lens though is the 85mm 1.8 with occasional use of the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

[Big K]

I switch between the 85 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.4 pretty frequently during a game. I generally do it when the play is at the other end of the court or will use two bodies with different lenses on each. I will also switch in a 135 f/2.0 and 24 f/1.4 depending on my mood, game style, etc.

I really like the results from the 50 but it is limited to mainly shots in the paint.

Unless you are going to do some decent sized enlargements, I find the really wide angle lenses to not be that effective because I find it hard to see the details. Great for giving a sense of location but not the best in my opinion for capturing action. I tend to do wide angle stuff after 4 or 5 games when I already have a mountain of shots of everyone and am looking for some variety. When I do, I use a 16-35 f/2.8 on my 5D body.

Hope that helps.

[jik22]

Which do you find focuses more quickly in gym situations , the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.8?
Thanks

[Big K]

They seem to be pretty comparable to me. I have not noticed either giving me problems of not focusing quickly. The focusing issues I most run into I think are related to the dark conditions where the camera AF can't seem to make up its mind.

[khall]

"

I did some post processing which gives the photos that look. They seem to reproduce a bit better in the local newspaper, which prints only B&W, and the two State dailies I freelance for.

The pictures do seem to be dark and lack brightness. If you have found that this look is better for your local papers thats fine, but the shots that you have posted do look to be under exposed. If you like wise sell prints to the players a brighter print would be much more presentable and when post on the forum show the best quality possible.

[dmwierz]

If you're talking strictly about focal lengths, honestly, I can't imagine swapping lenses out for a 60% difference in FOV. I've shot maybe 25 basketball games so far this year exclusively with a 70-200 f/2.8L. 70mm is a little tight some times, but never horribly. Shooting from the corner, this lens is ideal on a 1.3X body.

IMO, 50mm is simply too loose unless you're right on top of the players. Even then, give me a 70mm like the shot below, shot at 70mm on a 1.3X body.

http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/image/91461229.jpg

I'm just wondering what you're missing? When you say "too tight", do you mean too tight to get a full body shot? If 85 is too tight to fit the whole body in frame, OK, just shoot the upper body, face, ball, arms, etc. . If you ever get to shoot with a 400, you'll come to understand what shooting like this is on a BIG scale.

Here's another shot from right under the basket at 70mm:

http://www.pbase.com/image/91908598.jpg

Even from here, if I were at 85mm, I would have just been tighter on the ball handler and defender.

[Big K]

I agree with everything Dennis posted. I only swap lenses after I have a solid base of good photos and do it to create variety. I shoot the same teams over and over so its either get creative or have 127 jump shot pictures of the same kid. I use the 50 to try and get different perspective shots. I feel lucky if I keep 10% of what I take. Attached are two I kept from a recent game.

The first shot was much more luck than skill. I was sitting on the floor and held the camera on the floor, guessed at the angle to tilt it back, lined it up as best as possible and fired away. I think I kept 2 out of maybe 150 I shot. Nothing really special about it, just a different perspective.

The second shot looks much better the bigger it is. Without size, a serious cropping is needed.

I shot two games last night only using my 70-200. Since starting to shoot with strobes the f/1.4 - 2.0 lenses are not necessary. However, I think my 135 f/2.0 set at f/4 - 5.6 is much more pleasing than a shot at 135mm at the same aperture with the zoom. This may also be operator related since I am still very new to the strobe light addition. I also like it that my setup feels 30lbs lighter with the 135 vs the 70-200 but the flexibility of the zoom is hard to beat.

My earlier response was mainly that swapping a lens during a game is not a major issue, especially two small lenses like a 50 and 85 and can be done during the game without missing any action.

Dennis - Have you shot any downcourt basketball with your 400? If so, I would be very interested in seeing a new thread from you with some examples and how you did it using strobes. To my earlier comments, I think if offers an opportunity for unique shots and would love to hear your input before lugging yet another big case to the gym.

[dmwierz]

Kevin - Those are neat shots, and a good use of a WA.

I've used the 400 at pro and NCAA games, but never HS. I only have 2 strobes so usually only cover the near court. I guess I could set the strobes up for f/4.0 near court and shoot the far court stuff at f/2.8 (there's about a 1 stop drop off down the court) but I'd need another Pocket Wizard. Might be worth a try, though.

[Big K]

Dennis,

I had the same thought and was at the same estimation of light at a game the other night. The only thing I kept noticing were the numerous shadows on the far wall and was not sure how well they would clean up shot with the 400. I am going to give it a try at my next game there and see how it goes.

Plus, I just miss shooting with it and am have been trying to find a reason to take it somewhere. I am very ready to be back outside.

Kevin

[KirkHMB]

Back in my FD days, shooting HS girls Basketball, I'd use a 28, 50 and 85, depending on how good the action under the basket was. Get low with the 28, was quite fun. Shoot without focusing, big f stops.

[Gatorboy]

I usually switch between my 85 and 135. I find the 50 a bit short.

[twoshadows]

I usually switch between my 85 and 135. I find the 50 a bit short.

+1

Even when I had only the 20D I used the 85 f/1.8 right under the hoop and never found it to be too tight. I even use the 135mm f/2 on the 1DmkIIn under the hoop. Now that's a little tight, but when it's right there's usually no real need to crop ;).

[n1as]

I usually switch each quarter. I'll use the 50 to get the lay ups and under the basket shots with me standing behind the baseline off the end of the "paint".

Then I'll switch to the 85 and move to the point 1/2 way between the bucket and the L or R out of bounds line. That lets me cover drives up the lane and guards bringing the ball down court.

I often find the 50 is too tight for the close in baseline work and the 85 is often too wide for the distant shots, but I need an f/2.2 or so lens or my SS drops too low.