Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Sharing Knowhow' section > Talk About Photography > Sports Talk
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #1
mttmrphy
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 289
Default Lens question - indoor sports WA

This is my first lens question... I think I am allowed two?

I will be shooting indoor sports this winter. Mostly hockey. I think I am pretty good with long range but I am looking for a wide angle.

I have narrowed my choices down to

Canon 17-35 2.8
Canon 17-40 4

I know Sigma makes a few lenses in this range but I don't think the quality compares to Canon.

I am concerned that 17 may not be wide enough on my 10D/300D. My biggest concern is that the 17-40 will not be fast enough but I am afraid the 17-35 may be too soft wide open.

Can anyone help me?
mttmrphy is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #2
GenEOS
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Pearland, Texas
Posts: 740
Default

Indoor Sports = f2.8
Even a Sigma f2.8 is better than an f4.
You will need the speed.
__________________
Daniel Tunstall
http://www.dmtphoto.com
Sports Shooter Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2474
GenEOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #3
DaveG
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,040
Default Re: Lens question - indoor sports WA

Quote:
Originally Posted by mttmrphy
This is my first lens question... I think I am allowed two?

I will be shooting indoor sports this winter. Mostly hockey. I think I am pretty good with long range but I am looking for a wide angle.

I have narrowed my choices down to

Canon 17-35 2.8
Canon 17-40 4

I know Sigma makes a few lenses in this range but I don't think the quality compares to Canon.

I am concerned that 17 may not be wide enough on my 10D/300D. My biggest concern is that the 17-40 will not be fast enough but I am afraid the 17-35 may be too soft wide open.

Can anyone help me?
I've shot over 500 hockey games and I've rarely used a wide angle for action. About the only shot that you could expect to get would be a player being checked up against the glass. That shot requires a next to the glass position, lots of patience, and is kind of a one trick pony.

The exposure is tricky too since the player will be in the shadow of the light that's lighting the ice surface. The good thing is that the player isn't moving very fast after he's smashed into the boards and a slow lens won't hurt much. I used my Nikkor 20mm f4 for this shot a few times, so you also might want to think about the 14mm f2.8.

In any case if you are using the rink's available light then speed is extremely important. From the ice level to one side of the net I used to use a Nikkor 180 f2.8 and an 85 f1.8 on a F3 film camera. From the penalty box or the stands I'd use a 300 f2.8. Of course if you can light the ice surface with catwalk mounted strobes then the lens speed isn't important.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #4
scott stokes
Member
 
scott stokes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: cumming,GA
Posts: 642
Default

? where did you see canon 17-35 2.8. i have not seen one. thanks for any info.
scott stokes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #5
dn7elson
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott stokes
? where did you see canon 17-35 2.8. i have not seen one. thanks for any info.
Probably means the 16-35 f2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...648&is=USA
dn7elson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #6
Tom W
Canon Fanosapien
 
Tom W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Posts: 12,743
Default

There are some used 17-35 f/2.8 lenses floating around occasionally. From what I have heard, its not as good as the 16-35 though.
__________________
Tom
5D III, 7D, & various lenses
Tom W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of July 2004 (Wed)   #7
mttmrphy
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 289
Default

The 17-35 2.8 was replaced by the 16-35 2.8

the 16-35 is a better lens but pretty expensive.

Thanks for your replies.
mttmrphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th of July 2004 (Thu)   #8
Danny Boy
Member
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 301
Default

mttmurphy...

You indicated you were covered w/ your long range lens when shooting indoor sports like hockey. Just wondering what lens you are using for that. I'm in the same boat there and am looking for an indoor lens zoom lens. Looking at the 70-200 but the f/2.8 is soooooo much more expensive than the f/4 but if the f/4 doesn't work, then my decision is easy. Let me know.

Thanks.
Danny Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th of July 2004 (Thu)   #9
DaveG
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Boy
mttmurphy...

You indicated you were covered w/ your long range lens when shooting indoor sports like hockey. Just wondering what lens you are using for that. I'm in the same boat there and am looking for an indoor lens zoom lens. Looking at the 70-200 but the f/2.8 is soooooo much more expensive than the f/4 but if the f/4 doesn't work, then my decision is easy. Let me know.

Thanks.
The f4 will be too slow in all but the brightest rinks. Hockey is the fastest inside sport (not involving motorcyscles) that you'll ever shoot, so you'll need all the shutterspeed you can grasp. 1/1000 @ f2.8 is going to be a lot better than 1/500 @ f4.

I love to point out to football players that football is so easy to shoot because it's so slow. When they start to grumble I point out that a hockey referee skating backwards is faster them them running full out. That's probably an exageration but not by much!
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th of July 2004 (Thu)   #10
Danny Boy
Member
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 301
Default

Dave,

Thanks for that info. That is exactly what I needed to know.
Danny Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th of July 2004 (Thu)   #11
mttmrphy
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 289
Default

I went to the venue last night to familiarize myself with the different areas to shoot from. Now I'm not so sure a wide angle will suit my purposes here.

Actually I am afraid my 120-300 2.8 may be too long for certain situations.

I am now in the market for the 70-200 2.8
mttmrphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Indoor sports lens question AND forum question Adam Hicks Sports Talk 13 24th of May 2009 (Sun) 14:22
Looking for a Lens for Indoor Sports JeffreyVB Sports Talk 20 26th of July 2007 (Thu) 11:44
Which lens for indoor sports ? wanderer488 Sports Talk 41 27th of October 2006 (Fri) 21:26
Question about camera's, lenses, and noise with indoor sports DaDeuce Canon EOS Digital Cameras 7 29th of September 2006 (Fri) 12:12
Indoor Sports Lens Question dehoff Sports Talk 6 7th of August 2004 (Sat) 14:04


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.