Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk
Thread started 14 Jul 2004 (Wednesday) 09:45
PREV/NEXT

Lens question - indoor sports WA

 
mttmrphy
Senior Member
289 posts
Joined Aug 2003
MORE INFO

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?

Jul 14, 2004 09:45



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
GenEOS
Senior Member
740 posts
Joined Jan 2003

Pearland, Texas
MORE INFO

Indoor Sports = f2.8
Even a Sigma f2.8 is better than an f4.
You will need the speed.

Jul 14, 2004 11:05

Daniel Tunstall
http://www.dmtphoto.co​mexternal link
Sports Shooter Member
http://www.sportsshoot​er.com/members.html?id​=2474external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveG
Goldmember
2,040 posts
Joined Aug 2003

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
MORE INFO

mttmrphy wrote:
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.

Jul 14, 2004 12:15

"There's never time to do it right. But there's always time to do it over."
Canon 5D, 50D; 16-35 f2.8L, 24-105 f4L IS, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.8 Macro, 70-200 f2.8L, 300mm f2.8L IS.

LOG IN TO REPLY
scott ­ stokes
Senior Member
scott stokes's Avatar
642 posts

Joined May 2004

cumming,GA
MORE INFO

? where did you see canon 17-35 2.8. i have not seen one. thanks for any info.

Jul 14, 2004 18:07

50d ,50 1.8,420ex,,tameron 19-35,tamron28-75,sigma70-200 2.8,bigma,24-70L

LOG IN TO REPLY
dn7elson
Senior Member
819 posts
Joined Apr 2002
MORE INFO

scott stokes wrote:
? 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.bhphotovide​o.com ...ails&Q=&sku=239648&​is=USAexternal link

Jul 14, 2004 18:12



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Tom W's Avatar
12,743 posts

Joined Feb 2003

Chattanooga, Tennessee
MORE INFO

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.

Jul 14, 2004 18:15

Tom
5D III, 70D, & various lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
mttmrphy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
289 posts
Joined Aug 2003
MORE INFO

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.

Jul 14, 2004 20:21



LOG IN TO REPLY
Danny ­ Boy
Senior Member
Danny Boy's Avatar
301 posts

Joined Jul 2004

Illinois, USA
MORE INFO

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.

Jul 15, 2004 07:37



LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveG
Goldmember
2,040 posts
Joined Aug 2003

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
MORE INFO

Danny Boy wrote:
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!

Jul 15, 2004 08:02

"There's never time to do it right. But there's always time to do it over."
Canon 5D, 50D; 16-35 f2.8L, 24-105 f4L IS, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.8 Macro, 70-200 f2.8L, 300mm f2.8L IS.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Danny ­ Boy
Senior Member
Danny Boy's Avatar
301 posts

Joined Jul 2004

Illinois, USA
MORE INFO

Dave,

Thanks for that info. That is exactly what I needed to know.

Jul 15, 2004 08:53



LOG IN TO REPLY
mttmrphy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
289 posts
Joined Aug 2003
MORE INFO

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 :lol:

Jul 15, 2004 09:00



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,252 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens question - indoor sports WA
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00163 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
Latest registered member is Dog Off Leash
950 guests, 797 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014