HS Basketball - 3 Different Lenses at Same Game

[snyderman]

Decided to try some different things at last night's game. Shot with three different lenses throughout the game to see what I'd get in terms of results and IQ.

The only apples-to-apples comparison here is that the camera settings, (a 7D) and lens apetures were the same on all. ISO 2500, 1/640 and f/2.0 on all lenses.

Here are the shots, each with a static and an action shot with a 135 f/2.0L; 50mm f/1.4; 85mm f/1.8. No NR, just processing in DPP. My conclusions follow at the end of the pics. Judge for yourself and comment if you will.

1a. 135 L static shot



1b. 135mm action shot - too close to the action for the lens but I liked the IQ and focus



2a. 50mm f/1.4 static shot



2b. 50mm f/1.4 action shot ... sorry it was the guy's BACK!!!



3a. 85mm f/1.8 static shot



3b. 85mm f/1.8 action shot ... again, missed the ball due to being too close!



My unscientific conclusions:

135mm f/2.0: Wow ... just beautiful results. I knew I'd have to shoot from farther away to get anything meaningful, but the colors and BG are just killer with the lens. May see a lot more action at basketball games

50mm f/1.4: Had this lens for about 3 weeks. It continues to amaze me with accurate focus, decent color pop and for its versatility. This may see more time at games due to it's wider field of vision on the camera.

85mm f/1.8: I've had trouble with this lens ever since it went from the 50D to the 7D. It's just not the lens same on this camera for whatever reason. IQ (IMO, and judge for yourself) is 3rd place. Purple fringing on anything white is really beginning to annoy me. It was also the more difficult focus of the three lens' as well.

Amazing how we all tout the 85mm f/1.8 (me too) as the 'go-to' lens for HS basketball. I'm not so sure anymore. Next game is Friday night. I'll be using the 135, the 50 and leaving the 85 at home I think.

thanks for looking and commenting.

dave

[DHMN]

I don't think you are too close on the last one.. I'd rather see upper body and the ball/rim than the whole body on a layup... but that's why you guys are the pros!

[Zivnuska]

If I'm looking at a gallery of photos of a game, a variety of focal lengths makes for much more enjoyable viewing. Take a look at SI when they do a big basketball game and you will see at least one UWA shot (often a fast break shot from under the hoop and/or an ultra wide shot from very close to the baseline of players close to the rim), some typical 70-200 shots and something really tight. Any one focal length gets boring after a while. Mix in a shot or two from an unusual perspective and you've got something entertaining.

Bottom line: Three different lenses--I approve!

[beacherz]

I think your variety is great. Did you have the same problem with your 85 1.8 when using your 50D? Maybe the 7D is a little too "sophisticated" for that lens. Don't ask me to explain that comment, just a thought. I find myself focusing on "shoot tight, crop tight" and forget that there are many who enjoy different views.

[VinnyC01]

Love 1b, last one too.

[Sirfishalot]

Nice shooting Dave,
What is your opinion on the 50/1.4?
Have you tried it against the 50/1.8? I hear people saying that the 1.4 focus is slow.

Thanks,
JayT

[Joemt]

The 135 L looks great, bit I'd also be worried about being too tight. I'm using a 100 f/2.0
and sometimes feel its too tight. I, for one, can't seem to zero in on the MFA for this lens.
Not sure if this is true for all, but if I use the setting I found to work for "static" shots, it
does not work at all for use in aiservo mode. Trying to find some happy medium. I also
try not to shoot wide open as 2.0 DOF is pretty thin. How's the 7D feel?

Joemt

[joe9047]

Thanks for the timely comparisons. I was planning on bringing my 135L and 85 1.8 this weekend to my daughter's BB game for a test with the 7d.

The best thing with the 135L is I get to sit in the stands

Edit: Dave, a couple questions. Did you micro adjust your lenses to the 7d? Do you think it's a good trade off to go from 1/500 to 1/640 and raise the ISO (High School BB)?
Thanks.
Joe

[jacuff]

Originally Posted by Sirfishalot

Nice shooting Dave,
What is your opinion on the 50/1.4?
Have you tried it against the 50/1.8? I hear people saying that the 1.4 focus is slow.

Thanks,
JayT

You hear that a lot but in reality I find that the number of out of focus shots I get from the 50mm f/1.4 is about equal to the number I get from the 85mm f/1.8, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, or 24-70mm f/2.8L. Thus, I don't think the focus is too slow for basketball. The 50mm f/1.8 II on the other hand is slow for tracking basketball. It could be done, but you would have to be selective about your shots and how you track.

[jacuff]

Originally Posted by beacherz

I find myself focusing on "shoot tight, crop tight" and forget that there are many who enjoy different views.

Indeed. Sometimes I'll throw on the fisheye because I feel like I'm getting the same shots and want some variety. Just remember that objects in the viewfinder are much closer than they appear if your gonna use an UWA...

[Chris]

OH, I like that last shot.

[Harleypugs]

Like your shots. I am thinking the 135 would be great at getting some D shots at the other end of the court. (assuming you are there to shoot one team).

I use three lens as well.

35F2, 24-70 and 70-200. I have used my 300 2.8 at games, but can't get it right just yet. I think the 200 F2 would be killer.

I would also agree, there is something up with your 1.8. The shots are OOF.

Gotta love that 135 L though...nice.

[Lane 4 Imaging]

I'm surprised that you are so dissatisfied with the 85mm f/1.8. I have been shooting a lot of high school basketball this season, and have found in the <usual> low-light gyms, the 85m out performs my 24-70m f/2.8L and 70-200m f/2.8L IS. I have also found that on shots that contain a lot of movement and the main action is out of focus, I can later view the focus point using Canon DPP and presto - I missed the shot! I use the 1DM3 for all of my sports shooting with the center point "expanded" using custom functions. In my experience, the 85 is a great lens for indoor sports, provided you can get close to the action. Good luck with your shooting.

[snyderman]

Originally Posted by joe9047

Thanks for the timely comparisons. I was planning on bringing my 135L and 85 1.8 this weekend to my daughter's BB game for a test with the 7d.

The best thing with the 135L is I get to sit in the stands

Edit: Dave, a couple questions. Did you micro adjust your lenses to the 7d? Do you think it's a good trade off to go from 1/500 to 1/640 and raise the ISO (High School BB)?
Thanks.
Joe

Hi Joe:

I did microadjust the 50 and 85. the 50 is at minus a few, the 85 is at zero and the 135 is new so no adjustment yet.

And 1/640 freezes just about everything, where 1/500 gives blur if a player is doing an upfake with the ball or pulling down a rebound. The bodies look ok, but all is blurred at 1/500. At 1/640, everything pretty much stops.

As you can see, the 135L does a great job on the uniform colors and the backgrounds! Taking it Friday night again for sure!

dave

[snyderman]

Originally Posted by Lane 4 Imaging

I'm surprised that you are so dissatisfied with the 85mm f/1.8. I have been shooting a lot of high school basketball this season, and have found in the <usual> low-light gyms, the 85m out performs my 24-70m f/2.8L and 70-200m f/2.8L IS. I have also found that on shots that contain a lot of movement and the main action is out of focus, I can later view the focus point using Canon DPP and presto - I missed the shot! I use the 1DM3 for all of my sports shooting with the center point "expanded" using custom functions. In my experience, the 85 is a great lens for indoor sports, provided you can get close to the action. Good luck with your shooting.

I'd guess that my 85mm would outperform a 24-70L as well. It's just faster to focus and goes to f/1.8 is necessary. Based on results of the three lenses used, the 85 came in third in my estimation.

dave