Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 18 Feb 2013 (Monday) 11:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens for wrestling

 
chevyzen
Member
130 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 18, 2013 11:42 |  #1

I'm relatively new to the photo world. I currently have a 60D with just the 18-55 IS II kit lens and have been learning a lot. I try to shoot all manual all the time, it forces me to learn what's going into a good picture, though my good ones are few and far between :)

Anyway, in a couple weeks I was going to shoot some pics for my old high school. They're going for their 4th in a row wrestling state title and I know my set up won't cut it in those conditions. If they moved it outside in the middle of the day maybe, but not in an old fieldhouse.

I am not going to purchase any more equipment till i'm better with what I have, but was thinking of renting.

I was thinking of an 85 1.8, but i doubt I'll be matside. Most likely i'll be up in the stands.

I was going to go with the 70-200 f2.8 for the variability of zoom for the mat shots and some candids of the crowd as well. I was thinking i wouldn't need the IS version since I will be shooting action and have a faster shutter speed, or am I incorrect in that thinking? It's about half the price of the rental.

I also looked at a couple primes, the 200 2.8L and the 135f2L and have been leaning more towards just getting the prime as I don't care about the crowd :) and won't be changing spots enough to catch all the mat action and get to a spot I can turn and get the crowd too.

Anyway, I type too much, what are the chances I can get some good shots of low light action with the 200 2.8 or the 135f2? and I'm assuming IS makes no difference because I'll be using a faster shutter to catch action? will the difference of 2.8 to 2 make a noticeable difference in my shots? or is it too hard to say not knowing what the actual lighting will be like? and truth be told, I don't even remember really how good or bad it is, though I've been there many times. I'm pretty sure I can count on it being less than optimal.

Any of you with more experience know if these work well with a 60D in low light? focus issues? I read a lot on here, but have no real experience to fall back on. Thanks in advance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
abbypanda
Goldmember
1,804 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 18, 2013 12:09 |  #2

I dont know how the 60d does in low light.

My 7d does not handle noise well and even with a 70-200 2.8 is I had to go pretty high, depending on the gym. I think with a crop a 85mm 1.8 would do well and help keep the noise as low as possible if that's a concern.
My 70-200 works well with the 5diii but I am still considering the 85 just for the extra stops.

If you are shooting at a fast shutter speed, some say you don't need IS. I turn mine off sometimes and in fact just looked and have been shooting with it off all year. So if you go to my sites and look at wrestling and any movement pictures (pets and kids at play) you can see what it can do with no IS.

I'd say if you have the extra $, tho go for it (the IS feature). You can find a nice deal on a used 70-200 on here and other places. You can also get a used 85 for a nice price. Since it's a lot cheaper you could go that route and if you dont like it upgrade to the 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChunkyDA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,706 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 88
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Emerald Coast, FL
     
Feb 18, 2013 14:04 |  #3

The zoom will provide the most flexibility. However poor light lives up to its name, poor. You will have bad shadows and muted colors, blurred feet and hands. Shallow DoF will mean a body part is in focus but face is not. High ISO will do more favors than f2.


Dave
Support Search and Rescue, Get Lost (external link)
Gear list and some feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Feb 18, 2013 15:25 |  #4

chevyzen wrote in post #15623536 (external link)
I'm relatively new to the photo world. I currently have a 60D with just the 18-55 IS II kit lens and have been learning a lot. I try to shoot all manual all the time, it forces me to learn what's going into a good picture, though my good ones are few and far between :)

Anyway, in a couple weeks I was going to shoot some pics for my old high school. They're going for their 4th in a row wrestling state title and I know my set up won't cut it in those conditions. If they moved it outside in the middle of the day maybe, but not in an old fieldhouse.

I am not going to purchase any more equipment till i'm better with what I have, but was thinking of renting.
I was thinking of an 85 1.8, but i doubt I'll be matside. Most likely i'll be up in the stands.

I was going to go with the 70-200 f2.8 for the variability of zoom for the mat shots and some candids of the crowd as well. I was thinking i wouldn't need the IS version since I will be shooting action and have a faster shutter speed, or am I incorrect in that thinking? It's about half the price of the rental.

I also looked at a couple primes, the 200 2.8L and the 135f2L and have been leaning more towards just getting the prime as I don't care about the crowd :) and won't be changing spots enough to catch all the mat action and get to a spot I can turn and get the crowd too.

Anyway, I type too much, what are the chances I can get some good shots of low light action with the 200 2.8 or the 135f2? and I'm assuming IS makes no difference because I'll be using a faster shutter to catch action? will the difference of 2.8 to 2 make a noticeable difference in my shots? or is it too hard to say not knowing what the actual lighting will be like? and truth be told, I don't even remember really how good or bad it is, though I've been there many times. I'm pretty sure I can count on it being less than optimal.

Any of you with more experience know if these work well with a 60D in low light? focus issues? I read a lot on here, but have no real experience to fall back on. Thanks in advance.

As with nearly all low-light indoor events, the basic coverage lens is one sort of 70-200mm f/2.8. One was employed for these wrestling images.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 178.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0025 s (1/400)
ISO equiv: 6400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Photographer: Kevin Lillard
Copyright: Kevin Lillard
Software: Imagenomic Noiseware

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 165.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 3200
Exposure Bias: +0.33 EV
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB


Unless you are extremely close to the mats, the reach of a longer lenswill be needed for a properly framed image.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
craig_k
Member
209 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Mar 2012
Location: lubbock texas
     
Feb 18, 2013 15:32 |  #5

70-200 2.8 for the zoom factor.......the prime lens will be "framed what you see is what you get end product...." worth considering


feedback: [URL]http://photograph​y-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=15029315&postco​unt=36656
feedback: [URL]http://photograph​y-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=28608&page=25​83
feedback: [URL]http://photograph​y-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=28608&page=25​93
nice bodies, L-lenses, rrs, 1600 alien bees,pelican cases..."lots of try"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chevyzen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
130 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 18, 2013 16:54 |  #6

Thanks guys, I'm not too worried about being fixed as far as zoom vs prime. I figure I'll find my vantage point that I can cover the mat and stay put.

DC and abby, thanks for the the examples. Great shots as well, that tilt shot is nice. Abby had some cool ones in the links. Loved the head toss with no arm :) those are illegal here, and the heavy weights. Looks like one missed and toss and the other one just took him right off his feet. I could read the other kids mind and it said, "oh ****" :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ColeSales
Member
Avatar
31 posts
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
     
Feb 23, 2013 11:44 as a reply to  @ chevyzen's post |  #7

Look into the Canon 85mm 1.8. It's not too expensive, and it's what I use for all indoor sports. In fact, here is some wrestling I shot with the Canon 60d and the 85mm 1.8.

http://www.colesales.c​om/?p=72 (external link)


Cole Sales Photographer, LLC
Website (external link) | Facebook (external link)
Help People + Your Talent = Purpose

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pbelarge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,835 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Westchester County, NY
     
Feb 23, 2013 12:04 as a reply to  @ ColeSales's post |  #8

I agree with the 85 f1.8. There is generally a lot of room and many different angles to shoot from at wrestling matches.


just a few of my thoughts...
Pierre

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chevyzen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
130 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 25, 2013 09:16 |  #9

I did just order the 85 1.8. Thought it would be a versatile lens for me. Was going to rent a longer lens for the weekend, but decided to just put 80 bucks or so doing that in buying the 85. I don't know how close I'll be able to get for the team state tournament this weekend, it might not be long enough for that, but for most other times I think it will be fine. Plus I do a lot of dog training stuff and I can get as close or far from that as I want. From what I hear about this lens, I should be very happy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gatorboy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,483 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Bel Air, MD
     
Feb 28, 2013 11:19 |  #10

85 is too short for wrestling. 70-200 or a 120-300 works great.


Dave Hoffmann

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

2,832 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens for wrestling
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Snap Dragon
569 guests, 253 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.