The F stops here wrote in post #16745222
Personally i feel the 6D is quite up to the task, i'm in agreement with others that it may be the glass. I've seen quite a few folks that use the 6D with the 85 1.8 and have quite stunning results.
I used the 6D with a 70-200 F/4 for a hockey game in less than ideal lighting and got some decent results, granted i was using center only and recomposing in post. I have used the outer points (manually selected) for static subjects but an still not confident enough to use them on fast moving objects, especially in low light.
Thanks for posting, and for the nice hockey shot. I agree that I should have avoided using a manually selected peripheral focus point. A faster focusing lens would have helped, too. Next time, I'll deploy my 100 f/2.
A bit of comparison between hockey and ping-pong. Hockey is most certainly the faster moving of the two. Ping-pong, the way I was shooting it is harder to track. For my quarter-on shots I was at about 125mm, f/2.8 and about 12-15 feet. The players move very erratically in a box about 5 feet wider than the table, and about 8 feet deep. I am working with a very shallow DOF, here. Hockey, while moving faster, is a lot more linear, and the players are most often a lot more than 15 feet from your camera, which generates much deeper DOF, even at f/2.8.
A few years back, I shot some high-school hockey with a T1i and 135L. I certainly found the ping-pong harder to track. I am also a bit more familiar with hockey than with ping-pong, and knowing the subject material helps, too.