What Lens for Boxing - Ringside w/no flash?

Hi Everyone, kind of a newbie question but I will be getting my first DSLR body with a 300D/Digital Rebel in a few days.

I basically will be using it to shoot ringside photos at boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts (aka ultimate fighting) events.

The problem there is that most boxing commissions do not allow flash to be used, so you need a big aperture lens to allow a shutter speed fast enough to capture the action.

I have been using an Olympus E-10, which has an f2-f2.4 lens but most of the time, ringside light conditions do not allow a fast enough shutter speed on this rig to capture the action clearly. Even without hood or any filters.

Would this change with me using a 300D or 10D and a lens like a 28-70 f2.8 like I plan to get? Or will I need an even faster lens, given the fact that I could not get a fast enough speed even at f2 & ISO 320 (the highest) on my E-10? I would prefer not to go above ISO 400 for purposes of grain, but any input appreciated, I am still learning sports photography as I go. Thanks!

Paul

The fastest lens I'm aware of is the Canon 50mm f1.0. I've played with one, and it's impressive, but very, very heavy.

My local camera shop has a used one that he's willing to sell for $1,400 (still in the original box), but I just can't justify it. Virtually all my work is outdoors, and it would likely just sit in the closet.

But gosh, it sure is a sexy piece of equipment.

You stated the Digital Rebel will be the camera. You can kick the ISO setting up very high, and there is little reason to limit it to 400. You won't see grain, but if you get it too high and see some color noise, then that can be reduced digitally (Neat Image and similar programs).

Then, of course, any f/2.8 lens.

---Bob Gross---

First forget about ISO 400 as your starting point. It just won't be that bright. I shot boxing for years with Tri-X rated at ei 1600 and I think that this would be your starting point.

For lenses, you could start with a 50 mm f1.4. That would be effectively an 80 mm lens. A 100 f2 would also be an interesting choice if you had to sit further back. With a film camera my lens was almost always a Nikkor 85 f1.8.

The aprons (the canvas outside of the ropes) on a lot of boxing rings seems to be much deeper now and it's difficult to get close enough - assuming you are ringside - to shoot through the ropes rather than having them in the photo.

I've also shot boxing in one particular arena with a 300 f2.8. This place is quite small and I was able to get a position that let me shoot over the ropes. A fast 70-200 would let you try the same thing.

Thanks for the input guys.

Hmmm well from elevated we've shot with the TCON300 telephoto lens on the E-10, which is a 420mm f2.8 equivalent. Thus far from elevated positions at MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay for the last two Ultimate Fighting Championship shows, this does yield some blur but hoping for better than f2.8 on a 300mm or greater just isnt realistic.

Ringside, however, there is PLENTY of light at the bigger boxing/UFC venues like at MGM, Mandalay, Mohegan Sun, American Airlines Arena, Trump Taj, Continental Airlines Arena, etc. to actually run f2.8, 28-70 acceptably at even ISO 400 sometimes, according to guys running D60s, 10D's and D100's. Most of these places have huge lighting rigs casting down light at the ring and you have gobs of ambient light, esp. if the apron is a light color.

Problem is we only occasionally get ringside at the huge events, our bread and butter are local/regional events where the lighting rigs in the venues are mediocre. So at ISO 320 on the E-10 and f2 you go from 1/160 at ringside in Mandalay where there's a ton of light, to about 1/20 in Verizon Wireless Theater in downtown Houston, TX.

The E-10 and E-20 are noisy even at ISO 320 but the word from everyone is that even ISO 800 on the 10D and 300D is pretty damn clean. If that is the case then that would certainly help, I guess my question now morphs into this:

Those of you that have shot ringside, what would be a better choice for one lens to take to an event, given that I would probably run at ISO 800-1600 in this case:

1. 28-70 f2.8

2. 50mm f2 or f1.8

I would prefer #1 to get by with if the shutter can be set fast enough, since I really dont have $1500 to spend on a lens but that's the breaks.

Paul

iI agree with the idea: start with ISO1600; then use a fast lens. 50-1.8 will work.

I'd pack my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8

Hi belmondo,

I'm interesting in this lens, can you tell me how to contact your local camera shop, and how about the condition both cosmetic & lens elements. Thanks.

Arclight, the choice depends on where you are. If it is the ringside, right in the front row, 85mm f1.2 may be a good choice also.

Belmondo, I hear 50mm f1.0 L is the fastest, but not as sharp as 50mm f1.4. Is this true?

This lens may have been of some use indoors, but with digital cameras that can use high ISO settings, the value of this fast lens may be much less. It would still be useful if one has to take pics in dark indoors.

if i were covering a boxing event from ringside i would
be taking my 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and my 85mm f1.8
and shooting at iso1600. i find the only very slight grain/noise
very pleasing at this speed. if i were to choose only one lens
i think the 50 would probably be the pick as it is really an 80 on my 10D.

paul http://pauldurrantphot​ography.com

I have also heard that. As a practical matter, if you can make the 1.4 work for your application, you're decidedly a LOT better off using it instead, especially if the picture quality is better. It's considerably smaller, lighter (i.e. easier to handle), and costs about 1/4 or less than the 1.0. The 1.0 lens is an absolute monster (for a 50mm prime, that is).

Regarding the 1.4, I have frankly not understood why Canon doesn't give it the L designation---it's that good.

Tom

To my eyes, the lens looks to be perfect. It could pass for new. If you email me, I'll provide more information, but I don't want to post the store name here. I also have to tell you how we arrived at that price---he's really asking $1,500. Hope you understand.

Thanks,

Tom

I would think that a lens like the one you are considering would work well at ISO 400 - 1600 (depending on light).

If possible it would be good to add a 70-200 f2.8 later so that you could shoot from further back when you can't be ringside.

Personally I wouldn't consider primes for this kind of work, though a 50 f1.8 would work well, you really don't have time to change lenses when you want to change magnification. A good zoom offers the versatility you need and f2.8 should be enough at ISO 1600.

I make the following based on my shooting some martial arts.

The only lens in low light that will work for me without a flash was the 50/1.4 at ISO 400 or 800. at 1/125 it occasionally still wasn't fast enough, but that will get most of the action. f2.8 just won't quite make it all the time to stop the faster action.

I have used f2.8 ISO 400 at rock concerts and stage shows for the most part, since they are a bit slower and I can get a good percentage of shots at 1/60, but occasionally have to kick it up to ISO 800 to get 1/125, but I don't like ISO 800 results (call me picky). With martial arts or boxing 1/125 is minimum speed and 1/180 or faster would be preferred so got to go with the faster lenses 50/1.4 or 85/1.2 even if they are primes.

Please note though I prefer to crop down to scale then live with the higher ISO needed for the zoom lenses' smaller aperture settings.

Just my opinion and experience,