Lens Advice

<p>Ok here are the results.</p>

<p>I have attached a picture taken with AV f.2 as requested. exposture 1/250 and ISO-1600<br>

The light was really good. I was told by the Dad taking pics that the lighting at our particular gym is one of the worst. Last meet was way better light.</p>

<p>I am attaching a picture from each event</p>

<p>Floor 1/200<br>

Vault 1/320<br>

Bars 1/320<br>

Beam 1/250<br>

I think the lens worked really well and is completely fine rather than getting the 70-200mm What do you think? I obviously need to mess around more with settings. But I do know that if this is the worst light and I can go even higher on my shutter speed my pictures probably will be even better?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok sorry but I couldn't attach so instead here is a link.<br>

The one with no one in the pic is my AV shot<br>

The rest were in TV with the shutter speeds I listed ISO01600<br>

http://picasaweb.google.com/lovellal/PhotoAdvice?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTNt83_p9X8twE#</p>

<p>Well, it is very late here but I have had a cursory glance at the five photos and they are all crisp for what I can see.</p>

<p>A little colour correction and enlargement and they are will be great, IMO!</p>

<p>I will have a closer look tomorrow, but I think you should be pretty happy with your efforts.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>A quick Colour Correction and Sharpen and Crop . . . I'd be pretty happy with this from a 100mm wide open at F/2, 1/320s at ISO1600 on a Rebel:</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"But I do know that if this is the worst light and I can go even higher on my shutter speed my pictures probably will be even better?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. The girl upside down has her head and hands blurred a bit - 1/500s would be nicer for that image.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks WW.</p>

<p>Do you think that the 70-200 would have put out a WAY better shot that the money is worth it? I'm thinking not.<br>

Thanks again too for all the advice.<br>

My decision right now is the 100mm and the 50mm</p>