One simple arguement against the perceived need for fast lenses: the 400/2.8 and the 600/4

Another example why nothing can replace shallow depth of field, background clutter is annoying.

 

I don't think that there are many, but I know Swimming is one.

 

Typically three cameras - 400/2.8; 70 to 200/2.8 and 24 to 70/2.8

 

A 400mm Lens (on 135 Format, aka 'full frame') gives you around 4.5m x 3m FoV at 50m (the length of an Olympic Long Course Pool) and around 3m x 2m FoV at 35m (which is the 15mtr line where athletes must surface after their streamline) and around 2.2m x 1.5m FoV at 25mtrs (the length of a Short Course Pool and obviously the half-way point in an Olympic Pool).

 

I understand that the long-time Swimming Australia Photographer uses a 500/4 on his Nikon gear.

 

I think that USA College (University) Swimming is in yards, and the 400mm Lens is still useful for 50, 33 and 25 yard pools, if that's what pools are used.

 

WW

 

He, He.

That's what I get for living in decent climate, our pools are outdoors, under the sun.

Although in Northern California, the pools are heated, because the kids are swimming in fall and winter, and the temp drops when the sun goes down.

Oddly, the only covered competition pool that I know of, is in Hawaii. The only reason I can think of, is to protect the spectators from the rain. It is covered, not indoors, but for lighting effectively the same.

 

Yes, one would need a longer lens to reach the swimmer, especially in a far lane or length-wise in the long pool.

Unless you get the ADs permission to shoot from the pool deck ;) Gets you just that much closer.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Gary Naka

I live in Sydney, and there are many outdoor (Olympic spec) pools where Clubs are located. Training and lower level competition is all year round and (usually outdoors all year for senior swimmers): Regional, State and National Competitions are held in larger venues and those Competition Pools are located in each State Capital and some regional centres and are typically indoor Pools - a notable exception is Victoria Park Olympic Pool.

 

Yes, I have had experience with Janet Evans Invitational Competitions, in California. Those were Outdoor pools. A configuration something like Eight-lane 50mtres long-side and Fifteen lane 33 yards short-side.

 

The reason I mentioned the FoV looking down the pool lanes, is because typically some (must have) shots are:

> Prep on and behind the Blocks

> Head on Start

> Head on Break Water ex Streamline

> Head on Action, Butterfly and Breast Stroke

> The 'win' pump in the air

 

Yes, I assumed that there'd be access to pool deck, basically because the OP and ongoing discussion was mainly about using a 400mm lens for "Professional" Sports Photography. That said, before the Start and until the last swimmer surfaces from their Streamline, Media access is usually restricted to beyond the 15 mtr line, so even if one is situated at the side of the pool for a side on shot (for example Backstroke or Freestyle, a 400mm lens is often still used, it is just a matter of being on the other side of the pool if the swimmer is in lanes 0,1,2 or 7,8, 9.

 

This old, but still one of my favourite photos, will give you an idea of the Framing from about the halfway Press Area of an Olympic Pool, set in about 8 mtrs from the pool edge, to the Subject at the Blocks in Lanes 4 & 5.

 

 

WW

William,

 

Thanks for your list.

The yearbook advisor has asked me for ideas, but I've shot only a few swim meets.

Your #3 is one that I had totally not thought of. I have to see if we can do it.

A couple of your shots may be difficult at my schools pool. Shooting downlane towards the starting block, is shooting towards the afternoon sun, and with a lot of glare off the water. The blocks themselves are sometimes in the shadow of the pool building so #2 is ify but possible, but where the swimmers come up #3 will be in the sun exposed part of the pool shooting against the sun. I'm going to have to see if a polarizing filter will knock out enough of the glare.

#4 will have to be done shooting east, but can be done.

Thanks for the list.

 

One of the kids did a great shot, but it scared the heck out of me, when she told me what she did.

Swimmer was in the side lane.

She held the camera out over the pool, just a bit after where the swimmer came up from the turn.

It was a great shot. But it was a RISKY shot. I was thinking $1,000 of camera going into the pool :eek:

Gary . . . a bit off the main topic; then again this is the “Casual Photo Conversations Forum”. . .

 

Stating the obvious - remember shooting down-lane is into the sun for the start, but with the sun behind you after the turn, so for any longer than 50 mtr Events, you shall be able nail the head on shots easily.

 

Here are a couple from an outdoor pool training session, when the sun was low, the FL = 400mm:

 

 

and

 

 

Also, whilst a 400mm looking down a pool is a neat lens to use, so to can be the 15mm fisheye (de-fished in post-production):

 

 

Apropos the holding a camera over the pool – I am not keen on that, but I’ve seen it done with a 16 to 35 zoom attached: I reckon an always acceptable good tight shot at the start is with a 70 to 200 and getting as close as you can to pool edge, at around the 15 mtr line:

 

 

Trying a CPL is a good idea - personally I've found it more productive to change my vantage point and have the sun with me, rather than it competing against me. Shooting (directly) into the sun can create more issues than just water reflection glare - Veiling Flare is a real pain the butt and it can take a lot of work (time) to remedy the lack of contrast and punch.

 

WW

That's confusing.

 

What do you mean?

A 200/2, if used with a 2x TC, becomes a 400/4. A 105/1.4, if used with a 4x TC, becomes something like a 420/5.6.

 

So how is it the "most practical lens that a sports photographer has?"

It's the fastest and most practical lens that a sports photographer has at his disposal. You could give them a hypothetical 400/2 but it wouldn't be practical. The 400/2.8 is the practical limit, basically. I'm not sure I'd want to use a 600/2.8, if anyone made one, even if it was cheap. I'm not a fan of the Noctilux line, either, but Leica has to please its customers.

 

Anyway, I'd like to thank William for teaching me something. I might not ever use this information, but it's good to know. Cheers.

That's confusing.What do you mean?

A 200/2, if used with a 2x TC, becomes a 400/4. A 105/1.4, if used with a 4x TC, becomes something like a 420/5.6.

 

 

I understand now: you are contrasting these lenses "after you make them to get to a 400mm Focal Length”

Thank you for explaining.

 

WW

A 200/2, if used with a 2x TC, becomes a 400/4. A 105/1.4, if used with a 4x TC, becomes something like a 420/5.6

Yeh, and the world viewed through rose tinted glasses looky rosy.

Ok, so you're talking about lenses that get you 400mm specifically. Your terminology is a bit unusual to say the least. It is easier to communicate if you use terms with generally agreed meanings. 400mm isn't needed for all sports. I think the 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 are more common in events that I have seen in person.

 

Reasons why sports photographers in some cases use lenses like 400/2.8 include: (1) faster and better autofocus (than smaller aperture lenses of similar focal length), (2) to reduce the visual clutter from distracting backgrounds (advertisers often like to place their ads in positions where it is difficult to make them invisible in the images without this type of lens - in photojournalism, post-processing work doesn't include cloning etc.), (3) to obtain a reasonable ISO in indoor lighting or at night while still freezing the movement, (4) the large aperture primes also are the sharpest lenses available so you can crop a bit if you need to (in sports photography it is best to leave a bit of room around the moving subject).

 

While there are sports that takes place in bright sun, a lot of sports takes place indoors and some at night. For example the Jukola Relay involves orienteering at night in the forest under some headlamps. :) Ok you could use some slow lens to capture blurry trails of lamps but I do think that kind of shot wears off quickly.

 

The wide aperture superteles aren't going away just because image quality at high ISO has improved dramatically. They create a visual effect which is generally well liked and they're very effective in photography of moving subjects. In the 1970s the quality of sports images especially those made indoors was quite poor and black and white film had to be used in many cases to get any kind of useful image. The improvements in image quality have been used to get a better quality final printed image. Autofocus has permitted the use of wide apertures more effectively as well; focusing a 400/2.8 manually on a moving target is not easy. Also the newer technology is used to get tighter frames of peak action.

 

For situations where mobility is important and where backgrounds aren't so cluttered, smaller aperture long lenses are also seen. For example, one might use a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for sailing photography (boat-to-boat) because it's easier to handle. Without doubt f/5.6 long teles are making a comeback of a sorts but still it would be difficult to imagine the fast long primes disappearing entirely because they still have advantages.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

 

It's the fastest and most practical lens that a sports photographer has at his disposal. You could give them a hypothetical 400/2 but it wouldn't be practical. The 400/2.8 is the practical limit, basically. I'm not sure I'd want to use a 600/2.8, if anyone made one, even if it was cheap. I'm not a fan of the Noctilux line, either, but Leica has to please its customers.

 

 

KG

 

I ask you again HOW are you defining "practical."

 

You keep repeating that the 400 is the "most practical lens that a sports photographer has at his disposal."

Yet you have refused to explain WHY it is the "most practical lens."

Or maybe you don't know, because as you said, you have never shot sports.

So you are just repeating what you have read on the internet. And if it is on the internet, it has to be true. o_O

 

I can tell you point blank that a 400 is NOT a practical lens for several/many sports, and a selectively used lens for other sports.

This afternoon I'm shooting an event for someone who likes, as I do, the subject isolation I've provided her in the past, using fast lenses, as long as I can afford it. That's all that matters to me in lens choice. I'll be using an f/2.8 wide to short tele zoom, an 85mm f/1.4, and a 135mm f/2.

Another example why nothing can replace shallow depth of field, background clutter is annoying.

I get what you're saying, as selective focus has utility. With the photo you provided, selective focus could not save it, IMO. But in many cases, the maximum aperture of a lens is arbitrary. Have a look at this flower shot:

 

Western Salsify

 

400mm isn't needed for all sports. I think the 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 are more common in events that I have seen in person.

 

Reasons why sports photographers in some cases use lenses like 400/2.8 include:

Yes, and those are f/2.8 lenses. There is little point in owning faster, shorter lenses in conjunction with these. If you can't get your shot at 200mm at f/2.8, I'm not sure that a 50/1.4 is going to save you.

 

Then again, some might disagree. This is not necessarily an argument that refutes mine, but it is worth looking at. Scroll down to "This one will keep the pixel-peepers occupied", and then "One Day My Prince Will Come":

 

Thorsten von Overgaard - Leica 90mm Lenses - The Summarit, Thambar, Summicron, Tele-Elmarit and other Leitz 90mm lenses

 

As for the 400/2.8, we are in agreement. However, thanks to modern cameras (e.g. A9) you can use a 400/4 instead, and get the same level of quality.

Aperture width is something that you should probably take if you can get it - especially if you don't have to pay extra. All other things being equal...

 

But, most of the time, you're going to pay for it. Whether it's cost, size, quality, rarity, whatever. So here is a thought I had. Is it worth having anything faster than f/2.8? Or even f/4? Here I am talking in terms of the 135 format, a 36x24mm gate, film or digital, which is somewhat of a lingua franca of gate sizes among photographers.

 

Think about this: the fastest, most practical lens that a sports photographer has at their disposal is the 400/2.8. This can be made into a 600/4 with a 1.4x TC. Perhaps it's better to shoot with the 400mm and crop? I don't know, as I have never shot sports (maybe some of you can talk about this below?). But, for the sake of argument, let's go with f/2.8 as the fastest practical aperture that a press shooter has at their disposal. Some would shoot with a 100-400/4.

 

Even back when colour film's top speed was ISO 160 (High Speed Ektachrome!) photographers had to make do with what we would call slower apertures. It wasn't fun, but it worked if the light was good. In the '80s you could push negative film to ISO 3200 and get great results, relatively speaking.

 

So given all that, what the hell do we need fast lenses for? Especially now that we have sensors - some much smaller than full-frame 135 - that deliver usable results at ISO 6400? If you really, really love selective focus (i.e. only one eyeball of your subject will be sharp) then that is a completely separate issue.

 

My conclusion: if we want to make smarter purchases, I say that we forego the fastest lenses and go for quality and portability instead. As always, YMMV.

 

It appears that you have a strong opinion and zero experience on which to justify your viewpoint. I've shot indoor basketball with lenses ranging from 85/1.8 (for action under the boards) to using 180/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 from various locations around the court. i'm often at ISO 3200 or ISO 640 even with fast lenses. And, no, slower lenses aren't useful because they pass less light to the AF system.

Gary, a 400/2.8 is faster than a 200/2, a 105/1.4, or any Noctilux. But it's not faster than a 300/2. But the 300/2 is only fast - it isn't practical. Sigma makes a 200-500/2.8 which is also faster than a 400/2.8, but it doesn't seem to be very practical.

 

What a confused bunch of rubbish. You need to learn what an f-stop represents.

I get what you're saying, as selective focus has utility. With the photo you provided, selective focus could not save it, IMO. But in many cases, the maximum aperture of a lens is arbitrary. Have a look at this flower shot:

 

 

I am wondering which shot you're referring to of the two posted. The sculpture shot illustrates that even at wide apertures you can get more than one eye in focus when the subject is larger than a close-up of a face. I get often the claim that 1.4 is to get just one eye in focus and thus impractical to use but the reality is that if the subject is larger and if the display size is what is typically used to disseminate photography, you can get the subject sufficiently in focus and then you can distinguish between primary subject(s) and those whose role in the photograph are secondary.

 

If you shoot small subjects then a smaller aperture still provides sufficient separation from background, but if you're photographing the full body shot of a person then you may need a large aperture to separate the subject from background clutter.

 

Yes, and those are f/2.8 lenses. There is little point in owning faster, shorter lenses in conjunction with these. If you can't get your shot at 200mm at f/2.8, I'm not sure that a 50/1.4 is going to save you.

 

Because the 200mm or 400mm lens has a narrower angle of view than the 50mm lens, the out of focus background is usually simpler in the long focal length shots at equal f-stop (because in the 50mm shot it constitutes of features from a larger view). (Obviously I'm talking about a situation where the subject is much closer for the 50mm shot than 200mm or 400mm.) To compensate for the wider angle of view, the user of a shorter lens may need a larger aperture to obtain adequate simplicity of background. So I might find f/2.8 fine with the 105mm for a 2/3 or full body portrait but to get consistency of background simplicity I might use a wider aperture on a 50mm lens. Furthermore the shorter focal lengths are often used indoors whereas the longer ones more often in open spaces and outdoors. Indoors the lighting can be wretched and you may need all the help from the large aperture you can get to get acceptable tonal quality in the photograph.

 

If you are arguing that a deep crop from a shorter focal length faster lens won't produce a better shot than a long fast prime then yes, you are correct. One should generally use the longest focal length one can to get the shot if subject detail is a priority.

 

As for the 400/2.8, we are in agreement. However, thanks to modern cameras (e.g. A9) you can use a 400/4 instead, and get the same level of quality.

 

I will show one example of a 200/2 shot cropped by approximately 2x (from memory):

 

Untitled

 

This has the same depth of field you would get by shooting a 400/4 wide open. The advertisement is still visible and readable. A 400/2.8 or 600/4 might have gotten that shot without the ad readable and this is part of the reason why you see such lenses in these competitions (though 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are more common, their users have a harder time working out the ads from the compositions). The 200/2 isn't as effective in this (as a 400/2.8 or 600/4) but if you get a tight framing of a close subject it can do that too (in this case the subject was too far away for the blurring to be effective). But as there are many instances where the subject is too close for a 400/2.8, the latter would not be my personal choice for this subject matter. The 200, when the subject is close, gives a more natural perspective of the subject, in my opinion.

 

As example of use of a shorter lens, here is a 85mm f/1.4 shot:

 

Untitled

 

In this case the large aperture has separated the main subject from the background in a way that I like (and the subject is mostly in focus). And although this photograph was made just for me, when I photograph events or portraits for others, they often express a liking to the shallow depth of field shots because the colours and tones are nicer and not everything is in focus. This is just one aspect in the photographer's control which is a useful part of their toolkit. You don't have to use it if you don't like it but many people like it.

Edited June 19, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Personally, (similar to my reaction to the term ‘Lens Speed’) I get a bit uneasy when the term “perspective” comes into these conversations . . .

 

Perspective is defined (controlled by) the Camera Viewpoint, relative to the Subject: my point is - lenses do not 'give perspective', Camera position does that.

 

In simple terms Perspective is controlled by the Distance from Camera to the Subject and the Elevation of the Camera, relative to the Subject.

 

So, as one example, the Tight Head Shot of the girl swimming backstroke which I posted, was made at 400mm FL . . . the ‘Perspective’ would be exactly the same if I used a 50mm Lens, provided that the Camera and the Subject were in the same positions.

 

However, the Field of View; and the Background Blur; and the Depth of Field; and the Bokeh, would all be different, if I had used a 50mm Lens.

 

WW

However, thanks to modern cameras (e.g. A9) you can use a 400/4 instead, and get the same level of quality.

So, you are saying if I put my Tamron 70-300/ 4-5.6 on Sony A9, it will be equal 300/2.8 on my Canon or Nikon in quality and images will look the same? LOL

There is no substitute for hi quality lens, camera sensor or film always will be behind the lens, no amount of technology invested in sensor will change image projected by the lens. Thats why lenses from 15 years ago cost way more than cameras of the same age.

Edited June 20, 2018 by William Michael

Times are changing, dramatically. ISO 20,000:

 

I see you... by David Stephens, on Flickr

If your fastest telephoto is f/2.8 then there is little point in owning a Noctilux

Ridiculous! A Noctilux is a rangefinder (Leica) lens available in 50 mm and 75 mm focal lengths. There is no overlap with a 400/2.8 in terms of usage. Unless you are referring to focusing speed, an f/2.8 lens is just as fast as any other f/2.8 lens, transmission loss excepted. An f/2 lens is faster than an f/2.8, and f/1.4 or Noctilux 50/0.95 is faster yet.

 

Besides light gathering power, higher speed yields a shallower depth of field, which is used to isolate the subject from its background. The shorter the lens, the faster it must be to produce this effect. With long lenses (> 100 mm), an f/4 or even f/5.6 lens is quite capable of isolating the subject when used wide open, whereas a 35 mm lens would need an f/1.4 aperture to produce a significant effect. DOF is inversely proportional to the sensor size, do a DX camera needs a lens faster by one stop to produce the same DOF as an FX sensor at the same equivalent focal length.

. With long lenses (> 100 mm), an f/4 or even f/5.6 lens is quite capable of isolating the subject when used wide open, whereas a 35 mm lens would need an f/1.4 aperture to produce a significant effect. ....

 

Here's 800mm at f/11, showing really nice bokeh and really shallow DOF:

 

Bee On Thistle by David Stephens, on Flickr

Here's 800mm at f/11, showing really nice bokeh and really shallow DOF:

 

Bee On Thistle by David Stephens, on Flickr

Do you really need 800 mm lens for this shot? :)

Do you really need 800 mm lens for this shot? :)

 

Absolutely, particularly if I want to be able to take this shot, seconds later:

 

I'm Not Sure, But I Think This Is A Phoebe by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

A 100-400mm lens is incredibly versatile. It's better at macro than many macro lenses. Throw on a 2.0x teleconverter and you've got 200-800mm!

Edited June 21, 2018 by dcstep

I think the point DCSTEP is trying to make is that you don't need f/2.8 to achieve a shallow depth of field. In fact any image with the same absolute subject magnification will have the same DOF at the same f/stop, regardless of focal length. DOF is not a linear function of distance, and decreases with increasing magnification. Anyone who has used a 90-105 macro lens can attest to DOF challenges at f/11, much less f/2.8. That said, you'd need to be really quick with a salt shaker to get the last shot with a 90 mm lens.

Do you really need 800 mm lens for this shot? :)

 

BTW, shooting bee macros is much easier with a longer lens than trying to work with a shorter "macro" lens, even a 105mm. I was working at around 6 to 8' for the bumblebee. I had no fear of encouraging it to fly sooner and I wasn't worried about my shadow on the subject. I always grab a long lens for bee and butterfly macros.

Ilkka, I was referring to Nick's shot of the two drummers.

 

I'm thinking about the first shot you posted - the one with the figure skater. I think the ad sticks out more because of its colour rather than how far away it is from the focus plane. It actually ruins the shot, no matter what, IMHO. I guess the only way to really fix that is to get a higher perspective.

 

David, really nice shots, as usual. You are right about macro - longer lenses are much better for insects, for the most part.