Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens question...

<p>Hello,<br>

I asked a question last week about lens recommendations for figure skating photos. I just wanted to say, "Thank you" for all of your responses. I learned a great deal from them.<br>

My questions are: On the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II lens -<br>

1. Is the f/2.8 for the entire focal length of the lens? Or just at the 70mm? In other words: If I zoom to 200mm, will I still be able to use an f/2.8 setting or does this decrease as the focal lens increases?<br>

2. I noticed that a lot of people say that "IS does not stop/freeze motion". Does that mean that this lens (with the IS) will not take sharp action photos and the non-IS lens will? I was under the assumption that sharp action photos were dependent on the shutter speed.<br>

I have pretty much decided to buy this lens since I would like to use it for figure skating and theater. However, if the f/stop changes alot on full-zoom; it may not work for me in the theater. I am expecting my rental lens (same lens but not the new II version) today. I am going to test it out in both situations this week. I am assuming that if the older version of this lens works, the new II version should be as good or better?<br>

Thanks, Keith</p>

<p>Keith,<br />I can't answer your first question, I don't have the 70-200mm but do have the 100-400mm. I think the 70-200mm may be one of the constant f/2.8's, but I am not sure.</p>

<p>#2. <strong>True</strong>, IS does not stop/freeze motion. <strong>No</strong>, the Non-IS version of this lens will not necessarily take sharper pictures just because of the IS. <br /><strong>Your assumption is correct </strong>. . . to stop/freeze motion is dependent upon the shutter speed.<br />However, with the use of IS in hand held shots, larger aperture's and/or faster shutter speeds can be obtained compared to a Non-IS lens. So you can "gain a stop or two."<br />IS is most effective for hand held shooting.</p>

<p>The f/2.8 is over the entire focal length of the lens.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. I just wasn't sure if the IS would actually "hurt" my action pictures and I would be better off without it. As long as I can get sharp action pictures, I'll be happy.<br>

Thaks again!</p>

<p>Lens is constant 2.8 (entire focal length range). When people say 'IS doesn't freeze motion', what they're saying is that while IS might help counter camera shake allowing you to handhold at lower shutter speeds, the lower shutter speed won't freeze motion for moving subjects--so if you're planning to shoot at higher speeds to freeze the motion of figure skaters, you might not need the extra expense of the IS version.</p>

<p>About the only time I know of IS "hurting" any image is when it's used improperly. i.e., "When mounted on a tripod."<br>

Some of the "newer generation IS" such as on my EF100mm f/2.8 Macro, IS L may possibly be used when mounted on a tripod. IMHO, the "verdict is still out" on that one.<br>

IS is a great advantage for any and all hand held shots.<br>

If the IS on the 70-200 is like on my 100-400, then you should have two settings . . . #2 setting will be for "panning" shots, #1 setting basically for all other hand held.</p>

<p>If this is your first IS lens, then I would suggest a review of the Manual that will be supplied with the lens upon your purchase. I keep my User's manuals for my IS lenses handy because I often forget certain settings. (It don't take much for me to forget anything! Have that CRS syndrome.)</p>

<p>Enjoy the lens,</p>

<p>This lens can be hand held hours at a time. Depending on your built, it can get heavy after a couple of hours. If it does, for your next question, IS works well with mono-pod. Don't forget to put the lens cap and gears back into the bag when you go "out" of the ice ring, to prevent fog up.</p>

<p>Good idea about the fog-up. Never thought about that. <br>

Does IS work when you hold the camera vertically?</p>

<p >Question 2:</p>

<p >IS or image stabilization dampens camera motion. Both subject motion and camera motion during the exposure will induce blur. The IS technology greatly abates camera motion. IS came about with advent of microchip circuitry, motion sensors micro motors. The three are caused to interact to counter vibration. </p>

<p >The countermeasure for camera motion during the exposure is a sturdy mount. Most of us will take our pictures hand-holding our cameras. If we want truly sharp images, we resort to a tripod. If the use of a sturdy mount is unfeasible we hand-hold. When we hand-hold we are advised to use a fast shutter speed. While not a cure-all high shutter speeds arrest subject motion and camera movement.</p>

<p >When we use a fast shutter speed we are forced to use a larger lens aperture because both are intertwined to calculate exposure. Sometimes we wish we could use a slower shutter speed so that we can set our lens to a smaller aperture. When a telephoto lens is mounted we must take this into account when choosing our shutter speed. Longer lenses are more difficult to hand-hold because these lenses magnify like a telescope and the increased magnification exasperates our ability to hand-hold.</p>

<p >What is the slowest shutter speed advisable when hand-holding? This is a variable based on the ability of photographer to hold the camera steady. However, a rule-of-thumb tells us the use a shutter speed equal to or faster than the reciprocal of the focal length employed.</p>

<p >The reciprocal of a number is obtained by dividing the number into 1. Thus the reciprocal of 100 is 1/100 whereas the reciprocal of 300 is 1/300.</p>

<p >OK, you mount a lens 200mm focal length. The rule-of-thumb tells us to use a shutter speed of 1/200 sec. or better. If slower, mount the camera. If the focal length is 300mm you are advised to use a shutter speed of 1/300 sec. or better. Remember, this is a rule-of-thumb that has many exceptions however this one has great merit. </p>

<p >Now the IS technology of this lens is able to detect and damper camera motion. The IS lens had motors that move and tilt some of the lens elements to accomplish the feat. The lens in question is designed to damper movement via 3 f/stops. Each f/stop is a 2x change or a doubling of halving.</p>

<p >Thus if the exposure required to capture is f/8 at 1/400 sec. The IS technology allows hand-holding 3 f/stops slower. In this case the terminology is misleading, we are talking shutter speed and the reference to f/stop is actually telling us we can uses a slower shutter speed the math for 3 f/stops is 2x2x2= 8x. Note 1/400 sec. ÷ 8 = 1/50 sec. </p>

<p >Exposure is f/8 @ 1/400 sec. (Aperture and shutter speed without IS)</p>

<p >1 f/stop slower = f/8 @ 1/200 sec. </p>

<p >2 f /stop slower = f/8 @ 1/100 sec.</p>

<p >3 f/stop slower = f/8 @ 1/50 sec. (Aperture and shutter speed with IS)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nobody said this stuff is easy - I call it gobbledygook !</p>

<p > </p>

<p>Yes<br>

I don't know the specific technicalities, but I think the camera body has a sensor that knows when you are holding it vertically that may have something to do with it. Or, it could just be the operation of the lenses "gyro's" makes no difference whether horizontal or vertical. At least on the #1 setting.</p>

<p>I have taken both horizontal and vertical shots successfully with the IS in the "General" or #1 setting.</p>

<p>Alan has a lot of great information in that post. To add to it:</p>

<p>Lets say that you are handholding your 70-200 at 200mm focal length. The rule is that you need "about" 1/200th of a second for a shutter speed to keep from having blur from camera shake. (We say about because some people can hand hold the camera better than others).</p>

<p>With figure skating, 1/200th will not stop all the blurring from the motion of the skater (especially the faster spin moves etc). In order to "stop" the blurring from motion you are going to need 1/400th or higher, meaning that if you only want the IS for figure skating, it really wont help you (because your shutter speed will be fast enough to not have blur from camera shake)</p>

<p>That being said, if you can afford the extra expense, I'm sure you'll find times where it is useful, just most likely not for action sports unless you're panning.</p>

<p>Thanks Erik. I plan on using this lens for both, my daughter's figure skating and low-light levels in her performances on stage. I'm hoping that the f/2.8 (for the full focal length as I just learned) combined with a slower shutter speed will provide enough light for a good exposure in the theater. I'm sure that I will need the IS for the theater applications. Thanks again for your advice.</p>

<p>Just be aware that for the theater, you'll probably still have to increase the ISO, even at f/2.8...if you're at 200mm, you may still need a shutter speed of 1/15 sec (or longer) at ISO 100, so while IS helps, it isn't likely to help THAT much. Avoid underexposing your shots at high ISO (800+) because post processing will bring out the noise. From what I understand, overexposing by a stop and darkening in post works better for noise control.</p>

<p><em>"2. I noticed that a lot of people say that "IS does not stop/freeze motion".</em><strong><em> Does that mean that this lens (with the IS) will not take sharp action photos and the non-IS lens will?</em></strong><em> I was under the assumption that sharp action photos were dependent on the shutter speed."</em> <br /><br />A very subtle point regarding the highlighted part of the question.<br /><br />There are those who believe that the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM (i.e. does NOT have IS) is slightly (optically) sharper than the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM. Those folk usually also maintain that the non-IS lens is also sharper when used with the X1.4MkII tele-converter and also the x2.0MkII tele-converter: though the x2.0 is usually used sparingly.<br /><br />I am one of these who have found the Non IS lens to be sharper (not using lab tests but in the field - especially in broad light / low light of swimming pools and other arenas.<br /><br />I have not used the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII so I make no comment on that lens. <br /><br />The sharpness difference is very slight, but I do find the NON IS lens is sharper wide open - more noticeable when wide open and a tele-converter is used.<br /><br />These comparisons I have made using the full image circle of the lens (i.e. using a 135 format camera – “Full Frame”)<br /><br />***<br /><br />On another minor point for theatre, which I do often, I like the 135/2 because it is f/2 and also because it is black (not white) and shorter and lighter (weight) than the 70 to 200. I might have mentioned the 135/2 on your other thread – it is OK for indoor sports too, if the framing suits you. Also the 135 is almost “perfect” even with the x1.4MkII tele-converter mounted. But I am not attempting to change your mind about the purchase, merely pointing out other advantages of the 135, as I see them.<br /><br />I believe I pointed to approximate shutter speeds for stopping sports motions and also considerations of distance and direction of motion, on your previous thread.<br /><br />Yes from all reports the MkII version is a better lens than the original EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM.<br /><br />Contrary to some commentators I don’t think it is difficult to understand the elements of IS and Freezing Subject motion, nor do I find the facts gobbledygook, though it might be gobbledygook in the way it is presented, sometimes. . . <br /><br />And just on the “Rule of Thumb” . . . I understand that the “Reciprocal of the Focal Length” rule of thumb is for 135 format cameras – as you have a 7D (I think) then you need to apply about x1.6 to your “rule” – so for a 200mm lens your” rule of thumb” slowest Tv is about 1/320s not 1/200s.<br /><br />Yes, the IS on that lens, works whichever way you hold the camera: either vertical or horizontal framing.<br /><br />WW<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

 

<p><em><strong>"My questions are: On the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II lens -</strong></em> <strong ><em >. . . I am assuming that if the older version of this lens works, the new II version should be as good or better?”</em></strong><br>

<br>

'nother minor point: the lens in question is the MkII, (recently released) - <br>

<br>

I believe Canon reckon the IS is worth four (4) stops on the MkII . . . which is an improvement on the original version of this lens: which Canon touts the IS as being worth 3 stops.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Thanks William. Your responses are very informative. Your photos are awesome too! </p>

<p><em>“</em><em>I plan on using this lens for both, my daughter's figure skating and low-light levels in her performances on stage. I'm hoping that the f/2.8 (for the full focal length as I just learned) combined with a slower shutter speed will provide enough light for a good exposure in the theater. <strong>I'm sure that I will need the IS for the theater applications. </strong>Thanks again for your advice.”</em></p>

<p>Yes – I was thinking more ‘bout the theatre comment last night . . .</p>

<p>Understand that IS does not freeze Subject Motion, but does help alleviate (reduce) the camera shake when using slower shutter speeds.</p>

<p>So you’ve had a peek at some of my images here, if you noticed this one: <a href="../photo/9567764&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9567764&size=lg</a></p>

<p>It is in a theatre and displays many of the elements which have been discussed and commented upon, in your two threads.</p>

<p>Dissecting the image, note the Subject Movement in the Actress’s Right Hand; note the Tv = 1/80s; note ISO = 3200; note the Av = F/1.8.</p>

<p>OK, my views –</p>

<p>Stated up front: I think like exactly what Tommy Lee wrote on your other thread – the 70 to 200F/2.8 is kind of “a must have” for the jobs you outline, predicated on Indoor Ice Rink Skating.</p>

<p>Secondly, <strong><em>it is a very rare occasion</em></strong><em> that I believe the better choice is to get the NON- IS version of this lens </em>– there are many discussions on previous thread, especially in the EOS forum about the value of IS or not – and on many of them I have commented, as I, almost exclusively use the NON-IS version.<br />But my advice as to what lens to get for a general practitioner - <strong>GET THE “IS” VERSION, is my advice to you.</strong><br />You have the opportunity to get the newer model IS version so if you like the FL range and other things then buy the newer version (MkII) not the original version – yes a few more $ but you will keep the lens a lifetime . . . get some of the experience and talent on the EOS forum talking ‘bout their “original 70 to 200” with all the battle scares . . . still OK ten years + (Dick Arnold springs to mind) . . .</p>

<p>Thirdly – and this is my reason for posting again – the 70m to 200 is NOT going to be the answer to EVERYTHING: and you must be prepared for that, so that you do not feel disappointed. If you shoot inside or in low light levels outside enough (and trust me if you have any passion about this Photography stuff – and your daughter’s activities - you will be using that camera and lens day and night) and you will be pushing the limits of that 7D and the 70 to 200 and there will be occasions when the F/2.8 is TOO SLOW and you just do not have enough light and you will run out of ISO and you will get frustrated . . .</p>

<p>I am not suggesting that you go out and buy a gazzilion lenses, what i am saying is, if you buy the 70 to 200, then use it well and use it often such that it and the 7D becomes an extension of your hand and brain: and you push those tools to the absolute limit – and from those experiences you will learn And you will know then what other lenses YOU need to get the job done better.</p>

<p>Getting back to the image of mine I cited – it was taken with a 5D . .. so I was at the max ISO 3200, the 85 was wide open at F/1.8 and considering the speed of the actors I had little latitude to drop the Tv slower than 1/80s – if I were relying on my 70 to 200 for than shot I would have been shooting at @ F/2.8 and 1/30s . . . the result would be just a blur. Most of the play was single or dual low levl spot and it was a small theatre in the round with total black surrounds, so all night I was shooting F/1.8 to F/2.2, mainly . . . another time I need to pull out the 85/1.8 was here: <a href="../photo/10451039&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10451039&size=lg</a> and the commentary on that image explains a lighting failure . . . again the 70 to 200 was useless in this situation.</p>

<p>Commenting on the portion the quote I have put <strong><em>in bold</em></strong>: “<strong><em>I'm sure that I will need the IS for the theater applications.”:</em></strong><br /><strong><em> </em></strong><br />As we have established, IS does NOT freeze subject motion – but, one of the most important elements of THEATRE WORK (to get “motionless” actors) is the correct timing of the shutter release, such that the Actor is at the extension or limit of their movement – note in my example although the Actress (the Witch) was warning the Fairy with a shaking hand, she was at the extension of her stride and had momentarily paused her advance toward the Fairy and the Fairy was sat a standstill – in “fright” of the witch . . . Stage Performance is usually good in this regard as the Actors make the moment of shutter release by their emphasis on acting – and usually at the brief moment of “stillness” usually their expression is at the most intense – so the Photographer has the double-whammy win . . . this is why I seldom use the Continuous Mode shooting, preferring to time the release, using the “One Shot” method in theatre – also One Shot, is less noisy.</p>

<p>So in Theatre Photography IS does become a very useful tool - as it allows the Photographer to get slow shutter speeds if necessary (to Tv = 1/30s, just for example) and that 1/30s is still adequate to “freeze” the subject . . . if the timing of the shutter is near perfect to coincide with the moment of least Subject Movement.</p>

<p>OK - in my Witch and Fairy, 1/30 wouild not have been suitable, but I am sure you get the point that not all theatre is as fast paced as that Witch was . . . Often in Theatre you can pull 1/30s (even slower) and get good results with timing the shutter release - I know of a chap who gets good theatre work results with the 24 - 105F/4L IS USM</p>

<p>Timing of the shutter release in other shooting scenarios, like Sports is important also – and this will apply to Figure skating I am sure: whilst there might be continuous motion, there will usually be a point in that motion where there is least movement in one particular plane – the head for example - and that is where the expression usually is located: moment of least movement is profitable. There is a certain rhythm to these things – on the stage and on the Ice Rink – if the Photographer gets in sync with the rhythm and understands the sport or dance – then that helps a great deal: <a href="../photo/10291553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Incidentally that shot of the Butterfly Stroke is an example of the my 70 to 200 used with the x2.0mkII tele-extender – just more food for thought for you: that the x1.4MkII added to a 70 to 200F/2.8 gives you near that 300mm lens (at F/4) which you “needed” to get the skater full frame crop at 30Mtrs . . .</p>

<p>To explain better some of the nuances in Theatre Photography – particularly the compromises and thinking - grab a coffee and have a read of this: <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SgHV">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SgHV</a></p>

<p>The 7D is a wonderful tool and if you buy the 70 to 200/2.8 IS MkII, you will have the basis of an extremely high quality kit - - - enjoy your Journey.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William, If you are not a photography teacher; you should be! Your reply about the theater and lenses was excellent and I learned a ton from it. Thank you for taking the time to write so much information. I bet people would pay big bucks for this stuff!<br>

Keith</p>

<p>Thanks for the kind comment - you seem pretty interested to make good images of your child, Keith, it is a pleasure to help in that quest. <br>

Best to you, have fun.<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>William (and other others interested), I want to thank all of you for your help. I'm sure I will have more questions in the future. If anyone is interested, here is the link to my pictures of my daughters performance yesterday (the white dress photos are from yesterday-the "uglier" photos are from my ols point-and-shoot.<br>

<a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#906820671_4WDns">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#906820671_4WDns</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for posting the link.<br>

<br>

Unsolicited comments if I might:<br>

<br>

I think you are a little afraid to push the ISO on the 7D. <br>

<br>

The two examples I have chosen seem to be shot at ISO400 and IMO both are underexposed. The 7D can work harder than ISO400, you need to push it more. <br>

<br>

The under-exposure is likely because you were using the Camera’s TTL (Through The Lens) meter system and it seems it was selected to <strong ><em >“Evaluative”</em></strong>, basically the meter sees a large area of white, and thinks it is a big neutral grey blob (which it is set to calculate). . . so the whites in the image end up 18% grey . . . <br>

<br>

There are a few ways around that problem: one is to use exposure compensation (read your user manual) and another is to use a manual meter reading. There are other methods also. But these are the two I generally use. No method is better than the other, understanding what is happening is the key. <br>

<br>

In the situation of the Ice Rink, I would have used a manual meter reading most likely, because it seems to me you had typical, even, down lighting across the whole area. . . and I tend not to use compensations in the camera, but have the camera in manual mode and do the calculations in my head . . . but I am old and in Dinosaur times, all cameras were “manual mode”<br>

<br>

I guess, you don’t have an hand held meter, you can do almost the same by filling the camera’s lens with the face of (Caucasian) the Subject and reading that exposure.<br>

<br>

In the samples I chose it appears you shot at F/1.4 @ 1/400s @ ISO320 and F/1.6 @ 1/400s @ ISO400 (hence adding weight to my theory the lighting was pretty even as those are the same exposure reading).<br>

<br>

So, I think those are both about 1 stop underexposed, maybe a 1/3 stop, either way. So with the EF50mmF/1.4, which it appears you were using on a 7D, I would have been inclined to shoot those at ISO1600 and pulled:<br>

<strong ><em >F/2.2 @ 1/400s @ ISO1600</em></strong> (allowing for 1 stop extra exposure to correct the underexposure.) and that would have been my exposure for all the shots of the Subject whilst she was on the ice – using manual mode.<br>

<br>

I have that 50mm lens too and what I find is that it is <strong ><em >a very nice sharp F/2 lens</em></strong> . . . what I mean by that is: I can use it at F2 or smaller I always do, you will notice how much sharper it is at F/2 and smaller, trust me.<br>

<br>

Also in the second image – you will notice that you nailed focus on the Subject’s Skate, but not on her Face, and that is nothing other than the very shallow DoF (Depth of Field) you had. . . just a rough calculation, if that is a full frame of the 50mm lens on a 7D and the Subject is about 3ft to 4ft tall, then you had about 9 inches DoF . . . at F2.2 you would have had about 15 inches DoF . . . still small DoF, but a lot more than 9 inches, by comparison.<br>

<br>

Now, it appears obvious that 1/400s is enough to address this lovely Subject’s motion in most circumstances . . . as she is not yet doing triples through the air . . . I think you were using Tv Mode (Shutter Priority) - I understand the logic, as you were OK with 1/400s and did not want to go slower – but at the expense of the Av (aperture) which I think is costing you dearly.<br>

<br>

Extrapolating - when you buy the 70 to 200F/2.8 you will have only F/2.8: so if you have the same lighting conditions, you will need to be shooting around ISO3200ish. <br>

<br>

So no panic – if I can pull ISO3200 with an old 20D and a 70 to 200 <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10738830&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738830&size=lg</a> . . . you can easily do it with a 7D.<br>

<br>

The main point to remember is, <strong ><em >do not underexpose. </em></strong>Underexposing makes more mess of noise and looses much of your mid tone contrast.<strong ><em > </em></strong><br>

<strong ><em > </em></strong><br>

I suggest you take a few meter readings before the skating – and perhaps try shooting in manual mode once you have the exposure set to a skin tone reading of her face – see what happens . . . <br>

<br>

Also one last point about the lighting – down lighting is hideous for the shadows on the eyes – I have touched up her eyes a little (dodging) to make them sparkle. <br>

<br>

WW <br>

</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks for the input Wiiliam. Both of these pictures were taken with the 50mm lens you mentioned. Most of the others were taken with the 70-200mm lens I rented (you'll see that they all have an f/2.8 setting). I did have the camera set on EVALUATIVE mode for all of my shots on Sunday. So are you suggesting that I white balance with my grey card (as I did for these shots - and set a custom white balance in the camera), and then use the "SPOT METERING" option to meter her face? What if I can't see her face? Can I spot meter anywhere on her body?<br>

When I used the 70-200mm lens, I had the ISO set to 2000 and exposure compensation set to +1/3. I shot in manual mode with 1/400s. I was afraid that the ISO would be too high. But if you shot an ISO 3200 in that picture; I am not afraid to up the ISO now.<br>

I found a picture last night that a professional photographer took of her skating in the rink. I noticed that he was using an f/2.8 1/250s with ISO 1000. Maybe I don't need the 1/400s and can get a better exposure? She isn't moving very fast yet.<br>

As far as your 50mm recommendations go; I am anxious to try these settings out tomorrow during her freestyle skating session! Thanks again</p>

<p>OK . . . I had a look across the images you took with the 70 to 200 and they seem to read all around F2.8 to F/3.2 @ 1/400 at ISO2000 . . . and IMO they are all a little bit underexposed too. <br /><br />Now those exposures with the 70 to 200 are closer to what I guessed as to be “correct” and I think you will agree that most of the 70 to 200 images are better exposed than the 50mm shots<br /><br />The other thing I noticed is that looking through all your exposures and correlating them with how the images looks to me (i.e. how UNDEREXPOSED it appears) I suggest that the light across the rink is reasonably even – <strong><em>that’s the main point I am getting at – the lighting is pretty even all above the rink.</em></strong><br /><br />So with that information what I am suggesting is you take ONE meter reading on your Daughter’s face at the beginning of the session with her near the middle of the rink and use her skin tone to do that. <br /><br /><strong><em>You could use a grey card if you wanted to use it for an exposure reading</em></strong> - I have just read the other post you made in the EOS forum about White Balance. If you take a White Balance Reading in the middle of the Rink then take a Grey Card Exposure reading also.<br /><br /><strong><em>What I am suggesting is use that you use the ONE exposure setting all through the shooting whilst she is skating and shoot manual mode, NOT Tv Mode.</em></strong><br /><br />Perhaps do a test shot and have a look at the histogram and a good enlarged view of her face and shadow detail on the screen – but for my money if I took a reflected Grey Card meter reading in the centre of the Rink – I would use that for the whole session – there is nothing to loose . . . digital is cheap film. <br /><br />I am <strong><em>guessing</em></strong> (if the next session is in the same lighting conditions) that you will get something like: F/2.8 @ 1/400s @ ISO3200. . . But make your Exposure as per what the Grey Card meter reading or the reading off her face, indicates.<br /><br />So if you want to, throughout the session you could try dropping to 1/320s, adjust the Av accordingly and test whether the 1/320s is OK or not.<br /><br />I would shoot RAW + JPEG(L), because you have more scope with the RAW file if you want to bring up the shadow detail and reduce the noise on a shot you want to spend time on.<br /><br />There is NO difference in exposure when using different lenses – <strong><em>if the light is the same on the Subject </em></strong>. . . <br /><br />What I think your camera was doing is: when you had the 50mm lens on, your Daughter was smaller in the frame (so there was more ICE in frame) – and that is why she appears darker in most of those – when you zoom in using the zoom lens, she occupies most of the frame and the camera’s meter is reading less of a big blob of ICE and more of the Little Girl – hence you got close to the correct exposure . . . I hope that makes sense.<br /><br />The point is <strong><em>IF the lighting is fairly constant</em></strong> – then once you get the correct exposure there very little need to have the camera on any automatic exposure function - I hope that makes sense also. <br /><br />It can be argued that there will be slight lighting differences on the face as it looks up and looks down and there will never be <strong><em>exactly</em></strong> even lighting – perhaps at the edges, it will fall off by ½ a stop maybe even 1 full stop . . . but generally the differences are only about ½ stop across the main playing area and that can be accommodated in post production, if necessary.<br /><br />I read on your other thread that you are shooting JPEG and setting a Manual White Balance so that you do not have to do much post production – I understand that. I mostly only use JPEGS for my Sporting stuff. I think that you will get better results setting the exposure also – and just using one exposure throughout – WHILE she is ON THE ICE. I might be wrong, but I don’t think you will lose much if you give it a try.<br /><br />I will add that if you do use the JPEGS you need to sharpen them a little bit – you should read up on that - <strong><em>Colin Southern</em></strong> had made many posts on two stage sharpening techniques – and there are many other good threads in the digital darkroom forum also. <br /><br />WW</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks William. My daughter has a lesson with her coach and 2 freesytle sessions today. I am going to the last freestyle session to take more pictures and I am anxious to try your suggestions. I printed out the whole thread to bring with me so I don't forget. I am going to try to get her to wear her pink outfit instead of her black one she usually wears (she's only 4 and stubborn as a mule- much like her Mother) so I can get a better idea on colors and exposure. I thought about the lower shutter speed too to help with exposure. I noticed that the pro photographer took pictures with a 200 shutter. If that works; I won't be able to get-away with it for long. Once she pick up some speed, I'm sure I'll need to pick up the shutter speed. I am using MANUAL mode for the 70-200mm lens (BTW..I just purchased the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II yesterday-may be here today!) Don't have the camera in front of me now but I believe the settings are: ISO:2000, 400/s, f/2.8, Exposure Comp.:+ 1/3, AF: MANUAL ZONE, picture type: STANDARD, white balance: CUSTOM (from grey card), AF Drive: AF SERVO, speed: High Speed Continuous. <br>

I believe you are correct about the ISO 3200. I remember letting the camera choose the settings, and it chose ISO 3200 when I had it set to tv mode. That's why I went to manual mode; because I was afraid of the high ISO setting. I keep reading bad things about ISO settings over 2000 and was afraid I would get too much noise. Do you think I would be ok with a 3200 setting? Or would I be better off overexposing a few more stops?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p><strong><em>"I keep reading bad things about ISO settings over 2000 and was afraid I would get too much noise. Do you think I would be ok with a 3200 setting?"</em></strong><br>

Less reading . . . more experimenting at this stage I think . . . Learn from YOUR results.<br>

WW<br>

<em> </em></p>