Lens Advice

Discussion in 'Sports' started by lovella_lagdaan, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Hi,
    I am a beginner at taking photos.
    I have a canon xsi and I use the standard cannon ef 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. Bought it when I knew nothing except thought I needed to be able to zoom into my subjects.
    I take sports pictures for gymnastics. Its indoor, no flash and poor lighting.
    I have been able to get some decent pictures believe it or not but obviously I could do better. I dont want to spend the money for a 70-200 f/2.8. Well not that I don't want to, that's just way over my budget.
    I am wondering if I get the 85mm 1.8 would that give me good pictures but require cropping? and even with the cropping would the pictures be good? Right now I find myself using the 200mm quite a bit to get where I need but because the events are all over the gym it always is different.
    Any advice would be really great!


    00XShE-289433584.jpg
     
  2. Hi Lovella. I hate shooting indoor sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8, mainly because our gym is so small and VERY poorly lit. The 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 are my lenses of choice for volleball and basketball. Like any sport, one has to move around for various angles, but I think you'd love the 85mm. It's a fabulous portrait lens and very reasonably priced. Good luck.
     
  3. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Even in very poor lighting situations the 85/1.8 will be “OK” to “Quite Acceptable” to crop to the equivalent FoV (Field of View) of your 200mm zoom, provided you NAIL the exposure correctly.
    Underexposing cannot be in your mantra – Underexposing is your worst enemy.
    The 85/1.8 will give you 3? stops more aperture than the zoom you have when it is used from about 100mm to 200mm, so that means you can at least drop one full stop of ISO and increase the shutter speed one full stop and use the 85 at F/2.8, and there is still room open it wider, if necessary.
    Examples of the EF85/1.8 used at it limits: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925231
    Another option is the 100/2, but I would opt for the 85/1.8, for the reasons I outline here: http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00XRGn
    WW
     
  4. I would second the notion for the 85 1.8. While I have never used the lens, I love my 50 1.8 for any low light situation. I believe that an 85 1.8 is next on the budget for my school photography club.
    Good luck!
     
  5. I've never heard anything bad about the 85 F1.8, but have never tried one myself but really want one.. I may after I have the money to buy the EOS 7D and move my 50D to the backup position.
    When I needed a lens on a budget when I first started a few years ago the Tokina 50-135 F2.8 was a really good starter for me though it won't quite do what the 85 F1.8 will in those low light situations
     
  6. Ok here is what I have to decide and please any advice would be so appreciated.
    1. Go with the canon 1.8 and my pictures will be far and have to crop almost all
    2. Go with a tamaron 70-200mm 2.8 for 800 bucks - but can someone please tell me what you think of this lens? I dont think it has IS which I'm being told is really needed.
    3. bite the bullet and Go with the canon 70-200mm 2.8 with IS for like $1,500-2,000.
    The guy that was taking pictures too had the canon 70-200 and his pictures were fantastic that's why i'm considering this purchase. But i'm thinking if the tamron is as good as the canon why not get that. Is the canon really $700 more better than the tamron?
    I won't have time to be changing lens that's my only gripe with the 85mm if I'm just too far away which most of the time will be the case.
    Thanks in advance!
     
  7. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Answer:
    Is the picture in the link you posted typical of the:
    • Subjects (age and skill level)
    • lighting
    • distance at which you shoot?
    If “YES”:
    Then please post the Tech Specs of that image.
    Specifically required are:
    Shutter Speed,
    Aperture,
    ISO
    Focal Length used
    and state if it is Full Frame Crop, or not.
    The image in the link has the EXIF removed from it.
    You are asking specific questions and without some guide as to the EV (light level) and the shooting distance and the typical skill level of the competitors, advice re lenses is shooting in the dark because with the limited high ISO range of your camera one cannot state with any certainty that F/2.8 will be adequate to allow a fast enough Tv (Shutter Speed) to address Gymnastics.
    WW
     
  8. Hi thank you for your resposne.
    Please bear with me I am VERY new to photography.
    I used TV mode, set WB to Florescent, ISO was at 1600, and shutter speed 1/40
    The subjects will always be aged from 8-14 and their skill level is intermediate as they are level 5 Team girls. Being 4-10 are the levels on Team.
    I was in a high school gym which is normally the setting if not the actual gym of the gymnastics institution which is similar lighting I think.
    The pictures if full I did not crop or do any editing to it at all. not even mess with the color which I did do later and found I could lighten pictures and get then nicely brighter.
    Most pictures and this one in particular is at I believe about 150mm from the bleachers. The ranger I shoot at can be anywhere from 55m-200mm. I used this lens right now: Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens
    I hope that helps because any advice would be great. I am hoping that the 85mm 1.8 will do the job but again I fear it will be so far that cropping may even distort what I take? I have the Canon rebel XSI. I believe that's 10megapixels
     
  9. Sorry but Also what about the 100mm f/2
    And if the 70-200mm f/2.8 is my best choice do I need to buy the one with IS?
     
  10. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks.
    The one element you missed was the Av (Aperture) you used.
    I will guess that it was about F/5.6. – but if you can confirm - that would be good, please.
    ***
    There are a few elements here and the first of which weighs on me is the cost of the lenses.
    I really cannot comment much upon the Tamron lens, because I have not used that lens, but I could confidently say that the Canon lens would be better, but whether you (or I) would notice the difference in your results is questionable – I am not questioning your skill – I am referring to your FINAL OUTPUTS, i.e. you might use the final images to share amongst other parents and they just view them on Facebook etc and the largest print is 5x4, for example, so the difference in lenses might not be noticed, even by a trained eye.
    The next element is the ISO capacity (NOT the MEGAPIXELS) of your camera. It can only manage ISO1600.
    I am confident that if you get a good exposure you will be able to use (as an example) HALF of the image taken with the 85mm lens and it will be more than OK for a 5x4 print or a computer viewed image. On the other hand F/2.8 might not be a large enough aperture to allow a good image at ISO1600, if the girls are moving fast. . . which brings us to shutter speed. For those Girls, especially the older girls during the faster routines, you will need a shutter speed of around 1/320s to freeze the motion during fast action – faster if you want to catch mid air shots or the midflight of the vault, for example.
    That brings us to the IS. Your sample image is very interesting because if you shot it at 1/40s you have nailed the Gymnast at the peak of her motion (maybe she was just to release? Or maybe was just at the top of her swing – not a full circle?) In any case the IS of the lens you use WAS assisting this shot.
    Note that there is Subject Movement blur in her feet but the rest of the image is free from any movement (camera shake).
    But taking this girl as an example (guess maybe she is 10 years) as she gets older she will develop more strength and speed and also get taller – so for the same shot on the same equipment – her legs will be longer, she will be travelling faster, so the Subject Blur will be greater and you will need much faster than 1/40s . . . and you will get to a point where the Shutter Speed is fast enough such that you will eliminate the camera shake so IS will be not necessary.
    BUT that is why I asked how old the girls were and if younger children were typical Subjects - as you can see IS will useful because if you time the shot correctly (i.e. shoot when the subject is at the SLOWEST point of movement) you can use a slower Shutter speed to accommodate a good exposure in low light whilst being limited to only ISO1600.
    But that leads us to which is better a lot of money for the zoom or less money for the 85 or the 100.
    If it were me I would buy the Canon 70 to 200 and the 85, I did, but that is easy for me to spend your money, and I make money out of my camera gear, and that is different also.
    You’ll notice I have mentioned your camera, often – have you thought of buying anew camera with better, HIGH ISO capacity?
    ***
    My bottom line ADVICE:

    Either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2 will allow much faster shutter speeds and better control of getting closer to correct exposure (your sample appears to be UNDEREXPOSED).
    I am confident that you could use half of the image from either lens - IF YOU EXPOSE CORRECTLY and you will be happy with the5x4 prints which result.
    If your shooting info is correct and my guess at the Av is correct (i.e. the shot was 1/40s @ F/5.6 @ ISO1600) then that is pretty dark and typical of a School Gym . . . and with those exposure figures as a base, you will need F/2 or F/1.8 to nail a shutter speed of 1/320s using ISO1600, that last bit is simple maths and you can’t escape the maths of it.
    So I would conclude that either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2 is a better purchase for your situation.
    Also I thik that you should pull a little rank and be as forthright as possible in getting a good position and also the permission to move so that the Prime Lens is as close as necessary to frame the shots you want.
    All that said: a camera capable of ISO6400 would be a good solution in the longer term, and the addition of the Canon 70 to 200/2.8IS would be good also, irrespective of the new camera or not,
    But first up I would buy one of the Primes – both are good - and that is my advice as per the logic I have outlined.
    Good Luck
    WW
    P.S. Your image is underexposed and can also use a bit of Colour Correction and Mid Tone Punch:
    00XTX6-290107584.jpg
     
  11. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "The guy that was taking pictures too had the canon 70-200 and his pictures were fantastic that's why i'm considering this purchase."​
    WARNING - possible WRONG conclusion
    If the light level is as low as I have assumed:
    I will bet you six Mars Bars, that guy also had a camera which was capable of ISO3200 or ISO6400, or ISO12800 or even ISO25600 . . . and that fact of high ISO capacity combined with the 70 to 200/2.8 gave him the fantastic pictures.
    WW
     
  12. I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to respond to my question. That was really nice and I really do appreciate it!
    I tried to see what kind of camera the other guy was taking but the email he sent to me only had this piece of information: white balance- fluorescent ISO- 1600 to 3200 shutter speed- 1/200 to 1/400 sec. aperture- f/2.8 - I attached one of his pictures to show you how much better his was than mine.
    I can't afford to upgrade my camera that's for sure.
    So are you saying that if I get the 85 or the 100 once I crop them they will be nice pictures but will not be able to be blown up any bigger than a 5x4 to remain having good resolution?
    I am SO new to this I don't even know what my AV setting was. I think it was automatic since I was in TV mode? And i saw it flash at times at 5.6.
    My only advantage to taking pictures, is yes I pretty much try to know the routines so I know when the easiest shots can be taken and most likely be able to actually get. I try to time it just right.
    I didn't think about when the kids got older or to higher levels about what I may need to factor in.
    I don't want to spend $1900 bucks BUT I also don't want to spend $400 and then later decide I want the $1900 after all...which by the way I saw the 70-200mm for $1900 with IS and $2200 with the IS II - is the newer version worth the extra money.
    If I can't ever have big pictures maybe even something past an 11x14 with the 100 or 85 then I would rather get the 70-200 and bite the bullet. I know that half the meets I can walk around and get closer and the other half I can't. And asking at those ones that I can't won't do me good because they just won't allow it. Especially that there are so many other parents that want to be able to do the same thing.
    If I got the 70-200mm with the camera I have would it be okay? a good fit?
    I'm planning on going to the gym tonight. Bring my lens. and put it at 85mm and then 100mm to see if that gives me enough range. My ideal situation would be to buy one of those and then the 50mm 1.4 as well. And switch between the two.
    00XTYK-290121584.jpg
     
  13. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    You are welcome - you have kids doing sport and you want to take good photos of them - I dig both - read my bio and have a look at some of my portfolio . . .
    I have to get to a job now . . . stand by . . . I have more opinions on your last commnets.
    PS Photonet rules do not allow you posting other Photographers' pictures, not ,that it seems a big hassle, IMO as it was an honest error I am sure, but just to explain do not be surprised if that last image disappears.
    WW
     
  14. ughh so full of questions.
    Does the 70-200mm require me to buy one of those extended batteries? Or would having an extra battery charged up be ok?
    Have any of you bought lens from a website operated overseas?
     
  15. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I had a close look at the other guy’s photo:
    I tried to see what kind of camera the other guy was taking but the email he sent to me only had this piece of information: white balance- fluorescent ISO- 1600 to 3200 shutter speed- 1/200 to 1/400 sec. aperture- f/2.8 - I attached one of his pictures to show you how much better his was than mine.
    Yes one factor is he had at least 2 stops of aperture on you (your F/5.6 to his F2/.8) And he also possibly had 1 stop of Sensitivity (your ISO 1600 to his ISO3200) I suspect that his shot was around 1/320s and the information he gave you is in keeping with what I have outlined, so I think my guesses at the actual light values in the Gym are very close to correct. It looks like he was a little in front of you and just below you – but basically shooting from the same area. It appears to me also that (as well as having more stops to play with) he nailed the exposure better and has a little better skill in Post Production and the lens he has is also sharper than yours. It appears he timed the shot well as did you to get the girl at the point of slowest movement.
    I can't afford to upgrade my camera that's for sure.
    OK, so we think only in terms of ISO1600
    So are you saying that if I get the 85 or the 100 once I crop them they will be nice pictures but will not be able to be blown up any bigger than a 5x4 to remain having good resolution?
    No I was saying I am pretty confident that you WILL be OK to 5x4 even using half of the frame.
    I am also saying that getting into a good position really give you a lot of leverage.

    I am SO new to this I don't even know what my AV setting was. I think it was automatic since I was in TV mode? And i saw it flash at times at 5.6.
    If the Av was “Flashing” at you – then I understand that is an indication that you were about to underexpose the shot according to the camera’s TTL (Through the Lens) light meter – you should check that in your camera manual.


    My only advantage to taking pictures, is yes I pretty much try to know the routines so I know when the easiest shots can be taken and most likely be able to actually get. I try to time it just right.
    That is not “an only advantage” it is a big advantage – do not underestimate that, whatever gear you get.

    I don't want to spend $1900 bucks BUT I also don't want to spend $400 and then later decide I want the $1900 after all...which by the way I saw the 70-200mm for $1900 with IS and $2200 with the IS II - is the newer version worth the extra money.
    IMO, no, the MkII version is not worth the extra for your application. I would not buy the MkII version for MY applications at $300 more . . . I would buy the original 70 to 200 . . . and the 85 as well. . . . :)

    If I can't ever have big pictures maybe even something past an 11x14 with the 100 or 85 then I would rather get the 70-200 and bite the bullet.
    OK I understand your dilemma.
    The fact that the other guy has good images being made with the 70 to 200 set at F2.8 and the camera used only goes to ISO3200, I am thinking that biting the bullet is a reasonable idea . . . but I still have the counter thoughts - I use a 70 to 200 a lot – but when it gets dark that lens can be useless such as here: http://www.photo.net/photo/10451039&size=lg now in that situation I needed to hold 1/800s, but it seems you only need to hold about 1/320s for the girls at the age and skill levels they are now . . .
    So I trust you understand how the Shutter Speed and the ISO and the Aperture all relate to how fast you have to pull the shot (what shutter speed you use) relative to the skill and the sport being photographed, and this is what I am tossing around in my mind when I debate what advice to give you.
    What I don’t want is disappointment that F/2.8 is not a big enough aperture to allow a fast enough shutter speed, at ISO 1600.
    IMO, this is a question you should ask that other photographer:
    “If you were limited to ISO1600 shooting these athletes in the lighting these gyms, would you run out of Shutter Speed” – or ask – “how often do you have to shoot faster than ISO1600 using your 70 to 200/2.8 in these gyms”
    I know that half the meets I can walk around and get closer and the other half I can't. And asking at those ones that I can't won't do me good because they just won't allow it. Especially that there are so many other parents that want to be able to do the same thing.
    OK I understand that.
    If I got the 70-200mm with the camera I have would it be okay? a good fit?
    Oh Yes the 70 to 200/2.8IS will sing compared to the lens you are using now.


    I'm planning on going to the gym tonight. Bring my lens. and put it at 85mm and then 100mm to see if that gives me enough range.
    That is a very good idea . . . I will wait for the outcome.
    My ideal situation would be to buy one of those and then the 50mm 1.4 as well. And switch between the two.
    If you buy the 50/1.4 then I suggest the 100/2 as its partner.

    Does the 70-200mm require me to buy one of those extended batteries? Or would having an extra battery charged up be ok?
    You need NOT buy a battery grip to use the 70 to 200/2.8IS lens.
    Having a second charged battery in your bag is food protocol all the time

    Have any of you bought lens from a website operated overseas?
    No, I have not.
    ***
    The other element which we have not touched upon is the BIG picture.
    What else do you photograph and how much use will the 70 to 200/2.8L IS USM get outside the gym . . . and OTOH how much use would any of the Prime lenses get elsewhere?
    Also . . . if you buy the 70 to 200, I would expect you would sell the 55 to 200, but if you buy the Primes you will not.
    WW
     
  16. You have really become my hero and I can't thank you enough for such detailed responses and your willingness/patience to answer all my quesitons and to such detail!

    Ok I found out the the other guy has canon 70D. I also know he's not anywhere close to being professional in any manner. He's just some Dad who insisted his wife get him a good lens and this last meet was the first time he ever got to use it.
    I think he knows quite a bit but not nearly enough that he could really give me advice.

    That is exactly where he was sitting. In front of me in the bleachers.

    5x4? You are talking about a tiny picture like 5 inches by 4 inches? I was saying I don't want a lens that will only give me good pictures at that size. I want to be abel to have bigger pictures.

    I am hoping my daughter will stay with this sport awhile. So I want to purchase something that will carry on to when she is older and is in a higher level but hey maybe by then I'm upgrading even further right?! =)

    By good fit I more meant is the 70-200 too much lens for my rebel xsi?

    I did not test anythign at the gym because I found a shop that rents out the 100mm for $20 so I am making it a point to rent it at the next meet 2 weeks from now and really test it out.

    I dont really take any other pictures besides for her gymnastics. But I will tell you this I take pictures of all 20 girls on her team at every single event and I try to get ALOT of shots. And I let all the parents have whatever pictures they want.
    It's hard but it's fun and its rewarding when parents really love and appreciate the pictures.
    But they aren't buying my lens is the problem! LOL

    I found this website with the lens for a really incredible price and I"m wondering if it's too good to be true thats why I asked the over seas question.

    Here is the name of it: kv-cameras.com

    As far as understanding everything - no not really. It's so much to digest and so much to know but I am trying to learn.
    I try to read stuff all the time and watch videos on youtube. Last year I took all my shots in sports mode...that should tell you how sad I am at knowing anything.
    This last time around was the first time I EVER used TV.
     
  17. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Well just take it slowly. You will get the gist of it all. The man has a Canon EOS 7D, most likely. That camera is capable of ISO beyond 3200.
    Yes I understood what you meant about 5x4 and that you and that you want to print bigger than that.
    Perhaps let’s just put your question about which lens to buy to one side and let me explain a concept:
    The problem we have is that we want to take good photographs:
    • A Dark Gym
    • Girls doing Gymnastics – which we generally want to “freeze”
    • Sometimes we can get close to the action and move around – sometimes not
    • We have a camera which is LIMITED to ISO1600
    The formula for exposure has THREE elements:
    • Shutter Speed (how much TIME we let the light onto the sensor)
    • Aperture (How big the HOLE is the light goes through to the sensor – i.e. AMOUNT of light)
    • ISO (How SENSITIVE the sensor is to the light)
    Now we can play around with these exposure elements:
    In your Gym, the Lightmeter might register the correct exposure as: 1/200s @ F2.8 @ ISO1600, but we can shoot at 1/400s @ f/2 @ ISO1600 or 1/400s @ F/2.8 @ ISO3200 and still get a properly exposed shot.
    Now the whole premise of my thinking as to which lens to suggest to you, is based upon the fact that your camera cannot really go higher than ISO1600 AND the light level in the Gym is forcing you (and the other man) to be shooting at ISO1600 and ISO3200.
    Now you NEED to MAINTAIN shutter speeds of about 1/200s to 1/400s if you want to freeze action and as the girls get more skilled and more powerful perhaps you will, need even faster. So to get those shutter speeds you need to increase the ISO; or Open the Aperture; or Both.
    But the point is your camera is maxed out at ISO1600. So if you get to a gym and NEED to shoot: 1/400s @ F/2.8 @ ISO3200 you cannot do that even with the 70 to 200 lens, BUT you can make that shot using the 85mm lens or the 100mm lens – because with either Prime lens you could shoot: 1/400s @ F/2 @ ISO1600.
    So what I am basically saying is you need to assess what is the best of all these situations to make your decisions.
    It is not about which lens you get that will allow you to print large pictures – it is about which lens will allow you to take a CORRECTLY EXPOSED picture and a REASONABLE shutter speed for the action.
    Now if the Girls are all posing still – there is no problem at 1/80s. If you nail a shot when a girl is on the Horizontal bar in an handstand position – you have will little problem at 1/100s . . . but if you want action shots as they get better, faster and stronger . . . or if you are getting quite a few now with blurry subjects - then the speed of a fast lens is critical . . . and the difference between F/2 and F/2.8 might be critical if you are really pushed already at ISO1600.
    OK, so what I suggest you do is get that 100/2 and shot with it.
    Set Av MODE. (aperture priority)
    Set the Aperture at F/2,
    Set the ISO to 1600 and let the camera’s light meter to adjust the shutter speed.

    We can analyse the results and get a better idea of exactly what light you typically have to use.

    Does that make sense?

    WW
     
  18. Lovella, just a suggestion, look into the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS. It's less expensive and frankly unless you have a really unsteady hand, it is not needed IMO. Others here may disagree but I purchased the 70-200 f2.8 w/o IS and it performs great. I use it most for soccer but I really don't think the extra $ for IS is worth it.
     
  19. William,
    OK, so what I suggest you do is get that 100/2 and shot with it.
    Set Av MODE. (aperture priority)
    Set the Aperture at F/2,
    Set the ISO to 1600 and let the camera’s light meter to adjust the shutter speed.
    Ok so How do I do this last part? "let the camera's light meter to adjust the shutter speed?" Can you explain to me why it's better to use AV instead of TV? Not that I don't trust you but because I'm trying to learn =)
    From what I am reading you are thinking that the 70-200 may not actually be much better than the 100mm ...I am hoping after I rent it...it does what I want and Im good! but I guess we will find out later. I won't have feedback until after the end of this month as she compete's on the 30th.
    I'm not super picky and i'm not trying to be professional like the guys that ARE allowed to be on the floor because they are contracted to sell pictures to parents.....but I would love to have ones that are at least the quality of this other guy's photos. I think those were really good and nice looking enough to make me really happy.
    The other thing I forgot is like sometimes we are not even in a gym at all. I remember one year were in a big conference room at a hotel or a big area within a convention center.
    Thanks again William. I am sure I may come up with more questions before the meet. Any other suggestions that you might have before I go with what to try would be great so I can really get a right feel for the rental. I was thinking to buy the 50mm 1.4 anyways. It's only 100 bucks and I think I could use that all the time. I hear it's a really great lens. If I do get it and am close enough to use it. What settings should I use for this for action shots? And what about portrait for that lens as sometimes I will try to catch the girls before the meet and take an individual picture of each of them.
    Robert - I know that's the problem...is the mixed review. And I don't know if I personally would be steady enough without it. I mostly question it because I'm small and it seems like it would be super heavy for me. I was just thinking I could rent that lens too but they only have it in IS .... Hmm maybe i should rent this anyways! But I dont know how I feel about trying to test two different lens in one meet. Sounds difficult but maybe worth the difficulty!
     
  20. Oh and sorry I meant 50mm 1.8 not the 1.4
     
  21. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    IMO for this application the IS on the 70 to 200 would be useful.
    The reason being that the Tv being used to capture the action with Kids Gymnastics can often be quite slow. I mentioned that if the sample image were shot at 1/40s the IS was useful on that shot.
    Specifically for the 70 to 200 and typical shutter speeds we have established likely: to Hand Hold a rebel and shoot at 1/200s with the lens at 200mm requires a very steady hand or a monopod, IMO.
    For field sports, like soccer, even for kids, the shutter speed is typically higher, like 1/640s or 1/500s and thus fast enough to alleviate camera shake in most circumstances, also for field sports a monopod is more applicable than inside where not impossible tom use but sometimes restricted by conveners.
    If a 70 to 200 WITHOUT IS is considered I think it should be used in conjunction with a monopod in this situation.
    Renting and using the 70 to 200/2.8L IS USM is a good idea IMO, perhaps after you rent the 100/2.
    WW
     
  22. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    When you put the camera in Av mode: the camera automatically sets the shutter speed.
    The camera chooses the shutter speed for you according to how the camera's light meter thinks the scene should be exposed.
    I did not say that Av mode is BETTER than Tv mode, I am suggesting you to use Av Mode for your testing of the 100/2 so that we can best gauge how much light you actually have.
    Note that when you used Tv MODE the camera automatically selects the aperture.Note also that when you used Tv Mode you recalled seeing the “F/5.6 flashing
    Note also that I mentioned that if the 5.6 was flashing, I believed that the camera was indicating that the shot would be underexposed – that is because your lens was already at the largest aperture available – i.e. F/5.6.
    So therefore, even though we have established that you shot your sample image at F/5.6 @ 1/40s @ ISO1600 - these figures did NOT give correct exposure.
    So we cannot be certain how much light there was in the Gym.
    So therefore we cannot establish how fast a lens you will typically need to shoot action in these low light levels when you are limited to ISO1600.
    I return to the basic reason for all comments: all the lenses we are discussing will provide great pictures, provided you can make correct EXPOSURES.
    The problem you are facing is: you want to shoot sports’ action (which requires a fast shutter speed); you want to work in low light (which requires fast lenses and high ISO).
    You stated that you cannot upgrade the camera to gain more ISO – so that means you can only buy fast lenses.
    So therefore solving your problem boils down to the fact of sorting out how fast the lens needs to make corrcet exposures at a fast enough shutter speed with nthe low light you have in the gym.
    So therefore we need to find out typically how much light is in the gym.
    And then we can establish whether or not an F/2.8 lens will give you adequate shutter speed to stop the action – it is as simple as that –
    If F/2.8 will typically not allow adequate shutter speed to stop the girls’ gymnastic action, then it seems to me silly to buy the lens, especially as you have stated that you don’t or won’t use that lens for any other purpose.
    WW
     
  23. Ok gotcha!
    Thanks again so much for all the advice and time you have taken.
    I will report back after Halloween and let you know how it went!!! I'm excited and I'm so glad this particular lens was available for me to rent.
    THanks!!!
     
  24. William,
    I was following this post. Mostly because I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 (IS or non... not sure yet).
    One thing I noticed the OP mentions: "Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens" this lens does not have IS on it. It is an older lens. The current 55-250 has IS. (this new lens adds 50mm and IS.) Both are still lower end lenses. However, I thought I would point this out. Because, you mentioned the IS feature being the reason the OP pulled off the 1/40th. However, it seems they have steady hands and no IS. If they are reporting the correct lens ("Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens") it is not the one with IS.
    Anyway, I still agree that the IS feature would be nice. But it did not contribute to the reason the OP got the 1/40. I'm sure it would help... but with a 40D/50D/7D and 2.8, I'm thinking you can crank the ISO, and skip the IS... maybe... Basically buy the f/2.8 non-IS, and put the extra $500-600 you save, towards a higher end camera... or the 85mm f1.8.
    William, I always learn a great deal from your posts. Keep up the good work.
    Take care,
    Amol
     
  25. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    One thing I noticed the OP mentions: "Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens" this lens does not have IS on it. It is an older lens. The current 55-250 has IS. (this new lens adds 50mm and IS.) Both are still lower end lenses.​
    Hello Amol,
    Yes.
    To be frank, I noticed an anomaly regarding the actual lens being used – and I ignored that anomaly.
    In the Opening post the description is: “I have a canon xsi and I use the standard cannon ef 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. Bought it when I knew nothing except thought I needed to be able to zoom into my subjects.”
    And later: “Most pictures and this one in particular is at I believe about 150mm from the bleachers. The ranger I shoot at can be anywhere from 55m-200mm. I used this lens right now: Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens”
    So I concluded that either the lens is: EF-S 55 to 250 IS f/4.5 to 5.6 (i.e. the “IS” is correct and the “250” and the “USM” are not) or the lens is; EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM.

    But, as for my advice - I based my comment about the IS being useful on the assumed 1/40s shutter speed and the fact that under very close scrutiny, if the sample image were taken Hand Held at 150mm using an APS-C body then either IS was used OR the shooter had exceptional HH technique; because there is zero evidence of camera shake and 1/40s is very slow for a 150mm lens on a Rebel.
    But, I thought as the thread developed, rather than debating what lens or what shutter speed was used – in a couple of weeks we will have some hard data to analyse and we will better know more accurately what the typical EV is, in the Gym. In other words, I skipped the fine details lest that cause confusion.
    ***
    But having stated that – I also know, that in some gym situations (and general sporting situations), IS can be useful when shooting in low light.
    This fact is often overlooked and sometimes glossed over by comments such as: “IS doesn’t stop subject motion, so it is not necessary for sport” . . . this is incorrect. And the shooting scenario which this thread describes is a typical example of when IS can be useful on the 70 to 200. This is why, when the question was first posed about is the IS useful for the extra money - I asked about the age of the Children and their technical ability as I have extensive experience in shooting kids’ sports . . .
    School Gyms and young children competing is a great example of where the 70 to 200F/2.8 IS, is a BETTER choice than the 70 to 200/2.8, as typically the Gym is dark and as we would seek to keep the ISO as low as possible and in some situations we might want a smaller aperture than F/2.8 the IS of the lens can be relevant quite often.

    The bottom line is: Image Stabilization will become useful at the point where the Shutter Speed required is less than or equal to the ability to adequately Hand Hold the lens.
    Now that seems kind of obvious, but, for example, specifically with the 70 to 200/2.8 this becomes relevant when we are taking pictures of sports which can use shutter speeds of around 1/400s to 1/200s: and young children in some gymnastics situations can be captured at those shutter speeds.
    In regards to options for this thread:
    I agree that a camera with higher ISO capacity is a good idea and in fact have suggested or implied that on more than one occasion, but Lovella has stated getting another camera, is NOT an option for her – I would still suggest the IS version of the lens, because although Lovella says she won’t use the lens for any other activity, I think that is a comment without many years of Photography experience and if she buys this lens I think she will use it elsewhere, other than inside a Gym shooting children doing Gymnastics.
    ***

    I was following this post. Mostly because I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 (IS or non... not sure yet).
    In regards to YOUR choice “of IS” or “NOT IS” - my advice is very similar: you need to also look at situations when you might use the lens at shutter speeds slower than around 1/400s. The other situation when IS is relevant is Panning.
    ***
    I own the EF70 to 200F/2.8 L IS USM.
    I chose to buy this version of the lens based upon the fact that I would use it almost exclusively for sport and those sports would be limited to: Swimming; Field Hockey; Soccer; Rugby and Touch Football.
    But, through my old studio, I have access to an EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM and I borrowed it to use when I covered a State Snowboard Championship - because I wanted to use the Panning IS Feature.
    Also, I use a monopod extensively, (and I also have quite good HH technique - and I do regularly practice that technique on non vital shots as a "game" for myself - so if needed I can pull a shot at very slow Tv eg: http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709&size=lg)
    I am very happy with my choice and my purchase of the NON IS version of this lens, but most people DO not buy this lens just to shoot a few fast sports where Panning is not used - and most people do not have easy access to an IS version, should they need it
    It is a very RARE circumstance that I recommend others to buy the NON IS version of the lens and I always stress to them to look at when the IS might be useful -because if you don’t have IS available to you you can’t use it.

    WW
    Amol: Thank you for your appreciation and your kind words.
     
  26. Ok here are the results.
    I have attached a picture taken with AV f.2 as requested. exposture 1/250 and ISO-1600
    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.
    I am attaching a picture from each event
    Floor 1/200
    Vault 1/320
    Bars 1/320
    Beam 1/250
    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?
     
  27. Ok sorry but I couldn't attach so instead here is a link.
    The one with no one in the pic is my AV shot
    The rest were in TV with the shutter speeds I listed ISO01600
    http://picasaweb.google.com/lovellal/PhotoAdvice?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTNt83_p9X8twE#
     
  28. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    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.
    A little colour correction and enlargement and they are will be great, IMO!
    I will have a closer look tomorrow, but I think you should be pretty happy with your efforts.
    WW
     
  29. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    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:
    00XaXZ-296175584.jpg
     
  30. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "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?"​
    Yes. The girl upside down has her head and hands blurred a bit - 1/500s would be nicer for that image.
    WW
     
  31. Thanks WW.
    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.
    Thanks again too for all the advice.
    My decision right now is the 100mm and the 50mm
     

Share This Page