Sports Photography - which should I look at getting?

[matt_sainsbury]

Hi everyone,

 

 

I've just started getting into a specialised type of sports photography -

specifically dancesport photography, and I'm just looking for advice/ clues

about which lens would be optimal for the form.

 

At present I'm using a simple 50mm 1.8 lens, and it works to an extent. The good

thing about dance photography is that with most competitions you're virtually

sitting on the dance floor, meaning you don't exactly need a telephoto lens to

capture the action (at least, that's how things go here in Australia). However,

are there any better Canon lens for this kind of job? I can only budget around

$1000 Aus for a new lens, so if anyone can suggest a lens that fits within that

job description/ maximum cost that would be better than my humble (but much

loved) 50 mm lens, I'd be very grateful.

 

Thanks in advance.

[mendonphoto]

<p>Do you need to get in a little closer to the action? Do you need a wider view? Do you need the f/1.8 aperture, or would f/2.8 or even f/4.0 be okay for you? You want zoom or prime? Are you using a film camera or a DSLR (APS-C size)?</p>

 

<p>Without knowing what you are looking for, a few that I would start with the following:</p>

 

<p>Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8<br>

Canon 85mm f/1.8<br>

Canon 17-40mm f/4.0<br>

Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0<br>

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5<br></p>

[matt_sainsbury]

I want as low an aperture as possible, I think, as dancing often takes place in the middle of a hall, meaning audience on any side, which I want to blur out as much as possible. I'd prefer prime to zoom, for the simple reason that I don't really want to waste time with zooming, which I know I'd feel compelled to do if I had a zoom lens. And I use a Canon EOS 300D Digital.

 

Thanks for the list though, it's a good place to start my research :)

[mendonphoto]

You still didn't say if you need a wider or narrower view.

 

You prefer changing lenses to zooming? Or, do you have two bodies - one for each lens?

[yakim_peled1]

My vote goes to the 85/1.8 USM.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[matt_sainsbury]

I'm probably going to be looking at a narrower view - stuff like I've already got at my DA account, only taken with a better lens for the situation. (http://danceart.deviantart.com).

 

Is the 85 mm f/1.8 even still available? Canon Aus website dosen't have a listing of it. Though the 100 mm f/2 USM would work similarly well?

[mendonphoto]

I think it's actually a pretty popular prime lens for Canon - maybe second after the 50mm f/1.8. I don't know why Canon would discontinue it. It's still on usa.canon.com.

[athinkle]

The 85 1.8 sounds like a good choice. I've shot dance before and yes, it can be done with primes. I've done pretty much a whole show with a 100mm lens on a film body. The fast aperture of a prime is definitely worth the trade off. One thing I might recommend, if you're dealing with somewhat lower light levels, is a better body. I know I'll probably get shredded for recommending this, as the best long term purchase is always glass, but the 300D has some truly glaring flaws compared to more current bodies. A used 20D, for instance, has a few major benefits: First off, the ability to select partial metering is very, very useful. The 300D is only capable of doing that when you select AE lock. Another benefit, perhaps the most important, is the phenomenal increase in high ISO noise performance. I used to have a 300D before my 20D, and the difference is staggering. Anyway, think about your budget and whether or not you'll really benefit from these differences. Good luck with your decisions.

[lovcom_photo]

Carlos, get your facts straight....actually, most National Geographic photogs use Canon kit, as does Getty Images, Rueters, Sports Illustrated, the list goes on and on and on....check out ANY sporting venue anywhere in the world...it's Canon city, to be sure.

[trenternst]

Looked at your pictures, and I think you could definitely use a slightly longer lens, just to

frame the action tighter. My favourite lens for lowish light action is the 70-200 2.8; I know

you don't like the zoom thing, but it beats running back and forth to get your framing

correctly. Especially in something like dance competition, where it seems to me (having never

shot), having an audience member moving around a lot would be verboten.

 

But if you're looking for a fixed lens, the 100 f2 is a slightly longer lens than the 85, and a

good price point. Some people have complained that the AF is a little slow....I wouldn't know,

as I don't use many primes.

[r._j.]

What's the crop factor on your body, if you're shooting digitally? Good Canon primes are the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 - the latter allegedly a slower focuser than the 1.8.

 

Also good are the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8 - the former is a faster focuser (but a slower aperture).

 

Then there's the 135/2 or, for something wider, the 35/1.4. Everything here is an excellent lens.

[steve.elliott]

Another vote for the 85mm f1.8 - it produces pin sharp images, focusing is very fast and is very good in low light with the f1.8 aperture - and it's cheap for the quality.

 

For the distance you're talking about and the 1.6 multiplyer(136mm) it seems ideal.