Sharpness at speed. Which lens?

[ewanbachell]

<p>I am looking for a near-pro quality lens for downhill racing photography. I was looking at the Canon 200 F2.8L Mk2 Lens, but its fixed. Is there something of close quality that is zoom? I have seen the potential sharpness quality of this lens and its very impressive.<br>

I'm not sure of my budget so it doesnt really matter just now. I just need to know whats out there.<br>

I did also think of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. But will it give as good results? </p>

[kari v]

<p>Yep, best fast zoom there is. But do check out price and weight.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>Hello Ewan,</p>

<p>What is downhill racing?</p>

<p>I used to have a 200 f/2.8 and I can vouch for it's sharpness. The 70-200 f/2.8 is by all accounts also very sharp but bear in mind that IS will not help with a moving subject. Unless you are shooting in low light you would be just as well off with the Canon 70-300 IS.</p>

[ewanbachell]

<p>Thanks! This is the type of result im going for. Despite the obvious raw colour editing, theres no denying this is impressively crisp.<br /> This photo is not mine, and should also answer your question john. It was taken with the 200 F2.8L Mk2. 1/5000 at 2.8<br>

That 70-300 isnt an l-series, and its only around £500. Will I get quality results, or am I looking at the wrong lens?<br>

<img src="http://is.pinkbike.com/photo/3538/pbpic3538908.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="998" /></p>

[zml]

<p>Skiing? As usual, the choice of the focal length is conditional upon the camera you'll use (crop/full frame) and where you are located. If you have a pass to the course, a 300 or 400 mm lens would be great on a FF (divide it by your camera's crop factor if you shoot a crop camera.) Zooms are OK but a fixed-focal length lens may give you a faster AF speed unless you go with L zooms. Besides, downhill racing is a fast sport, so you might not have the time to zoom often. If you shoot from the spectator's area (outside the fences) you might need a longer focal length. The EF 100-400 zoom would work in most cases IMO.<br>

Edit: obviously, mountain biking not skiing... 24-70 zoom, 70-200 zoom and (above all) 16-35 zoom or equivalent and don't afraid to get down on you rknees/stomach and get dirty!</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>I have the 70-200 f/4L, and it is very, very sharp. In addition, the autofocus is very fast and precise. Whether you need the f/4 or the f/2.8 depends on the lighting conditions you will be shooting under. If all you will be shooting is fast moving 'objects' in broad daylight, the f/4 will do just fine, and you can save the extra weight (and quite a bit of money). If the light is lower, consider the f/2.8. I have little experience in shooting with IS, so I cannot advise you here, but what John states above makes sense.<br>

The 70-300 IS is not an L-lens.</p>

[ewanbachell]

<p>Although it might be a good investment, at the moment I dont need the big 2.8 so i might go for the 4. Just to be sure is this it? - http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?origin=gbase27.3&prodID=B87918<br>

Usually at races I can get anything to within touching distance, which is often pretty dangerous! But I get some good results with my wide angle. Unfortunately my cheapo Tamron 70-300's af is far too slow.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The sharpness of the lens is likely to be the least of your concerns when shooting such subjects. A high quality zoom that covers the right focal lengths will give you important flexibilty and produce very high quality results.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ewanbachell]

<p>Ok, what lens would you reccommend G Dan? I would rather stick with canon lenses rather than a 3rd party. I'll be using it with a 40D.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>As Henrik suggested I think the 70-200 f/4 might be your best bet. Although the 70-300 IS is a sharp lens (I have one myself) it cannot match the 70-200 f/4 for sheer <em>focussing </em>speed which is vital for fast action. The non-IS version isn't much more expensive than the 70-300. Also you could add a Canon 1.4x for more reach albeit with a slight reduction in focussing speed (no free lunch!).</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I agree there is no reason you couldn't get this shot with the 70-200 F4 (non IS) for $500. Also, this lens works better with a polarizer since the front element does not rotate, like the 70-300 does.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Your other choice - the EFS 70-200 f/2.8 IS - is an outstanding lens. (It is not "near pro" quality - it is actually a pretty standard "pro" lens.) You should be aware though that the image stabilization (IS) feature will have no value when doing the action shots - in fact you would want to turn it off. With that in mind, the non-IS version of this lens would also be fine for what you describe.</p>

<p>Actually, any of the Canon EF 70-200mm L lenses could do the trick here. I assume you'll be shooting in decent light so the f/4 largest aperture of the two versions that come that way might be fine also. The f/4 lenses perform just as well as the f/2.8 versions - by giving up the f/2.8 you gain a smaller and lighter package and you save some money.</p>

<p>If you want to start shooting this stuff now, just get the non-IS EF 70-200mm f/4 L. It is a very fine lens and you can most certainly use it for these subjects. (I use mine for a wide range of subjects including <a href="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/v/HumanWorld/Sports/album_002/">bicycle racing</a> - I'll include a couple examples below.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/3150-3/WomenKeirinMotorAVC20090626.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2301-2/SantaRosaSprint20080218.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[savagesax]

I use both the 100-400, but it's a bit slow focusing. If you prefocus its a remarkably sharp lens. Although it's not my favorite. The 70-200 is 2.8 is my main lens for motorcycle racing. It's actually pretty exciting.<div></div>

[savagesax]

Another image ---<div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ewan</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of the other kind of downhill event (skiing) although usually just Slalom and GS (Downhill and super giant slalom are run less often at kid / youth level). I use a full frame body (1V not more recently a 5DII) and either the 70-200 F2.8 (non IS - as Dan said you do not need IS when you are 1/800 or faster shutter speeds) or the 300 F2.8. The hard part is actually getting focus and the lens plays a big role in this. With Canon the AF sensor of almost all bodies (the 1 series has some limited F8 capability) will only work with a lens that is F5.6 or faster, and as this figure is approached AF performance deteriorates. With an F2.8 or faster lens the AF performance improves as there is additional AF capability with lenses this fast or faster built into some of the sensors. With most Canon bodies (except 1 series) you just have the Center AF point as the extra sensitive cross type that gives better performance with lenses of F2.8 or wider apertures. For best performance you should only select the center AF point (unless you have a 1 series) and put the camera into AI Servo (AI Focus is essentially useless in this case as it is too slow). Keeping the AF point on the racer is important for best results. You will also need a USM lens (the other motors are too slow). The 70-200 F2.8L will work well with skiers up to Super G speeds (110- 1120 km/h). I have not tried the 70-200 F4L but I suspect it will struggle as speeds rise as it is an F4 lens, the 70-200 F2.8L with the 1.4x TC is essentially an F4 lens and it struggles with anything faster than a slalom (approx 50-60 km/h). The 300 F2.8L is clearly faster to focus than the zoom so I suspect that the 200 F2.8L is also faster but have not used it. A friend tried the 100-400 L on a 1D IIN body but found it was having focus problems so he swiched to the 70-200 F2.8L. the final complicating factor is when you do not have a long section to track the skier - e.g. the come over a jump or into view - in this case you really need a 1 series body as the 5DII is not fast enough. Sorry if I have not answered you question but for this stuff your choice is really either the F2.8 prime or the F2.8 zoom. You will find that if you are close to the action (I usually shoot ski racing from on the course at amateur events) you will not get much extra utility out of the zoom as you are mainly focused on tracking the action and keeping the racer in frame and the AF point on their body. Even in a slalom race the racer is doing about 13m every 0.75 secondsso you only get about 3-4 seconds of good shots. In faster events you get even less and I think (from watching) that downhill mountain biking is about the same speed as a slalom skier.<br>

For the best results just getting one key point on the course gets the best results. A 300mm lens focused on a gate (turn) higher above you will generally get better shots than a 200mm lens focused on a nearer point due to the way you can frame the action. Something to think about (I learnt it from the top Canadian professional ski racing photographer) is that if you can get down really low, for example lie on the course, you can get really great shots. Of course lying down on a race course is very dangerous but if you can find a safe spot try it.</p>

<p>If you think the speeds are slow enough and the direction changes limited then the 70-200 F4L may be worth a look. It has very high image quality and is much cheaper than the F2.8. For ski racing the F4 lens does not focus fast enough as the skier is either going very fast or making a lot of rapid direction changes</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I second getting a 70-200 2.8 lens. Not having a pro body you're already going to be challenged with slower focusing. By getting the 4L you'll be slowing the focusing down even more. Get the best lens you can for the money and when the time comes and you can get a pro digital body then at least you won't have to upgrade the lens as well to get the fastest focusing speed possible.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I did also think of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. But will it give as good results?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. As it is a zoom it will it give you better results.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

[ewanbachell]

<p>Wow thank you so much guys, especially to you Phillip, that explaination is staggering. Thats given me a lot to think about. Although most of the racing I shoot won't be as fast as skiing, some of it is so I think the speed of the 2.8 would be a better investment. Even though it is twice the price, I presume you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>So from the sounds of it, the best thing to go for would be the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (Non IS)<br /> Obviously a lens a good picture does not make, but the current lens I have is nothing but a hindrance.<br>

The canon can be had for around £850, which isn't too bad.</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Chad stated "I second getting a 70-200 2.8 lens. Not having a pro body you're already going to be challenged with slower focusing. By getting the 4L you'll be slowing the focusing down even more. Get the best lens you can for the money and when the time comes and you can get a pro digital body then at least you won't have to upgrade the lens as well to get the fastest focusing speed possible."<br>

<br />I respectfully disagree with this strongly......I have a 40D, 70-200 F/4L, and 400 F5.6L that I use as my bread and butter auto racing equipment. To say this combo is to slow for high speed objects is totally untrue. I used a 2.8 version of the 70-200 and found no difference whatsoever in focusing speed. The extra weight and cost was not worth it IMHO and I sold it for the F/4 version. Its all in tecnique and camera settings. AF set on servo mode, center focus point only, shutter speeds from 1/500 to 1/1000 in daylight is more then enough, ISO 200-400 and you are good to go. My keeper ratio is about 80%, here is an example of how crisp the 70-200 F/4L is, the car is doing about 140MPH in this shot. PS....I have sold many photos and have been published on several racing/vintage websites so how bad can the equipment be!?</p><div></div>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Example photo, my 200/2.8L at f/4 1/2000 s.<br>

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/93/08/2120893-867cf99a422941d0.jpg<br>

For some reason the bokeh came out a bit nervous looking. Usually this is not a problem with this lens.<br>

Now, for downhill bike racing. A 70-200 would be a very good choice. Zoom gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of composition. If you're shooting bright daylight then f/4 would be plenty, but when conditions are overcast ir if you want more selective focus then f/2.8 would be the way to go. As pointed out, IS won't do much for you. Canon makes a fantastic 70-200/2.8. Sigma and Tamron make less expensive versions.</p>

<p>As for autofocusing, for the example photo you posted I suggest prefocusing, turning off AF, turning on rapid-fire, and shooting a burst as the rider comes across the hill.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>My preference is for the best primes, like the 200/2.8 L, since they are sharper and more contrasty with better bokeh than zooms. However you should be absolutely sure that a prime lens will fit your shooting positions. Have you tried taking these types of images yourself, and if so, what focal length have you found to be most successful?</p>

[ewanbachell]

<p>I'm not looking for a prime, just a zoom since I don't think it will fit my shooting positions. A fixed lens will be a bit of a hindrance but thanks.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Ewan, I take it you are in the UK? If so, the low light issues you Brit's have to deal with (I'm an expat) would get me to lean towards F2.8 over F4.<br>

A good mate of mine just exchanged his 70-200 F4 IS for the F2.8 version, he's a bird spotter. He needed a high shutter speed and the cloudy days in that Green and Pleasant land were not helpful at F4.<br>

Most of us in the US and Canada are a lot further south than you and F4 is much less of an issue here. Just something to consider!</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"So from the sounds of it, the best thing to go for would be the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (Non IS)"</em></strong></p>

<p>I use this lens extensively, but usually for slower sports. I did cover some snowboarding several months ago, and for it I borrowed the IS version specifically for that "downhill" type of event.</p>

<p>The reason I took the 70 to 200F2.8L IS, <em><strong>was to use the IS specifically when panning, downhill shots at a slower Tv.</strong></em> I do not think this point has been mentioned. So IS might have value to you, as <em><strong>there are some uses for IS in sports capture, of this "downhill" type.</strong></em><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br />Also, if you buy the 70 to 200F/2.8, do consider if you will ever be using this lens for any other purpose – I am happy with my purchase BUT I do have access to an IS version if I need it.</p>

<p>Also I concur with Philip here: <em>"For the best results just getting one key point on the course gets the best results."</em> i.e. establishing a good camera viewpoint is half the battle - I recall mentioning this point on one of your earlier questions, it was re flash lighting, I think.</p>

<p>Also regarding Focus: do not dismiss attempting a pre focus point, if you are having difficulty with the AF especially for those more toward the head on shots. Even for direct straight head Subject Movement - one can pull good shots using a pre focus point, with practice.</p>

<p>WW</p>