Sports/Action lens?

[William W]

OK.
I am sometimes unsure - written words, you know . . .
and Owensboro is a long way away . . .
I can't get good eye contact or see the body language . . .

Until next time
CU later . . .
Good shooting
WW

[speedneeder]

Thanks Bill

Myra needs a 70-200 f2.8, but then, don't we all?

[Maritimer1]

And Myra wants a 70-200 f/2.8 Forget the IS. I'd rather have the lighter version and use a tripod if and when I need it. The funny thing here is, to me anyway, I don't even like hockey. When my own son played, I used to sit in the van and read. I wouldn't even consider wasting two seconds of my life watching it on TV, despite that the son and husband have it tuned it quite often. I just really like following and trying to capture the action. All those sets on my flickre page are games played over the past two year by a team my husband works with. I just document each game for the players and their families and for the programs that are printed up for the home games. (My husband does those, so it's all in the family.)

I'll try 3200 iso again, and play around with the settings (I always shoot sports in manual and for hockey always at 1.8 with my 85mm), but I find my hockey photos become too bleached and plasticy looking after using the amount of noise reduction needed in pp. They do not look anywhere near as good as Brian's. I know it's a common saying that it's better to get a bad picture than no picture... I'd rather get no picture. I'd just end up deleting it.

Really happy to have had all these responses to read and think about!

[speedneeder]

Myra, I have tried NR in DPP and LR, both make my photos look plasticy and I don't like it.
I don't use NR on any photos I take.

[Colin Southern]

Myra needs a 70-200 f2.8, but then, don't we all?

I don't ...

... already got it

[William W]

I don't use NR on any photos I take.

Nor do I - very rarely, very sparingly.
I re-iterate (to Myra) - that correct exposure when using high ISO, is critical.

WW

[Maritimer1]

I don't ...

... already got it

Oh, you're a funny one, Colin You're also probably a huge part of the reason why I want one!

William, I find that to get correct in-camera exposure I have to use f1.8 (85mm lens) and can go no higher than 1/400 with iso 1600 or my photos are underexposed. With anything over 1000 iso I need to use the noise reduction in ACR (CS5) for luminance, in particular. Not a lot, but I need it. Maybe I have just shot the goodness out of my 40D. I've had the shutter replaced once a year and a half ago, and have put close to 20000 on it since then. It likely needs to be cleaned again, as well. Haven't a clue whether age etc effects such things.

[Colin Southern]

Maybe I have just shot the goodness out of my 40D.

A 1Dx will be what you need ... I'll let you know how mine performs when I get it in (hopefully) a few weeks

[speedneeder]

Colin, if you don't need yours, send it to me.

Thanks

[Dave Humphries]

I'll try 3200 iso again, and play around with the settings (I always shoot sports in manual and for hockey always at 1.8 with my 85mm), but I find my hockey photos become too bleached and plasticy looking after using the amount of noise reduction needed in pp.

Hi Myra,

What are you using for NR?

Cheers,

[William W]

I find that to get correct in-camera exposure I have to use f1.8 (85mm lens) and can go no higher than 1/400 with iso 1600 or my photos are underexposed. With anything over 1000 iso I need to use the noise reduction in ACR (CS5) for luminance, in particular. . . .

40D and EF85F/1.8 in low light - Indoor Sports Arena.

Assuming one has correct exposure, we will most likely find better overall results if:

 you stick with either ISO1600 or ISO3200 (i.e. not use ISO1000; 1250; 2000 or 2500).
 you use the EF 85F/1.8 at either F/2 (i.e. not at F/1.8).
 you use a lens hood.
 you do NOT use a filter.

The reasons are various, but in summary – we are seeking to reduce work at a more efficient signal to noise ratio; work the lens at an aperture where we can better leverage the contrast curve, especially for soft light; minimize Flare, especially Veiling Flare.

The accumulative effects of each of these elements should not be underestimated: and whilst every element might not directly “make more noise”, each element listed will add to the APPEARANCE of noise.

In any case, within these guidelines one will find will be better overall repetitive technical results for that lighting scenario and that rig.

IF when using a 40D, you have such low light that you are regularly at ISO3200 and still only pulling Tv = 1/640s, then although they are magnificent lenses – the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM or the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM are NOT the best choice for you to get greater reach: ideally the EF135F/2L USM is the best choice, and then the EF100F/2, but the latter only gains 15mm on your 85/1.8 and assuming the Photographer having a choice of two lenses the gain of FoV from 85 to 100 can be better achieved by cropping the 85 shot.

The 135/2L can be used at F/2, with extreme confidence in this type of lighting situation and the AF is lightning fast.

Obviously if we get more serious about this idea of having two Prime Lenses to replace a Zoom Lens (e.g. 85 and 135 vs. 70 to 200), the kit is complete with a second body – and this might also be a better option financially – for example what’s the cots of a second hand 40D / 50D – or better - a new 60D.

Regarding your comment about wanting a 70 to 200/2.8L – and you NOT wanting the IS version: I strongly advise you to think long and hard about that opinion and the rationale on which that opinion sits.

It is very rare, that over the working life of any 70 to 200 lens, that there will be so few situations where IS will not be useful - that it is the better choice to buy the non-IS version; alternatively, very few Photographers have the facility to own (or have access to) two versions – those who do often chose the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM and the EF70 to 200F/4 IS USM as these two are the guts choice of the original four. However, with the release of the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM and the superior IQ of this lens, compared to the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM, I expect fewer will choose to own two versions.

Also in all of this, it must be remembered that when shooting indoor sports action under appalling lighting; F/2 is the limit of Aperture of most of the useful lenses. Obviously, considering that we do not wish to prostitute the Tv (Shutter Speed), we only have remaining the leverage of ISO.

This has always been the situation - to have faster ASA / ISO for indoor sports - and Panchromatic Film was pushed to ISO 6400 in some instances, just to make the shot (and usually with an F/3.2 lens).

What I am saying is, you simply cannot make more light, so if the lenses are at the limit of Aperture and you are at the limit of the Tv to freeze action - then the next logical step is to really consider the next purchase be a camera and that purchase predicted on the camera's extreme ISO capacity – ISO capacity above for example, Frame Rate or other functionalities.

I have used all the lenses I have mentioned in similar lighting scenarios to your low light Ice Hockey Rinks (except the 100/2); and whilst not having used a 40D I have used a 30D and also a 50D: but I am reasonably au fait with the limits and parameters of the 40D as a close colleague still uses one as the back up body in her kit.

WW

PS > It has always been assumed that you are Post Producing the raw file and that you are adequately sharpening - two stage sharpening.

Colin Southern MUST have a tutorial lurking somewhere, specifically about sharpening of soft, low light, high ISO sharpening techniques.

[Maritimer1]

Thanks for the great replys. William, I wish I had read your last post before leaving for the Provincials on Sunday. Dave, I bought the educator's version of CS5 a few months ago, so I use the NR in ACR.

Warning: My photo limit per post is going to exceed all limits. On Sunday, I played around a little bit, keeping in mind William's post about using 1600. I didn't want to stray too far from what I usually do as (1) this was their most important day to date and (2) I was in a new, even darker/older rink and wanted to cling to tried and true f/1.8.

So, using ISO 1600 and a shutter speed of 1/500, this is what I came up with. There has been some NR, cropping, and USM (for original size and then for smaller sized file). There may be a tiny bit of lightening via levels in a couple. I honestly can't remember at this stage. The aperture used is under each photo.



IMG_9353 by M.J. Hencher, on Flickr

f/1.8



IMG_9035 by M.J. Hencher, on Flickr

f/2 (shot through dirty plexiglass. I know I used levels in this one.)


IMG_9615 by M.J. Hencher, on Flickr

f/2.2


I decided to try a shutter speed of 1/640 at f/2


IMG_9316 by M.J. Hencher, on Flickr


I used f/2.8 at 1/320 when taking a small group shot. I was fairly close and did not have to shoot through glass. I was afraid to go to 2.8 for the action shots as these were the most important games of the year to date so didn't want to experiment too much.


IMG_9892 by M.J. Hencher, on Flickr

(That's my husband. It's his fault I have to ask all these questions about hockey photography )


What did I learn? Yes, ISO 1600 is OK on the 40D. Yes, I think I still need some NR with anything above ISO 1000 to avoid luminance issues in players' faces. An aperature of f/2.2 is fine for action shots up to 1/500...1/640 maybe.

William, you are right about considering another camera. I've been thinking about keeping an eye out for a 7D. Do you think that would be a reasonable option? My idea of not going IS with the 70-200 was more of a weight and cost issue. Numerous times I have read about how heavy the IS version is. As you know, the arms can be up for hours when shooting sports, and my shoulders are starting to complain... Indeed, the ability to hand hold the lens in low light situations (concerts, for example) would be lovely; however, my budget may not stretch far enough for the newer 70-200. Colin and others would "need" that lens; I would only "want" it. Becoming a full time, professional photographer is not on my agenda. A teacher by trade, (and might I add that your grammar and phrasing is beautiful) I simply want to produce the best photographs I can with whatever equipment I have.

Again, thank you all for making this a great discussion. I have a lot to think about now.