View Full Version : Indoor sports options
I've been shooting my daughter playing high school and club volleyball for three years now and I'm still looking for the perfect lens (or set of lenses). The lighting is anywhere from terrible to worse and I'm not happy with a lot of motion blur on the ball or the player's hands (fastest moving bits). Therefore, I usually want to shoot at 1/1000 (doesn't quite stop the ball on a spike, but close to sharp on most other moving bits). I have the 1Dx and can live with the noise up to ISO 6400, but really see a drop off versus even ISO 3200. I have been shooting with the following lenses: 85 1.2L II (the fastest aperture, but slow focus - works well for following one player but not the overall action, focal length is about right for most venues where I can walk along the side of the court); 70-200 2.8L II (ideal choice in good light - I rarely have good light); 200 2.0L (great lens, a little too long a focal length at times, but get beautiful shots when the lame photographer ;) can keep players in the frame). My question is about adding the 135 2.0L and it's performance in terms of IQ, AF etc....:confused: From viewing the ISO charts on this site, it seems just a little less sharp and contrasty than the 70-200 II at 135mm (2.0 -vs- 2.8), which might be good enough for my purposes (95% of shots just posted on-line, 5% processed and printed up to A3 size, but I confess that my own satisfaction comes from as perfectly sharp an image as possible even if I am the only person to ever blow it up on the big screen high res monitor and go 'wow'). So, 135 f2 - sharp enough? Other lens options? (I sold a canon 100 f2.0 b/c it didn't satisfy my IQ requirements.)
I wished for a 100mm f1.4L w IQ like the 200 f2L, but Santa Canon did not deliver - yet.....
erno james
03-11-2013, 06:21 PM
In regards to the 135 f/2L, all i can say is GET IT GET IT GET IT! I too shoot high school volleyball; managed to get my lens to an NBA game. You'll love this lens!
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5106/5612010233_0456cfa173_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ernogy/5612010233/)
Sacramento Kings vs Oklahoma City Thunder (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ernogy/5612010233/) by ernogy (http://www.flickr.com/people/ernogy/), on Flickr
Typical high school gym lighting, not as good as the pro arenas of course but the 135 f/2 is fast
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5050/5240481272_fe116886f9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ernogy/5240481272/)
Your Serve (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ernogy/5240481272/) by ernogy (http://www.flickr.com/people/ernogy/), on Flickr
ahab1372
03-11-2013, 06:22 PM
If you like the 85mm - have you considered the EF 85mm f/1.8? I haven't tried it for sports, but it has been recommended as the fast AF alternative to the L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
neuroanatomist
03-11-2013, 06:51 PM
I think the 135L would be a great choice - it's an excellent lens for indoor sports, AF is fast and accurate.
Thanks Erno - great shots.
IMHO, the 85 1.8 just doesn't have the necessary IQ, so even if it focusses fast enough, the fact that my 85 1.2L II beats it easily in sharpness (especially center) at 1.8 rules it out. I'm willing to miss a few shots due to being OOF with the 1.2 b/c the ones in focus look great. The 135 would be a better focal length to shoot my daughter who is an outside hitter b/c across court is the best angle to get her in action.
I'm almost convinced on the 135.... Thanks for the feedback.
1734
Here's one from Saturday. 1Dx, 200 f2L, 1/1000, f2, ISO 6400. Only slightly cropped w the 200mm cross court.
If you cant get the 200 F2.0 the next best lens is the 135 f2.0
great lens for indoor sports, just make sure you use single spot focus.
erno james
03-13-2013, 09:02 PM
that is one sweet shot Vern! u sure u need a new lens?
that is one sweet shot Vern! u sure u need a new lens?
Careful erno or I'll think you've spoken to my wife :rolleyes:
I always need a new lens....
Seriously though, last w/e was the first time I used the 200 for VB and I am pretty happy with the shots. The 135 would be better for some positions though. That shot is almost uncropped so the framing is pretty tight at 200mm. While I like the 70-200 zoom best when there is plenty of light (like at college events), once I put on a prime, I defintely think more about how to make the most of it. Zooms tend to encourage me to stand still and let the lens do the walking/framing.
here's a shot I really like (though it would be better w the girls hands in the frame)
1736
clemmb
03-14-2013, 03:33 AM
Careful erno or I'll think you've spoken to my wife :rolleyes:
I always need a new lens....
Seriously though, last w/e was the first time I used the 200 for VB and I am pretty happy with the shots. The 135 would be better for some positions though. That shot is almost uncropped so the framing is pretty tight at 200mm. While I like the 70-200 zoom best when there is plenty of light (like at college events), once I put on a prime, I defintely think more about how to make the most of it. Zooms tend to encourage me to stand still and let the lens do the walking/framing.
here's a shot I really like (though it would be better w the girls hands in the frame)
1736
Vern, I like the shot. I think the 135 would be a great lens for you.
In the upper left corner, looks like your sensor needs some cleaning :rolleyes:
Vern, I like the shot. I think the 135 would be a great lens for you.
In the upper left corner, looks like your sensor needs some cleaning :rolleyes:
Good spot Mark - I'll check some other images to see if that smudge is consistently present. New 1Dx, but I remember Bryan reporting on oil spots on his out of the box.
clemmb
03-15-2013, 03:48 AM
The indoor sports images you guys post look great. When I have shot indoor sports I get a yellow-brown wave that moves through the frame depending on where the 60cycle is. I have put the camera on rapid fire and you can see it in a different spot in each frame. Have you guys experienced this?
This was shot with the 100f2@ f2.5. I still have this lens but do not use it much. To get it as sharp as my 24-105 I have to stop it down to nearly f4 and the color is not as good either.
1737
Hi Mark,
I have had the same problem at some locations - including the two shots I posted above. I have attributed it to what I think (speculation really) are high pressure sodium lamps that cycle with the line current. Not only does the luminance vary, but apparently the color temp does too. I do a click white balance for each shot I want to keep (using the ball or numbers on jerseys as white reference), but some colors are still off across the frame - is there such a thing as a color temp gradient to apply in post jrw? I haven't noticed this effect when the bulbs are clearly simple fluorescents.
btw - since I needed some sensor cleaning supplies (per Mark's comment above), I also ordered the 135 f2, seemed efficient that way :o
andnowimbroke
03-15-2013, 04:57 PM
Lightroom 4 has kelvin temperature I believe you can use in gradients. I still have version 3 and use the preset colors for my gradients. Works great for going from incandescent in one part of the room to window lighting on the other end.
And yes, that was very efficient on your purchase:) Shipping cost is the same either way. Completely logical. Of course, I am an addict of canon gear and show a slight bias towards those purchases.
clemmb
03-18-2013, 03:53 AM
btw - since I needed some sensor cleaning supplies (per Mark's comment above), I also ordered the 135 f2, seemed efficient that way :o
I'm jealous :rolleyes:. I was at the Texas Professional Photographers Association's photography trade show in Dallas today. I got to play with a 1Dx with the 135f2 mounted. Someday I'll own this lens:p. Had to settle for a Suzette Allen's photoshop recipe box and a DVD photoshop design kit by Richard Sturdevant.
See if I can improve my photogrshop skills. Talking with Suzette showed me just how much I don't know:rolleyes:
178917901791
Here's a lens comparison from last w/e's VB tournament. The server was shot w the 135mm f2.0, 1/640 at f2, ISO 6400 w the 1Dx; blockers were shot w the 200mm f2.0, same settings; bump set with the 85mm 1.2L, at 1/1000 at f1.6, ISO 6400. All were processed in DPP w the same settings. After looking at a few hundred shots, I'm happy with the 135mm as an indoor option but the 200mm is noticeably sharper, as is the 85mm if stopped down to f2 or so. The 135 is super light (compared to the 200) and does focus much faster than the 85, as expected. With these three lenses, I think I can do a decent job in low light VB locations. If the lighting allows, the 70-200 f2.8L II can cover all these focal lengths with great AF, sharpness and contrast that is pretty comparable.
BTW - this location once again had high pressure sodium lights (not fluorescent) with the same varying brightness and color temp. I did not try the gradient color correction - just click white balance in DPP.
Thanks for the advice and feedback.