Short/medium telephoto lens primarily for action, advice please!

<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]Hi, I am struggling with a decision to be made soon and thought I might ask the forum for some input/advice. This is my situation:<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]I shoot quite a lot of hockey during wintertime and so far I&rsquo;ve mainly used my EF 85/1.8 (on crop body). I&rsquo;ve gone through lots of photos from previous winters and I find myself cropping the 85 mmimages to a size corresponding to about 100-150 mm focal length. Last winter I was considering getting a slightly longer lens in order to reduce cropping and to be able to crop out some closer views. I had a brief look at Canon&rsquo;s 135/2 and 100/2 lenses before I decided to let it wait. Once again I&rsquo;ve raised the question about a longer lens to myself but I&rsquo;m having trouble choosing from a number of options. One more detail to consider is that my hockey shooting sometimes takes place in really poorly lit arenas. For some heavily lit arenas I can use e.g. ISO1600, f/2.8, 1/640 sec, but I&rsquo;ve also been to places where I used ISO1600, f/1.8, 1/400 sec. So far I&rsquo;ve considered ISO1600 as the upper limit of my T1i but maybe I will re-consider after testing my new 7D at higher ISO. Possibly I can move to ISO3200 (or rather ISO2500) if required. Enough background, the options I&rsquo;ve considered are:<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]1)<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]EF 100 f/2, I love my 85/1.8 and would probably like the 100/2 as much. In many ways it&rsquo;s the natural choice but it feels a bit too redundant/similar to my 85/1.8 that I intend to keep (just love it and can&rsquo;t see myself selling it).
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]2)<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]EF 135 f/2, a legendary &ldquo;dream lens&rdquo; but even if I want it badly I believe I would have to come up with some other purpose than hockey shooting in order to trick myself into getting it - I believe it would be a bit too long on a crop body for general hockey (and other indoor) shooting. Pairing it with the 85/1.8 and shoot half of the games with each seems like a nice idea though.
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]3)<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]EF 100 f/2.8 Macro (L IS or non-L?) could be a reasonable option since it has another main purpose than indoor sports. I&rsquo;ve been considering a macro lens but so far I don&rsquo;t have one. If AF operation is good enough for action it could be a smart choice. Of course I would be limited to f/2.8 but maybe I could live with higher ISO than 1600 in poorly lit arenas.
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]4)<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]70-200 f/2.8 L (IS or not) is what many use for hockey. The obvious benefit is of course the possibility to compose without cropping but it also has the obvious drawback of its bulky size and it also doesn&rsquo;t have that extra aperture stop that is really useful in many arenas. I also have the focal length range covered by 70-200 f/4 L IS that is great for outdoor shooting but not very useful for indoor sports.
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]One way out would be to rob a bank and get them all but to be realistic my budget limit is the 135/2 (or the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS that costs about the same). At the moment I&rsquo;m leaning towards the macro option (no. 3 above) that would give me something completely new (macro ability) while it also could be useful as a slightly longer lens for action <span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"](<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]assuming<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"] AF speed is sufficient)<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]and other indoor event<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]s.<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]But this is right now - I&rsquo;ve changed my mind several times so far and will likely do it again.
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]Any input<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="sv"]<span lang="en-us"] <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]for my decision would be highly appreciated.
<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]Finally, since it is a photography forum, a sample photo from a youth game a visited this weekend.<span lang="en-us"][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/6518.IMG_5F00_0578_5F00_ED_5F00_S.JPG[/img]
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"]Exif: EF 85/1.8, ISO1600, f/2.5, 1/640 sec (cropped to 104 mmequivalent)

I own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark I and feel it

How about this. Sell the 70-200mm F4 IS, put that money with the $1,000 or so you intend to spend and get the 70-200mm F2.8L II.


It is heavy, and it is a brick to carry, but it does an excellent job.

@Sean &amp; HDNitehawk - Thanks for your wise advice. I recognize your advice from previous discussions with myself. I

I think the 135mm L would be a good one to have. Personally I like my lenses to have IS, especially the longer ones. I guess I shake to much.


I haven't owned either but given your choice between the 135mm and the 70-200mm Non IS I would go for the 135mm. I doown the 100mm IS macro, it is a great lens as well but the additional 15mm you gain might not be that big of a difference to you.

CLS,


First of all, nice hockey picture. I have never tried to photograph hockey, but what has me a little concerned is that cropping a picture taken with an 85 mm lens to the equivalent to a picture taken with a 100 mm or 135 mm isn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I doown the 100mm IS macro, it is a great lens as well but the additional 15mm you gain might not be that big of a difference to you.

---

And if he were only needing an additional 15mm in focal length, the 100mm f/2 would give him an additional stop at a much lower price...

I think you should sell your 70-200mm f/4L and get a 70-200mm f/2.8L which wiil be the most versatile, as well as allowing you to shoot both ends of the ice. I think this will provide the best focal range for hockey, but youmay have to use ISO 3200 which is pretty good on your 7D, and you could always add some nosie reduction software like Topaz DeNoise.


The 135 f/2L is certainly tempting, but I think you will miss too many shots with the fixed focal length (you will probably be either too close or too far away), since hockey is such a fast moving sport. I think you will be better off sacrificing one f-stop (f/2.8) for the 70-200mm focal range. I also agree with you that the 100mm f/2 is too close to the 85mm f/1.8 and of course the 100mm macro won't add anything for your hockey shots either.


Rich


Edit: Also keep in mind that f/2 has a very narrow DOF, and you will most likely need at least f/2.8 for a little better DOF depending on your subject distance and focal length parameters.

First, we know you don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls

<p dir="ltr"]<span lang="en-us"]<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: x-small"]One way out would be to rob a bank and get them all but to be realistic my budget limit is the 135/2 (or the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS that costs about the same). <span lang="en-us"]<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: x-small"]equivalent)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Can I change my vote to robbing a bank? [:)]


I think the OP just got a new 7D.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

I think the OP just got a new 7D.

---

Ah, I didn't see that. Well, that pretty much rules out a body upgrade (unless he can get enough for a 5D2).

I know this is out of the price range, but the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS, sounds like it is made for this type of shooting. I have only seen a few reports on line and everyone is talking it up.


Rich have you heard anything about this lens yet?


Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I doown the 100mm IS macro, it is a great lens as well but the additional 15mm you gain might not be that big of a difference to you.

---

And if he were only needing an additional 15mm in focal length, the 100mm f/2 would give him an additional stop at a much lower price...

---

Thinking about it a little more, the 100mm IS wouldn't be a good option for what he wants IMO. At f2.8 it has noticeable vignetting on a the 5D II, more so than other lenses I have. Not sure how it would perform on the 7D since I didn't try it, but I do notconsider it a low light lens at all because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

I know this is out of the price range, but the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS, sounds like it is made for this type of shooting. I have only seen a few reports on line and everyone is talking it up.


Rich have you heard anything about this lens yet?


Steve

---

No, I haven't but it sounds interesting!


Rich

The AF on my 100 f/2.8 L IS doesn

Based on your pictures my first choice would be a 70-200mm f/2.8, but the135mm would not be far behind. What noise reduction software do you have? If you are using DDP then you could gain about 2/3 to 1 stop with a good software like DxO, CS5 ext. A 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF is equivalant to a f/1.8 lens on a 1.6 crop camera, but the AF is not as good as your 7D so your only reall option is a 70-200mm (or 200mm f/2.0) and 1Ds III. ;-)


John.

Wow, I really appreciate you all taking your time. And as I was expecting/hoping you have helped me to narrow down my options to 2, the 100 mm options don

Let us know how it goes! And if you end up with the 135, tell me so I can be green with envy.

It also applies for noise. Asuming you have the same sensor technology, the thinner the DOF the better the noise regardless of sensor size. For example, if you look at Bryan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Asuming you have the same sensor technology, the thinner the DOF the better the noise regardless of sensor size. For example, if you look at Bryan's noise comparison you will see 1 1/3 stops better noise with the 5D II than the 7D. You also lose about 1 1/3 stops of DOF, so in order to maintain the DOF I need a aperture 1 1/3 stops faster. Hence the same noise.

---

I'm not sure that I buy this argument, rather, I think you're talking about unrelated phenomena. A larger sensor produces a shallower DoF for the same subject framing, and a larger sensor gathers more total light so the noise is lower. But those two factors are not causally related. Take the statement, "<span>Asuming you have the same sensor technology, the thinner the DOF the better the noise regardless of sensor size," let's assume you have exactly the same sensor - are you saying that a shot at f/2 would have less noise than a shot at f/5.6?


In your example, you're comparing different sized sensors - and you seem to be saying that if one shoots with an aperture 1.33 stops faster on the 7D, that the noise will be equal to that of a 5DII. That's certainly not the case.


Can you provide some clairty, John?


Thanks!

I agree with John. (But wait... which John? Tee hee.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But those two factors are not causally related.

---

No, but both noise and DOF are causally related to iris diameter. But only under certain circumstances/assumptions, and I think you two are assuming slightly different circumstances (e.g. whether exposure duration is the same or not), which I think may explain the disagreement. I'll try laying things out in the way I think of it:


For a given DOF, focus distance, and bellows factor, the only way to get thinner DOF is to increase iris diameter. That increase in diameter is going to reduce image noise by one of two ways: increasing the light intensity over the same amount of sensor area, or increasing sensor area exposed to the same amount of light intensity.


If both sensors have the same sensor technology (e.g. QE, or Quantum Efficiency), are exposed for the same duration, to the same scene (e.g. same flash power), and are intended to achieve the same image brightness, then noise will scale with DOF. Photon shot noise for certain, and often times read noise as well.


So why talk about DOF when the real cause is iris diameter? Because many photographers don't tend to care that much about iris diameter, but they do care about DOF, so explaining in terms of something that is an important factor in composition is more immediately useful. The reason it's possible is because DOF scales linearly with iris diameter when all formats are assumed to have the same AOV, focus distance, and bellows factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Take the statement, "Asuming you have the same sensor technology, the thinner the DOF the better the noise regardless of sensor size," let's assume you have exactly the same sensor - are you saying that a shot at f/2 would have less noise than a shot at f/5.6?

---

I don't know about John, but I would say yes. The reason you may disagree is because you may be assuming a context where it's possible to adjust exposure duration, flash, or ND filters to achieve the same brightness. In cases where that is true, DOF does not scale with noise.


But when duration and other factors are kept the same, then the f/5.6 shot will require either +2 EC in post or two stops higher ISO to have the same brightness as the f/2 shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

In your example, you're comparing different sized sensors - and you seem to be saying that if one shoots with an aperture 1.33 stops faster on the 7D, that the noise will be equal to that of a 5DII. That's certainly not the case.

---

For the circumstances explained above, I think it is the case. At least for photon shot noise and the random part of the read noise. (The 7D and 5D2 do differ a bit in pattern noise, with my preference leaning toward the 7D, but a lot of photographers wouldn't ever go that high anyway.) For example, I think these two shots would have the same noise:


1. 7D, 125mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 640


2. 5D2, 200mm, f/4.5, 1/500, ISO 1600

Thanks for your informative response, Daniel!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I think you two are assuming slightly different circumstances (e.g. whether exposure duration is the same or not), which I think may explain the disagreement.

---

Makes sense - my assumption was that our assumptions were assuming a significant role in the disagreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

For the circumstances explained above, I think it is the case. At least for photon shot noise and the random part of the read noise. (The 7D and 5D2 do differ a bit in pattern noise, with my preference leaning toward the 7D, but a lot of photographers wouldn't ever go that high anyway.) For example, I think these two shots would have the same noise:


1. 7D, 125mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 640


2. 5D2, 200mm, f/4.5, 1/500, ISO 1600

---

Makes perfect sense. However, I suspect that many photographers would instead shoot:





1. 7D, 125mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 640


2. 5D2, 200mm, f/4.5, 1/200, ISO 640


...in which case the noise would be less with the 5DII. Of course, that assumes that 1/200 s would be adequate to stop whatever subject motion was present. But, in Av mode with Auto ISO set, on a 5DII at 200mm, the camera would lower the shutter speed to 1/200 s before it started raising the ISO.

I just went to DOF master and it takes almost exactly (for practical perposes) 1 1/3 stops of aperture to get the same DOF for the 5D II than the 7D, having equivalent FOV.


I was assuming; a higher ISO, different focal length and faster aperture. Hope that makes sense.


Cheers,


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Makes perfect sense. However, I suspect that many photographers would instead shoot:


1. 7D, 125mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 640


2. 5D2, 200mm, f/4.5, 1/200, ISO 640


...in which case the noise would be less with the 5DII.

---

Agreed.

If I could chime in, I really like the 135 f/2. It's fast and what's really nice is that it's fairly light in the bag and small around the neck. I've taken it to an NBA game and out in the woods too, so it is verstatile. I shoot a 7D and like it's reach for sports photography. Hope this help. -Erno


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/427x640/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1665.hoops.jpg[/img]





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/640x427/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/4101.artsy.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

Let us know how it goes! And if you end up with the 135, tell me so I can be green with envy.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

The path to my decision was far from straight. Finally I came to the conclusion that for indoor sports I will stick with my 85/1.8 and, when the lighting is good, I can pair it with the 70-200 f/4. I've been to a couple of arenas with good lighting where I've used 1/500 - ISO3200 - f/4. I'm also positively surprised by the high ISO noise of the 7D. Even at ISO6400 it is quite usable (as I mentioned this is helped by lots of white background in hockey arenas).


If it was only for the indoor sports part I should have either replaced the 70-200 f/4 witha 70-200 f/2.8 or added the 135 f/2. These two are lenses I really desire but they will have to wait because my desire for the EF 100 f/2.8 L IS Macro was even worse. That's what I ended up with, and after a week of getting to know it I am really beginning to like it. So far I don't reallyhave any shots that qualify for sharing but there may be some uploads in the future. (Most photos I've taken so far are extremely detailed close-ups of meaningless subjects that may possibly be considered as optics po*rn - this lens is amazing.)

Congrats, and enjoy shooting all the bugs, flowers and little things of the world!