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

[cls]

<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)

[Sean Setters]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[cls]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Sean Setters]

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...

[Kayaker72]

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

[Richard Lane]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

First, we know you don

[Richard Lane]

<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