Help with lens for sports

[MrT]

Hi I need help with ideas on a len(s) for basketball.


Currently I have a 7d with 50 1.8, 85 1.8, and 70-200 2.8


I use the 85 most of the time, but at times it's both too short and too long, if I had to pick one I would say something a little longer. What would seem to work, Cannon doesn't make 24-105 2.8


The 24-70 2.8 would be ok but short on the long end for some of the shots.


Thought of maybe going with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 a cannon prime 135 2.0 or 100 2.0 (but is the 15mm enough of a change over the 85?


Thanks for the ideas


MrT

[IAMB]

What you need is a second body. The 70-200 2.8 is long enough to reach the other end of the gym but short enough to take full-body shots at the 3 point line closest to you (if you're positioned under the hoop). However, you need something shorter for any action happening right on top of you. You need one body with the 70-200 and then a second with the 24-70. It is possible to use the 24-105 for basketball (I've been doing it for a couple of years on my second body) but you have to be comfortable with the high ISO performance of your body. In the case of the 7D, I don't think it'll be much of an issue.

[Bill W]

Mr T, IMO you have it; 70-200 2.8. You may, rarely, find it a bit too tight, but on the whole for a basketball game....its the do all lens.


I've photographed various sports in decently lighted gyms w/a 40D, 17-85 IS 4/5.6. Granted, I had to bump the ISO to 1600 for some shots and they weren't Sports Illustrated caliber, but still very good under the circumstances.


The 2.8 will make all the difference in the world w/a 7D...lower ISO and better noise control....with great versatility.


I'm doing some college hockey games in the next few weeks and I will be shooting w/a 70-200 IS 2.8....whether it will be rented or purchased depends upon how much damage I do buying gifts for Christmas. LOL


Regards


Bill

[Colin]

I second the notion of a second body...


70-200 2.8 should be good with a high ISO. Limitations may or may not be the shutter speed you can get ifthey flicker enough to show up.


a 135 f2 would indeed be nice, but a fixed prime is far less flexible. Would be nice to have both available, on separate bodies

[MrT]

Thanks everyone for you ideas. Bill W. what shutter speed are you getting with your ISO and aperture settings. When I go with 2.8 and 1,600 I am at 500 or below. Is that ok in your experience for basketball.


I will try using the 70-200 as I do have flexability in being able to move around some. I could use a Rebel with the 50mm 1.8 maybe set to 400-800 ISO for my close up camera.


Thanks again


MrT

[Brendan7]

I have used the 135mm f/2 and while you miss some shots, the ones you do get will outclass the competition.


I highly recommend it......


BB

[Bill W]

Mr T....from my notes; my shots were between ISO 1000 and 3200 and state most shots were in ISO 1000-1600 range. I was able to shoot 1/50 to 1/1250, w/most in the 1/125-1/500 range.


Sorry I dumped all b-ball pix and only kept these 2 volley-ball shots (my first gym shoot and both shoots were of friends' children) as 2 examples of 2 extremes; 1/50 shutter speed (too slow) and 3200 ISO on the 40D w/17-85 f4-5.6 IS


properties f5, 1/50, ISO 1250, 44mm








properties f5.2, ISO 3200, 1/250, 38mm








Please, I'm not saying the primes wouldn't be better IQ, I'm just saying; I found the 17-85mm to be sufficient reach (x1.6) in the gym and obviously more versatile than a prime...e.g. select 1 player for a close up and then re-compose to include most players on the court.


So IMHO, I think you have the court covered w/your 2 lenses and 2 bodies, though I prefer 1 lens, 1 body, but that's me.


Get there early to experiment w/ISO, f/stops and shutter speeds, have fun and don't forget to post some shots....


Regards


Bill

[weclickyoupick.com]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.20/billy-smaller.jpg[/img]MrT,


I shoot basketball a lot lately and I've used the 24-70 2.8L and my 135 2L on my 7D. I found that the 24-70, while more options in focal length,that I wasmissing shots on the other end of the zoom (24 vs 70) and vice versa. I found that the lower ISO I get with opening that 135 2L all the way (AWESOME lense BTW) and the fact that I simply just work with the fixed focal length.....I'm able to predict where I need to be on any given play down the court as I'm dealing with less options.


My vote would be for the 135 2L only because I've never used the 100 2. If it's as crystal clear as this 135.....then 100mm would be a more optimal focal length if your courtside. If your in the stands then stick with 135mm.


It's going to have to be awfully clear, though, to top this 135 f2L.

[weclickyoupick.com]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.20/the-pick-smaller.jpg[/img]


Mr T,


The previous post and this one were both taken with the 135 2L. I just had to share this "PICK"
one as this boy was a gauntlet all day. Again....if the 100mm f 2 is as clear as my first post....then take that one as it will be a more robust focal length. Otherwise this 135mm L works great. Again....just using a single focal length forces you to work with that as opposed to adding the focal length variable in the 24-70mm 2.8L. Doesn't sounds logical....but after shooting 3000 frames this past weekend....I enjoyed eliminating variables.


Good luck!


Jeff


www.weclickyoupick.com

[MrT]

Thanks Jeff,


I will try using my 70-200 set to 135 and keep it there for a game and see how it works for me. I new the 135 would give quality photos, now I need to see if its the correct focal length for me.


Your last picture is wonderfull, new meaning to pick and "roll".


I'll send some photos after the next game.


MrT