Hello. I'm debating between getting a 70-200 f/4 or a 200 f/2.8. I will probably use this for some everyday use, but really want it to photograph indoor sports, mainly basketball. I was wondering if the f/4 would be usable in gym coditions...I use a 40D and don't mind bumping up the ISO. I need my budget to stay under 600 dollars and don't mind buying used. Thanks in advance for all your help.
Originally Posted by calmars
f/4 is definitely too slow for gym conditions unless you can shoot usable shots at ISO 500,000. Even f/2.8 is rather slow. For Gym, 200mm is a bit too long also. For basketball the 135 f/2 is probably your best choice, on 1.6x crop the 100 f/2 and even 85 f/1.8 are also very good. But f4? No way.
Good Luck!
brendan
The f/4 aperture will be insufficient. In your budget I'd recommend the EF 100mm f/2 USM. If you feel you absolutely need something a little longer, the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM - but, even f/2.8 is sketchy in gymnasium lighting. The EF 135mm f/2L is the 'ideal' indoor sports lens, but a bit outside your stated budget.
It really depends on the gym. For most high schools, you're barely pushing a 1/500 shutter speed at iso3200 and 2.8. For alot of NCAA and NBA, f/4 is usable, but you're losing on valuable focusing speed.
Thank you all for your input. I thought that is what you would say, but hoping you wouldn't, anyways I'll look into the lenses you mentioned!
Thanks Again
Calmars;
As Grant mentioned; it depends on the gym (lighting)and I'll add depends on what you want the pix for; memories or published (higher IQ).
A couple years back (no clue about gymnasium shooting nor much else) a friend ask me to shoot one of his daughter's final H.S. volleyball games for "memories".
I said sure and packed up my 40D and my only lens at the time, the 17-85 IS f/4-5.6. I found the 17-85 range to be great for capturing the action, but obviously the variable f stops were too slow. This brings me back to my point...what are the photos for?
If they're just for memories and as you said, you don't mind pushing the ISO, IMO you can get away w/the f4.
Example; f/5, 1/250, 38mm, ISO 3200
Not the greatest IQ, but my friends werepleased w/the results.
Good luck
Bill
I would totally suggest the 2.8. I shoot basketball at my university and I use a 5d and a 70-200 2.8 IS. I use an ISO of 3200 and shoot at either 2.8 or 3.2 depending on how much vignetting I want there to be. I have used a 24-105 f4 for basketball in the same gym....in short, you can use f4 for basketball, but your ISO will have to be higher. Here are some examples of what 2.8 can do in a smaler gym.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs189.snc3/19637_529732065833_30202356_31392879_8087377_n.jpg
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs189.snc3/19637_529732030903_30202356_31392872_6219224_n.jpg
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs169.snc3/19637_529732085793_30202356_31392883_7734825_n.jpg
neuroanatomist:
I couldn't agree more. I shot a HS game about a month ago using my 70-200 2.8 @ ISO 4000 and still could only get about 1/320. I cranked it up to ISO 5000 which yielded photos with significant noise. I'm using a 7D and the 70-200 was too much reach. I'm planning to rent a 135 f2L the next time. All the best.
f/2.8 is barely usable for indoor sports. I used my 70-200mm f/2.8 for an indoor BMX show. ISO 1600 was the slowest I could go for 1/250 sec shutter. I know its not a basketball game, but I'm sure the lighting would be similar.
You cant see it as much in the sized-down photo, but the noise is pretty obvious on prints. I only used 85mm and I was a fair distance away. Of course in basketball you would want to fill the frame more, but they'll also be much closer. I think the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2 would be a good choice.
Canon 50D w/ 70-200mm f/2.8L @ 85mm 1/250 sec f/2.8 ISO 1600
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.66/IMG_5F00_3592.jpg[/img]
The alternative route, if you're set on the f/4, involves strobing the gym with either speedlights (difficult, see Strobist for examples) or a pair of strobes (AB400,800,1600 or Einsteins). The light remains portable, but you're left with the issue of carrying around a Vagabond pack/finding outlets and a slower recycle time. It makes for some killer light, but longer setup andstrobes don't help in providing enough light to focus quickly. I'll try and find a few photos from this past season.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
