Question for Dan....

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Dan I know you do an awful lot of indoor sports,if you could only choose 1 of these focal lengths for indoor sports,which would it be? [basketball,volleyball]

85mm

100mm

200mm

[finnbay]

MM - I know this question was intended for Dan, but I'll put my two cents worth in, too. Only 1? That's tough. I try to get at least two perspectives during each contest - close up individuals and action with both teams represented. With the first, I usually use a 300, and with the later have a 70-200 that I'm changing constantly. If I had to choose only one, I'd probably go with the 100 and use a lot of foot zoom to get the shots I'd need.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Thanks Finn, I should have noted the 85mm is a F1.8,the 100mm is a F2.0 and the 200mm would be the 2.8

the 70-200 2.8 is out as i'm saving for a 500 F4L IS,but the 85 and the 100 are fast and can be had pretty cheap. The 200mm 2.8 L is also very affordable,and could double as a bird blind lens.

I'm just not sure if 2.8 is fast enough indoors?

I don't mind moving around to get shots-lets me check out all the "Hot Moms" in the Gym.

[Steve Foss]

I don't have as much experience on flashless indoor sports as Dan or Ken, but the 85 is VERY popular. I've used both the 1.8 and the 1.2L for some indoor sports and quite a bit more indoor band performance photography, and the 1.8 is quite good, especially for the price, and focuses a lot faster than the 1.2L.

Sure do envy you the possibility of the 500. That's likely to stay out of my budget for a LONG time.

Anyway, I know Dan's working tonight, but he'll certainly chime in with excellent feedback when he's done working.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Thanks Steve,I'm 2/3rds there to owning the 500,but why is that last 1/3rd the hardest? something always fouls it up! the last time it fouled up I almost dropped the hammer on the 300 2.8 IS

Was the 85 you used fairly sharp?

 Quote:

Anyway, I know Dan's working tonight

I didn't know he had to wrench on the planes,I thought he just flew 'em.

[Steve Foss]

I think Dan's working with his cameras, not his jets.

MM, what fouls you up on the last third is buying things like the 85, 100 or 200, don't you know!

The 85 1.8 I used was sharp. Not as sharp as the 1.2L MkII, which is simply a brick and a phenomenal piece of glass, but even with the motor upgrade in the MkII it's not as fast focusing as the 1.8, and in sports and some types of performance photography that meant I had too few in-focus keepers to suit me. It was more a problem in sports than band performance.

The 85 I used was at least as sharp as the 70-200 series lenses I've used, and those are Canon's sharpest zooms.

Budget is also a big consideration for me, and if I did more indoor band work (fingers crossed) or went back to indoor sports regularly, it'd be the 1.8 for me and I'd be happy with that.

Of course, I've used my 100 f2.8 Canon macro for indoor sports and performance and weddings, too, and that's another possibility. A bit slower than the 1.8, obviously, but you get your macro flexibility with it, and it focuses lightning fast and is wicked sharp. I've shot the 135 f2L for two indoor band gigs, and it's every bit as sharp as the 100 macro, but doesn't focus any faster, and the macro doesn't lose that much comparatively in aperture. Plus the price difference.

Ahhh, choices. Is that 500 starting to feel a LONGER ways off?

Any of these choices (except in some situations the 200) will double as a nice tight portrait lens for studio or outdoor work, too. I use my 100 macro for that a lot.

[Dbl]

Hey MM as Steve said I was working my other full time job which involves working inside poorly lighted gyms all winter long but sunny fields all summer!

You've already received some great advice here so I don't know what I can add to the table. I will give you my two cents worth if you want though.

95% of my indoor shooting in volleyball and basketball is done with the 70-200/2.8. The other 4% is with the 300/2.8. I always have these two lenses on separate cameras and hanging around my neck. The other 1% is with a 17-40 or 28-75 usually on a remote camera if I set one up.

You'll notice I didn't mention the 85/1.8. I own one and would not be with out one. I also would not be without the nifty-fifty 50/1.8. For under $500 you can own both these lenses. Many and I mean many sports guys use the 85/1.8 as their go to lens with basketball and volleyball. It really is the next couple of lenses that most sports guys choose after the 70-200/2.8.

You already mentioned the 70-200 is out and that is cool. Of the lenses you mentioned the best choice really is the 85/1.8. The 100 and 200 are very nice lenses but when the time comes you will most likely have a 70-200 and you will have lens overlap. I do use the 85 inside real dungeons of which there are plenty. It is a very fast focusing lens but one I only use on my MarkIIN with the 1.3 crop. For my style of shooting I just didn't care for its length on my 1.6 crop 20D and 30D. I like to plant myself along the base line in the corner and I find the 85 just a bit tight there. For volleyball I like the net area and again I find it a bit tight there. Moving around will find you a sweet spot to shoot this lens though. One other lens I nearly bought a month ago was a 135/f2. Unbelievable bokeh and one of the best Canon primes for sports. Price tag is close to a 70-200/2.8 so that one will be out most likely.

My copy is as Steve said as sharp as my 70-200/2.8. I also returned my first copy due to front focusing and tested this one out extensively. I know of at least two other photog's that ended up with back focusing issues with the 85. It is one of those Canon lenses I would recommend trying before buying.

When shooting this lens you do need to be very aware of the DOF. It is razor thin at 1.8 at most distances you will be shooting at. Gives you beautiful bokeh though. You will lose some shots to missing focus but that is a lot better than no shots because you don't have a lens that can shoot in low light. So after all of that If it was me and I had your money to spend....it would be on the 85/1.8

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I may be able to swing the 70-200 NON IS version,i was referring to the IS version,which is alot more ching.

Which one do you have?

thanks.

[Steve Foss]

Well, since Ken and I have successfull horned in on your and Dan's conversation, I'll continue eavesdropping.

I've shot a loaner 70-200 f2.8 non IS quite a few times for night-time football under the lights, and for that type of shooting the IS isn't really necessary. Great piece of glass.

[finnbay]

I have the IS version, but never use it for sports photos. It's not intended for moving subjects, just unsteady hands.

[Dbl]

I actually have both versions. I use the IS version for my team and individual work, and portraits. The non-IS is used for everything else. As Ken said with sports is just isn't needed, you are shooting at high enough shutter speeds that it really is no help. I shoot a lot of basketball in poorly lighted gyms at 1/320s and f2.8, ISO 3200 and you will get some motion blur but lens shake is really not an issue even at those slow speeds.

Don't let me scare you away from the 85/1.8. As I said most sports guys love shooting this lens, for my style of shooting the 70-200/2.8 works best for me.

The dilemmas one must face, though when you think about it it is a nice one to have.

[mountaindew]

I agree..I totally love my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for basketball. Expensive, but WELL worth it. I find it setting it up to 3200 works best in really low lighting, and using a monopod helps follow through the players running up and down. Shooting in high speed, 6 frames per second is great in those settings in AV raw settings too! Then I'd use noise Ninja to get rid of the grain noise. Turns out really nice.

[Dbl]

I am not sure how much basketball you have shot mountaindew but I personally have not had much success with your setup. I usually let the venue I am shooting in determine what ISO I will shoot at. Sometimes it is 3200 ISO, sometimes 1600 ISO. Monday night I shot in a venue that was at 640 ISO. You really want to use your ISO to help keep your shutter speed up.

I like a minimum of 1/320s for youth basketball and at least 1/500s at the college level. I don't advocate using a mono pod with a lens as light as the 70-200 is. I have shot as many as 20 games in a weekend all hand-held. The mono pod really impedes my ability to follow the action on a court.

I have never gotten good results shooting Av indoors with constant lighting. The camera is too easily fooled by backgrounds and uniform colors. In Av you will end up with quite a few overexposed and underexposed shots. Not a good combination when shooting high ISO's.

I am not a big fan of high fps shooting, it has its place but I use it sparingly. You will get considerably better results with good timing rather than mashing the shutter and hoping for the best.

I use Noise Ninja but you must be a little careful in using it, it will give skin a milky smooth appearance that can look unnatural, especially on an underexposed file. I shoot JPEG and have done extensive testing with high ISO files and found that I actually get cleaner files shot properly exposed in JPEG than a file that has been shot RAW and converted to JPEG.

Again these are my experiences you may have found something different that works for you.

[Steve Foss]

Dan echoes my experiences, as well. I tried the monopod for indoor sports (and for outdoor sports for that matter), and it was just an impediment for light lenses like the 70-200 and 100-400. VERY different matter for the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and up. Those bigger brothers and sisters NEED some steadying.

I DO like the monopod with the 100-400 in low light nature situations and some band performance photography, when the subjects aren't running all over the place and the monopod allows that extra directional bracing that can really help you out. I've got a couple series of tack sharp images from an indoor band shoot at iso3200 with the 100-400 on 400mm wide open at 1/30 and 1/40 using the monopod, disciplined technique and timing the moment so the singer/player was stationary. In those situations, a well braced monopod and IS are a wicked good combo.

None of that applies to indoor action sports, however.

I've also found the same issue as Dan with Noise Ninja and the two other noise reduction softwares I've tried, even after downloading the iso profiles for all the bodies I've got images from. Generally when I use NN now, I lasso the subject, select inverse to highlight the BG and run NN on the BG, leaving the subject itself alone. With steady lighting indoors and manual exposure settings and adjusting exposure to move the histogram as far to the right as possible, noise is at a minimum, even at iso1600 and above.

[finnbay]

Not much else for me to say except to ditto what these guys have said. Monopod for the 300, hand held for the 70-200. I used to rely on Noise Ninja to clean up high ISO photos but ran into the same problem Dan describes. As my technique for establishing the correct exposure has gotten better, so has the image quality of the photos. 1/320 seems to be a magic number for having a reasonable ability to get some good shots. I must have a couple of darker venues than Dan, because one in particular, I have to go down to 1/250. It greatly reduces the number of usable shots, but the ones I get are exposed properly and I can actually feel good about the lack of graininess in those photos.

[Dbl]

Well, heck Ken here is a 3200 ISO, 1/250s, and f2.8 gym....oh I did end up shooting it at 640 ISO and 1/250s and f2.8 Looks like a new technique you might have to start using. I've become a believer! This is straight out of the camera, no PP done at all. Here is how nice it is to have the 70mm end of the 70-200. The 85 just won't get the net in the frame from this spot.

[Steve Foss]

What a tease.

I mean that in the BEST possible way.

[Dbl]

Yuuuuupp!

[Steve Foss]

Come now, Mr. DBL, you know these forums are all about sharing. So GIVE!

[Dbl]

I was going to make Ken ask! Here we go...the lighting in this gym is ambient 3200ISO, 1/250s, at f2.8. Not going to get much for usable shots as Ken stated. So break out a SINGLE 580EX on a stand about 8 feet behind the baseline. Set the flash to manual and 1/4 power and point it at the back wall at a spot around 10-15' up the wall. This works with shots around the basket but to get further down court coverage I turn the flash around and point it at the ceiling at around the free throw line and usually around 1/2 power.

The best of both worlds is to set two flashes back off the base line each about the 3 point line pointed slightly in toward the center of the court and bounced off the ceiling again. And if you want to get real fancy you can cross light with a flash on each side and one behind the basket. As you can see one flash is a much better option than ambient.

As far as letting the flash stop the action you want to be shooting at least 2 preferably 3 stops less than ambient to prevent ghosting. A good way to help you with that is to shoot ambient and keep dropping your ISO until you get a mostly dark frame. Now fire up the flash and adjust your power output or your f-stop to get proper exposure. Remember that the flash must recycle so you are looking at about a 1sec. recycle time, no high FPS shooting with lights. That is only one reason I am not an advocate of mashing the button and firing away.

Dang, I've now given up all my secrets to getting good shots in gyms, I might as well roll up the doors of the old business, everyone is going to go out and give it a try and they won't need me anymore!

[Steve Foss]

Yeah, Dan, you're DONE NOW! I'm for sure going to give up nature photography and run down to the Twin Cities and start gulping up your sports clients!

Ken, wanna join me? We could be Finn n German Sports Shooters Inc., or FNG Sports for short.

I knew it was a flash technique, Dan. Thanks for "filling" in the details, bubba.

[Dbl]

I wasn't going to fool you my good man, but since I posted I figured I was going to have to tell folks how I managed the shot!

[Dbl]

Oh and sorry MM for getting off track on your thread. I guess it has something to do with your lens choice though.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I appreciate all the help from you fellers [old timers?]

Anyway,I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be setting up flashes on stands only to have a bunch of running 12 yr. olds knock them over and destroy all my stuff,spill pop on it,and smash it with their sneakers until it all looked like a bunch of black plastic Bacos-Bacon bits. [this would only happen to me,no one else in the universe]

I'm thinking I will prolly go with the 85 1.8 just for the fact that I wanna see how good of a job I can do with a cheaper lens 1st. Heck,what about a 50mm 1.4? too wide?

How much of an issue will the 85's thin DOF be if a person is far enough away from the subject?

Geez, what's Canon's problem? All i need is a 25-200mm 1.2L for about 400 clams.

[Steve Foss]

MM, given a consistent aperture setting, the farther away from the camera the subject is, the deeper the DOF.

If you try the 85 and it's too long and you opt for the 50 1.4, shoot me an e-mail. Heck, selling the 85 at barely under what you paid for it is easy. It's a MIGHTY popular lens.