Indoor Photo Combo?

[mcary]

I have a question for Steve, DBL, Finnbay and anyone else that does a good deal of indoor sports and wedding work. What would you recommend for a lens/combination of lenses to be best prepared for both situations? I understand that it always comes down to what you want to spend. I've been researching the options and would greatly appreciate some insight from those of you that routinely find yourselves doing this kind of work. Thanks in advance!

[finnbay]

The two I use are the 17-40L and the 70-200L 2.8. If I had to, I could get by with those two. Of course, the 17-40L usually means you have to throw some light at the subjects as well, but those are my money glass. You could include a 50mm 1.8 II in the bag. Inexpensive, really pretty good quality and some flexibility in low light situations.

[Dbl]

Well that is a difficult question because what you shoot often dictates what you will need for a lens. That being said there is one lens that is used by virtually every indoor sports or wedding photographer...the 70-200/2.8. That is the first one I would recommend, after that it becomes very dependent on what you shoot and what type of body you use.

For instance I have an 85/1.8 that I don't care all that much for on a 1.6 crop body, but I really like it on a 1.3 crop or full frame camera. I can list a few that seem to be used by most of the indoor shooters I know in no particular order.

70-200/2.8

300/2.8

24-70/2.8

17-40/4

85/1.8 and 1.2

50/1.8

16-35/2.8

[Steve Foss]

Best three for me to cover indoor sports/weddings would be 16-35 f2.8L, 85 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Realistically, for wedding work you can easily give up the extra aperture and go with the 17-40. Most of your wide angle indoor wedding work will be posed, so flash/extra lighting cancels out the need for fast aperture. And in churches, where often as not the pastor won't allow you to use flash during the ceremony itself, if you want wide angle of the whole church from the rear balcony you can get by with f4. Not true in action sports, where you need all the aperture you can get.

The 85 is specifically for sports. With the 70-200 f2.8L IS for weddings, you've covered the 85 mm focal length already, and the IS easily makes up for the half stop difference in aperture, plus the zoom is king when it comes to tight wedding portraiture during ceremonies. I shoot it off a monopod.

So while for me the best typical indoor sports setup is a three-lens setup, the 17-40 and 70-200 are all I need for weddings. I'm usually shooting 1.6 crop bodies. I rarely need to bump up over iso1600 with either of these lenses for indoor weddings.

Also, I should add that Tamron and Sigma offer less expensive (but still pro-class) alternatives to the Canon 17-40 and 70-200 f2.8. You won't find the 70-200 f2.8 in a stabilized version from either maker (unless I've missed something), but I've shot a lot of weddings indoors using the non-IS 70-200 f2.8L, and it's quite doable. While I'm a Canon OEM guy whenever possible, saving a few hundred bucks by going with the pro Tamron or Sigma lenses can get you there faster and won't sacrifice image quality.

[mcary]

Thank you gentlemen for the feedback. I am actually surprised at the universal approval of the 17-40. I have that one and have used it for weddings, but found I was really wanting something more when the flash was a no-go during the ceremony. It worked great for the staged group shots where flash was an option. On the sports side, can a person throw enough light out there with with a flash (in this case the 430 EX) to push shutter speeds up to an acceptable level? I have yet to try - so I'm ignorant on this one.

This was also the reason I was wanting to pick up Steve's 70-200 f/2.8. Unfortunately, I couldn't get any takers on my f/4.

I have been looking at the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8, but it sounds as though I may be fine with my 17-40 and I can attempt to move up to the f/2.8 in a 70-200. I am assuming that the non-IS version of the 70-200 will be every bit as functional for sports action as the IS version (since the IS doesn't work to stop action) and that if you shoot it with some stabilization (tripod/monopod) it would work well enough for weddings sans flash. Are you finding that a 70-200 non-IS requires a little bump from the flash as well for sports?

Thanks again for the insight! You are all an invaluable resource.

[John Mikes]

I've settled on the 35 1.4 and 135 2.0. I used to have a 70-200 (and 80-200 AF-S and AF-D when I used Nikon) but I like the 135 so much I sold the 70-200.

[Dbl]

First I wouldn't recommend the 430 EX for JUST sports, keep in mind I said sports. Yes I know Steve has used one and I believe Ken has one as well. The 580 EX has considerably more power if you are going to be using supplemental lighting for action. I have used a single 580EX and it does OK, but I switched this year to a strobe system, much easier to use and more consistent results.

Remember most times the flash duration is stopping the action not the shutter speed, unless you are using it as a fill flash. I have both the IS and non-IS in the 70-200/2.8, don't use the IS for sports shooting at all as you said it doesn't stop action. Most gyms will allow you to shoot a 2.8 lens and get 1/320s shutter speed, my personal minimum for any sports action.

Have you thought about stepping up to say a 50D or even a Mark III to gain an extra stop or two and stay with the lenses you currently own? It might be a cheaper route to go instead of upgrading to faster lenses. Just another thing to think about.

[finnbay]

Quote:

Are you finding that a 70-200 non-IS requires a little bump from the flash as well for sports?

Depends on the venue, but most times it's going to give you great performance w/o the need for flash.

I use the 17-40L a lot with my studio and wedding shots. Again, I use light assist whenever I can. It is a wonderful, versatile lens that is amazingly sharp, especially when you can use light and shoot at around f/8.

[Steve Foss]

Mike, I've not found the 17-40 wanting during no-flash indoor wedding photography. Rock solid steadying technique and high iso takes care of any issues for me. Subject movement tends to be quite slow or non existent.

I really need the 200mm reach for weddings, and I've found that a 1.6 crop body with 200mm gets me far enough away from the principals that I can still shoot tight and people don't notice me. Different styles dictate different equipment.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I would 2nd what Dan has said-maybe think about the 50D. A faster aperature doesn't always guarantee a faster shot. I recently got the 85mm F1.2L and while great for portraits,it's focus speed is way slower than my 70-200 2.8 and like a tortoise compared to my 300 2.8.

I've seen some parents shooting the 50D at BB games indoors with the 70-300IS and they were disappointed with blurred shots until I got tired of hearing them bash their new setup. They had never read the manual! They said they would only be printing 4x6 or 5x7 so I set their iso at H2 [12,800] and the NR to strong,and pow! 1/500th and frozen action. Sheesh,how could you not read your manual?

[Steve Foss]

I've seen some parents shooting the 50D at BB games indoors with the 70-300IS and they were disappointed with blurred shots until I got tired of hearing them bash their new setup. They had never read the manual! They said they would only be printing 4x6 or 5x7 so I set their iso at H2 [12,800] and the NR to strong,and pow! 1/500th and frozen action. Sheesh,how could you not read your manual?

People come to photography with different desires and varying levels of skill and dedication. We all had to start someplace. Learning never stops.

I've shot the 85 1.2L for sports, and while even the Mk2 is very slow compared with other typical sports lenses, knowledge of the game being shot and the players within the game goes a long way toward negating slow lens focus speed, and when you get a winner with that lens, it's a REAL winner.