Lens choice

cmkultradome

With the upcoming fall/winter sports seasons ahead, I need some lens help. I am shooting with a digital Rebel xTi. My two boys are quite active and between now and April I will be shooting them every weekend and a lot of weeknights at ice hockey games, gymnastic meets (no flash allowed), and wrestling meets; all in horribly lit venues. I own the 18-55mm kit lens and a 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS Canon Zoom. Last year as a Christmas present I treated myself to a month rental of the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 lens. Obviously my pictures were much better than the ones taken with my own lenses. I was thinking about treating myself again this year but renting the Canon 200mm 2.8 prime lens and the Canon 85mm prime lens instead. It will be slightly more expensive but in your opinion do those prime lenses make that much of a difference. The majority of my hockey shots taken last year were with the zoom all the way out, my shots were on the "soft" side and I don't know if the auto focus was just not fast enough. Gymnastics photos were taken at both ends of the spectrum 70 & 200 depending on how far away the apparatus was from the viewing area. Thanks.

Stephanie

Tee Why

I think for hockey, if you shot mostly at the 200mm with the 70-200mm lens, then getting a 200mm f2.8 may be a good idea as optically it may be better, is lighter and cheaper to boot. The softness may be due to slow shutter speed. Sometimes you need a pretty fast shutter speed to prevent motion blur. It can also be camera shake and/or AF issues. It would be tough to tell without looking at the picture and the EXIF.

As for the gymnastics, if you are using 70-200mm range, then a prime and one body will be tough as you may have missed the action by the time you have changed lenses.

Good luck.

rockcanyonphotos

I would go with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM lens. it was the first sports lens I bought and 6 years later it is still the most versatile lens in my kit... especially when you consider the crop factor on the Rebel. Indoors/outdoors, good light/bad light... it just does the job.

yes Primes are better but they are also very limited in their range of use. When overall value is a factor the 70-200 is the best lens IMO.

kevin

ian408

I'll add my suggestion of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens as well. In a well lit rink, you might get away with a slower lens but the 2.8 will give you better results.

aktse

Ice hockey is my main sport and I recommend 70-200mm f/2.8 for most rinks and you might need faster glass for some places. Most people complain about photos being "soft" or "out of focus", but it's due to shutter speeds that are too slow to freeze the action.

For both sports, I recommend that you use a custom white balance (the one made by phoxle is my current choice).

And wrote some thoughts in this tread with some tips on shooting hockey. I hope this helps.

jonh68

If you can get your hands on a sigma 120-300 2.8, I recommend getting it.

cmkultradome

Thanks everyone for your comments. It looks like I'll be renting the 70-200mm (or maybe the 120-300mm if I splurge and can deal with the weightand the higher rental price) again this year. Since I'm shooting with a Rebel I can only push the ISO to 1600 and I do see a lot of noise. I also think my px look pretty soft. I do use a custom white balance taking a picture of the ice. Thanks for the thread on shooting hockey px. Can't wait for the season to start.

Stephanie

KMCC

cmkultradome wrote:

Since I'm shooting with a Rebel I can only push the ISO to 1600 and I do see a lot of noise.

Stephanie

A little post-processing with Noise Ninja, or my favorite - Imagenomic's Noiseware, can help you with that noise.

mercphoto

cmkultradome wrote:

Since I'm shooting with a Rebel I can only push the ISO to 1600 and I do see a lot of noise. I also think my px look pretty soft.

I think you need to post an example. Either your shutter speed is too slow. Or the Rebel can't focus track fast and accurate enough. (Correction, a Rebel probably *is* lacking in focus speed and tracking ability, but might not be your actual problem). And noise or not, remember that a noisy picture is much better than no picture at all. Sometimes people get too hung up over noise...

cmkultradome

Attached is a photo taken with my Rebel xTi: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L at 125mm, 1600 ISO, 1/250, f2.8 (I probably did crop this photo, I can't remember)
[IMG][/img]

Since I just got a nice little bonus at work I am considering upgrading to a Canon 40D or even the new 50D and buying the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 lens. I've read a lot on this forum about spending the money on the glass not the camera, but do you think upgrading to one of the other models would make a difference? Thanks again for your help.

Stephanie

jonh68

I have been using the D700 for a little over a month and I can tell you upgrade the camera only if you get better noise performance stepping up to another camera. I don't know much about the Canon line of cameras, but I can tell a huge difference between the D700 and other cameras. My advice would be to spend money on glass and wait until Canon releases a comparable camera if you are invested in the Canon system.

ian408

That D700 is a sa-weet body and a huge leap, like the D3, for Nikon.

My suggestion would be to get the glass first then worry about the body--though I think you'll notice the improvement in focusing speed over the Rebel, especially in sports, even the 40D will offer you.

gdaddy

40d

cmkultradome wrote:

Attached is a photo taken with my Rebel xTi: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L at 125mm, 1600 ISO, 1/250, f2.8 (I probably did crop this photo, I can't remember)
[IMG][/img]

Since I just got a nice little bonus at work I am considering upgrading to a Canon 40D or even the new 50D and buying the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 lens. I've read a lot on this forum about spending the money on the glass not the camera, but do you think upgrading to one of the other models would make a difference? Thanks again for your help.

Stephanie

Hi stephanie,
I can tell you that you will be well pleased with a 40d. The technical improvements are great. If you read the specs you will be impressed, especailly the 14 bit a/d conversion AND better photos at higher ISO which
is something you want for those indoor sports shots, etc... IMO you will not be disapointed in moving up. I had a Nikon d200 with the 18-200 VR lens and did a comparable test between it and the 40D with the 28-135 lens and the diffence in the photos was immediately noticed. I sold all the Nikon gear and switched to Canon. What a difference a couple of years makes in the digital camera world. The digic III is also an improvement over the digic II processor.
gdaddy

mercphoto

cmkultradome wrote:

I've read a lot on this forum about spending the money on the glass not the camera, but do you think upgrading to one of the other models would make a difference? Thanks again for your help.

Recently a pro automotive photographer over on the APN forums posted the best reason I've seen yet to shoot with a pro-body (like a Canon 1-series). He said its mainly for durability and reliability and weather sealing, and I think he's probably right about that. This was in reference to a question about stepping up from a 40D to a 1D Mark III. The point was that the lens makes more of a difference.

The lens makes a big difference for you as well, but I see you already have the 70-200/2.8, correct? Great lens. I think that if you stepped up to a 40D or 50D you would find an improvement, however, in the auto-focus performance. And that would be worth spending $$$ on.

I used to own a 1D Mark II and I used to shoot a lot of motocross, which is a very dusty, dirty environment, and I also used to shoot a lot at night, which is very demanding on the auto-focus abilities of the camera body. If I was still doing this type of work I would still want my 1-series. I don't, and I love the 40D I bought to replace it with. However, I have not and will not part with my L-series lenses.

I hope this helps with your decision on what to do next.

rockcanyonphotos

Not to make your life more difficult but I would agree with mercphoto. I have worked my way through a Digital Rebel, 30D, 1DM2, and 1DM3. The low-light AF ability of the M2 and M3 put all the others to shame...IMO it is orders of magnitude better. If you can get your 70-200/f2.8 lens and pick up a used 1DM2n I think you would be one happy camper.

regards, kevin