Nikon Lens for Bokeh?

MDalby

Is there a cost effective lens that has good bokeh for basketball? I know one man's "cost effective" is not another mans cost effective. I don't know what I mean by that. something in the hundreds. I love the bokeh in this gallery.

http://hickey.photoshelter.com/gallery/NBA-Chicago-Bulls-at-Indiana-Pacers-Indianapolis-Indiana/G0000CVpb1H5SVFQ

MDalby

My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D should be able to do this, correct? Do I just need to shoot differently? I don't think my wife would think the 200mm f2 is cost effective but that is probably the lens of choice?

Qarik

the 85mm 1.4 is dubbed the cream machine. your 70-200mm is no slouch in that area as well.

insanefred

MDalby wrote: »

My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D should be able to do this, correct? Do I just need to shoot differently? I don't think my wife would think the 200mm f2 is cost effective but that is probably the lens of choice?

IMO, Nikon's 50's lenses bokeh is down right ugly, at least for their current models.

If you look at the backround of the photo you posted, it doesn't look like anything under 150mm, it's too compressed. I bet the photographer is using something like a 300mm f2.8 or 400 f2.8 for the longer range and a 24-70mm 2.8 for the closer shots.

Mitchell

You already own the 70-200, f2.8. Have you tried that lens wide open? Another option might be an 85mm,, f1.8. I don't use this lens often, but my copy is pretty sharp wide open with decent bokeh.

insanefred

Unless you can get within 15 feet of the players, you'll never get that bokeh with a 85mm 1.8.

MDalby

Mitchell wrote: »

You already own the 70-200, f2.8. Have you tried that lens wide open? Another option might be an 85mm,, f1.8. I don't use this lens often, but my copy is pretty sharp wide open with decent bokeh.

I have not tried it wide open. I will give that a shot this year.

Thanks,

MD

Matthew Saville

MDalby wrote: »

I have not tried it wide open. I will give that a shot this year.

Thanks,

MD

Say what? Is this another prank thread? The whole reason to spend $1500+ on a zoom lens is to shoot it wide open, at least every now and then.

If you want amazing bokeh on a far away subject, chances are the 50 and 85 f/1.4 primes are not going to cut it on a full-frame camera. You'd need to be just ~5 feet away from the player to get a shot like the one you linked, if you're shooting 85mm on full-frame.

That image was probably taken at least at 200mm, maybe 300mm or 400mm. And yes, f/2.8 most likely. Wide flippin' open! Or the 200 f/2.0, if you want. The 200 f/2.0 is very versatile because you can slap on a 1.4x and get a ~280mm 2.8 that is just as amazingly sharp.

But the bottom line is that for high-end sports, the 70-200 2.8 is just the tip of the iceberg. Most pro sports shooters will be using either a 200, 300, or 400 prime, or the 200-400 f/4 if they absolutely need the zoom range and can sacrifice the stop of aperture.

Rock that 70-200 at 2.8 and 200mm, and you'll get all the bokeh you need as long as you can fill the frame with your subject. Your only problem will be if they're too far away, in which case you'll have to start saving up for a "BIG GUN"...

=Matt=

snakephoto

I use an older Nikon AF300 f2.8, and it gives me good enough "Bokeh" for my clients...If you are right on the court sidelines than sometimes an 85 1.4 on a DX body is plenty good...If you don't mind manual focus than the Samyang 85 1.4 is a pretty good lense...Of course the Nikon AF85 f2 D is not that much more expensive used, and its AF...Than there is always the venerable Nikon 105's 1.8 2.0 and 2.8. again on a DX body you can usually get the job done if you are at court side... But your 70-200 zoom should be just fine!!!

met

Like everyone said - it sounds like you already have exactly the lens you need within your budget already. Shoot that 70-200 wide open baby!

This was taken with the Sigma version at 2.8 just on my D80. I would have liked her face a bit sharper, but you get the idea.

MDalby

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Say what? Is this another prank thread? The whole reason to spend $1500+ on a zoom lens is to shoot it wide open, at least every now and then.
=Matt=

Matt,

I primarily sit outside the key on the baseline. I generally shoot at 90mm for the shots that are this close to the action. I also primarily use flash and try to get more DOF so I generally shoot at f/3.5, f/4.0 to get more shots in focus. If you are familiar with basketball photography with strobes, you really can't shoot wide open.

The shot that I was referencing in the OP was shot with a Canon 200 f/2.0 lens but I don't know what his focal length or f stop was on these shots.

I will try some new court positions to get some new shot angles and different types of shots.

Wil Davis

MDalby wrote: »

Matt,

I primarily sit outside the key on the baseline. I generally shoot at 90mm for the shots that are this close to the action. I also primarily use flash and try to get more DOF so I generally shoot at f/3.5, f/4.0 to get more shots in focus. If you are familiar with basketball photography with strobes, you really can't shoot wide open.

The shot that I was referencing in the OP was shot with a Canon 200 f/2.0 lens but I don't know what his focal length or f stop was on these shots.

I will try some new court positions to get some new shot angles and different types of shots.

I see you list the Manfrotto 680B, but do you ever use it?

…just wondered!!!



- Wil

Zerodog

Your 70-200 2.8 should give you killer bokeh. Wide aperture = bokeh. Not matter what lens you are using. Different lenses have different quality of bokeh. And your 70-200 is one of the bokeh kings. You should be able to get your 2.8 and strobes with a nikon. It will just send you into high speed sync. But the in the gallery you reference I would put money on 100% ambient light.

Art Scott

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Say what? Is this another prank thread? The whole reason to spend $1500+ on a zoom lens is to shoot it wide open, at least every now and then.
=Matt=

I love it......I bought my 1st f2.8 zoom simply because I wanted and needed a constant aperture....it was in the Sigma / Vivatar Reps car and I paid him for it....never looked back.....and I bet out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of frames I have shot.....there is less than 300 at wide open on any f2.8 or faster lens I have owned......now at totally closed down, that is a different story........a lot at f22 and up

but we all shoot in a different style and that is what make us each unique......rofl

MDalby

Wil Davis wrote: »

I see you list the Manfrotto 680B, but do you ever use it?

…just wondered!!!



- Wil

Not for basketball. I use it for football with my 2 flash bracket.

MDalby

Zerodog wrote: »

Your 70-200 2.8 should give you killer bokeh. Wide aperture = bokeh. Not matter what lens you are using. Different lenses have different quality of bokeh. And your 70-200 is one of the bokeh kings. You should be able to get your 2.8 and strobes with a nikon. It will just send you into high speed sync. But the in the gallery you reference I would put money on 100% ambient light.

This is a typical misunderstanding. You cannot use higher sync speeds. The highest sync speed you can have with a Nikon D700 is 1/250. You have to shoot at least 2 stops below ambient with flashes so you really can't shoot at 2.8.

MD

MDalby

Zerodog wrote: »

Your 70-200 2.8 should give you killer bokeh. Wide aperture = bokeh. Not matter what lens you are using. Different lenses have different quality of bokeh. And your 70-200 is one of the bokeh kings. You should be able to get your 2.8 and strobes with a nikon. It will just send you into high speed sync. But the in the gallery you reference I would put money on 100% ambient light.

You are probably correct on the gallery that I referenced... BUT he was shooting with a f/2.0 lens AND it is completely different lighting conditions since it was a pro venue than what we HS sports guys shoot in. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Matthew Saville

MDalby wrote: »

Matt,

I primarily sit outside the key on the baseline. I generally shoot at 90mm for the shots that are this close to the action. I also primarily use flash and try to get more DOF so I generally shoot at f/3.5, f/4.0 to get more shots in focus. If you are familiar with basketball photography with strobes, you really can't shoot wide open.

The shot that I was referencing in the OP was shot with a Canon 200 f/2.0 lens but I don't know what his focal length or f stop was on these shots.

I will try some new court positions to get some new shot angles and different types of shots.

If you want to get background blur, you either have to shoot more telephoto at f/4, or you gotta widen up. That's how it works! I'll admit I haven't photographed basketball with strobes, but if it's a matter of brightness then you can cut light down with a ND filter I suppose. But I would think that unless the player is less than 10 feet away, you should easily be able to shoot wide open by just lowering your flash power and / or the ISO. How bright is the ambient light on a court, without any flash at all? Bright enough to hit a fast shutter speed at say f/2.8 and 3200?

I can understand if depth and focus of the actual subject is an issue, in which case f/2.0 or f/2.8 will be a problem. Focusing on a fast moving subject at a fast aperture is borderline impossible most of the time. So, if you *must* shoot at f/4,or tighter, then your only option is to back up and zoom in. If you're filling the frame with a head-and-chest portrait at just 90mm, then you probably need to take 10-20+ steps back and try to hit 200mm. At 200mm+, even f/4 or f/5.6 will really kill the background in a medium length portrait. There are only two things that can blur your background- aperture and compression.

=Matt=

met

MDalby wrote: »

This is a typical misunderstanding. You cannot use higher sync speeds. The highest sync speed you can have with a Nikon D700 is 1/250. You have to shoot at least 2 stops below ambient with flashes so you really can't shoot at 2.8.

MD

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't just changing the setting in your camera menu to Auto FP allow you shoot with a higher shutter speed with a flash?

MDalby

met wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't just changing the setting in your camera menu to Auto FP allow you shoot with a higher shutter speed with a flash?

This is a misunderstanding that people have for the proper way to shoot sports where you are using the flash to freeze the action. A longer shutter speed is actually counter productive. The proper technique is to shoot underexposed by 2-2.5 stops. The flash over powers the ambient light. A higher shutter sync speed actually lengthens the time for the shutters far beyond what is required, if you shoot under exposed, and uses more power than is required.

MD

zoomer

insanefred wrote: »

Unless you can get within 15 feet of the players, you'll never get that bokeh with a 85mm 1.8.

or a 1.4 either. You have to be close to get great bokeh with short reach lenses. The shorter you go the closer you have to be to get good bokeh.

Yeah, my guess for that shot is a 300 2.8 or minimum 200 2.8.

MDalby

zoomer wrote: »

or a 1.4 either. You have to be close to get great bokeh with short reach lenses. The shorter you go the closer you have to be to get good bokeh.

Yeah, my guess for that shot is a 300 2.8 or minimum 200 2.8.

It was a Canon 200 f/2.0 lens.

divamum

MDalby wrote: »

It was a Canon 200 f/2.0 lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Which is one of Canon's legends for bokeh and background-crushing. And costs almost as much as a used car

Zerodog

MDalby wrote: »

This is a misunderstanding that people have for the proper way to shoot sports where you are using the flash to freeze the action. A longer shutter speed is actually counter productive. The proper technique is to shoot underexposed by 2-2.5 stops. The flash over powers the ambient light. A higher shutter sync speed actually lengthens the time for the shutters far beyond what is required, if you shoot under exposed, and uses more power than is required.

MD

High speed sync/ Auto FP will allow for shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 with nikon. Not sure where the long shutter comes in with that. I use it all the time for moto trials outdoors at f2.8-f4. I can get shutter speeds up over 1/2000 and still use a flash, this gives nice fill in under helmets and dark areas. It also gives nice highlights to whites, and metallic items on the bikes. Also shooting into the sun is possible.

True, going with full on lights inside I can see your technique is valid. But it to me is old school. Or you have lights that are just that BIG and you can light the entire gym. Otherwise, you loose the background by the time you get the flash powerful enough to do this. At that point bokeh is not even a concern. You can maximize DOF and make your backgrounds black. Highspeed sync can give you the best of both worlds. It will give you a little fill flash pop and still allow for the main overhead lights to provide the main light and fill the background. This will also allow you to use your already awesome bokeh maker (nikon 70-200) at its full potential of 2.8. That thing on your camera is so good at focusing fast and tracking that you should nail your focus point on your main subject 95% of the time.

In the end it all comes down to balancing the shutter speed, aperture, ISO and your available light to get the effect you want for your shot. If you want lit backgrounds with creamy bokeh, wide aperture and high ISO are the way to get it.

met

Zerodog wrote: »

High speed sync/ Auto FP will allow for shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 with nikon.

Yes, that's what I was trying to refer to. I prefer natural light portraits, so I'm not much of an action shooter but I thought that was possible. Practically speaking, doesn't using Auto FP basically just cut down on your flash power? But I would think that for a basketball game it isn't really going to be that dimly lit and if you're shooting at 2.8 with the ISO you can push your D700 to, it doesn't seem like you would need tons and tons of flash power.

MDalby

Zerodog wrote: »

High speed sync/ Auto FP will allow for shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 with nikon. Not sure where the long shutter comes in with that. I use it all the time for moto trials outdoors at f2.8-f4. I can get shutter speeds up over 1/2000 and still use a flash, this gives nice fill in under helmets and dark areas. It also gives nice highlights to whites, and metallic items on the bikes. Also shooting into the sun is possible.

If you want to find the details on this do a search in the Sports forum and you will get all the posts on sync speed and flash freezing action in basketball. This has been outlined MANY times in the posts.

Let me know if you have any more questions after you search in Sports.

MD