Could really use some advice - Long read

TaDa

Last night, I went to a Rangers/Flyers game at Madison Square Garden and shot around 300 pictures with my 70-300 IS USM. Because of the f/5.6 on the long end, I wasn't really able to freeze any action shots. The IS definitely helped with a lot of keepers, but when it was frenzied action, the fastest that I could get my shutter speed to was around 1/400 even at ISO 1600 (not a big fan of ISO 3200 because of the noise). I definitely got a good amount of shots that I like, but I have to admit that I seriously could have used a faster lens. Soooo, that brings me to where I need your help. My regular normal every day lens is the 24-70L, and I love it, but I also have a Tamron 28-75 that I love as well (deal fell through to sell it). The AF on the 24-70 is a good amount faster than the Tammy's, but even with its AF, my living room is still too dimly lit for me to use it indoors for those impromptu shots without bolting on the 580ex flash. So in the house, I tend to leave my 50mm 1.4 on the camera and it's ready to go to catch those shots of the rugrat. The IQ out of the 24-70 is amazing, but to be honest, so is the image quality out of the Tamron. Everything that I've been reading is that the Canon 70-200 series is just an incredible piece of glass. If you were in my situation, would you trade/sell the Canon 24-70 and 70-300 IS USM for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS? I'd lose a bit of reach (and I love to shoot long), but I could put a TC on it, and still be at f/4 where the 70-300 would be a wide open at 5.6.

What are your thoughts?

Richard

That sounds like a well-reasoned plan to me.

Mitchell

What exactly are you trying to shoot wth your glass? Are you trying to put together a kit that will allow you to take hockey photos from the stands? If so, I doubt you'd be happy with the 70-200 and a teleconvertor. How often do you plan to take these hockey photos? What do you do with them? Where are your seats?

While I'm sure the 70-200 is a great lens, it will be bigger and heavier than the zooms you plan on replacing it with. You will be left with your 50mm only for your indoor shots and the 70-200mm for everything else. Is this what you want?

aktse

I shoot ice hockey on a regular basis and use mainly the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or my 135mm f/2.0.

However, the question you have to ask yourself... what's your goal? Are you trying to shoot hockey from MSG. Can you even bring a 70-200 f/2.8 into MSG? I can't bring that lens into the HP Pavillion (where the Sharks play).

It goes back to the question... what are you going to shoot and where?

The 70-200 f/2.8 (any version of them) are great, but they're heavier and you can't bring them everywhere.

TaDa

Mitchell wrote:

What exactly are you trying to shoot wth your glass? Are you trying to put together a kit that will allow you to take hockey photos from the stands? If so, I doubt you'd be happy with the 70-200 and a teleconvertor. How often do you plan to take these hockey photos? What do you do with them? Where are your seats?

While I'm sure the 70-200 is a great lens, it will be bigger and heavier than the zooms you plan on replacing it with. You will be left with your 50mm only for your indoor shots and the 70-200mm for everything else. Is this what you want?

My seats are in the 100s, so I'm pretty close to the ice. With the playoffs starting soon, I really want something that will allow me to catch as many good shots of the action as possible. With the 2.8, I'm sure that I could catch the slapshot, or skater snowing the goalie, or something to that effect, without having the limits of a 1/400 max shutter speed.

I know that the 70-200 is heavy, but not like the 24-70 is all that light a piece of glass either . I'm approaching this how I've approached everything else, just by continuously shooting and seeing what I like and what I do not like. I am sure that I would miss the extra 100mm of reach, but with the extra stops of light, I could get my shutter so fast that I can catch my two year old in mid-flight (read running around like a banshee) without the blur that I get of him when I can only get my shutter as quick as 1/500 or so. And even if I were to connect the lens to a 1.4 TC, I can get a max aperture of f/4 which should still allow me to get a nice quick shutter if I am shooting my son outdoors.

Also, another thing that I should mention is that looking back at the 1000 or so pictures that I've taken with my 24-70, I scanned them quickly and would guesstimate that a good 75% of them are shot at 70mm. I would still have that on the 70-200, and the rest of the wide gap would be filled by my Tamron 28-75.

TaDa

aktse wrote:

I shoot ice hockey on a regular basis and use mainly the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or my 135mm f/2.0.

However, the question you have to ask yourself... what's your goal? Are you trying to shoot hockey from MSG. Can you even bring a 70-200 f/2.8 into MSG? I can't bring that lens into the HP Pavillion (where the Sharks play).

It goes back to the question... what are you going to shoot and where?

The 70-200 f/2.8 (any version of them) are great, but they're heavier and you can't bring them everywhere.

Immediate goal for me is to shoot the NHL Playoffs that will be starting soon. After that, my main target is my son, who is two years old and CONSTANTLY moving. The Garden lets in any sort of camera gear except for tripods/monopods. I've seen a fair share of white glass in the stands as well as on the press's cameras . I guess it's one of the benefits of Canon having on ice advertising in the Garden as I've never really seen any Nikons in there.

Davidoff

I think it's a good idea. The only problem is if you're too far away to use it at 200mm. I don't think the converter would be good, f/4 may be too slow. Have you thought about the 200mm prime ? That would save you some money and you'd see if it is the focal lenght you need and if you can shoot at f/4 or really need 2.8.

rpcrowe

A possible solution...
I just surveyed B&H web site.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=200mm+f%2F2.8&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

They have a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) lens (used) for $699 and a new 200mm f/2.8L prime for $639. Either of these lenses might help you get the hockey photos you desire.

TaDa

Davidoff wrote:

I think it's a good idea. The only problem is if you're too far away to use it at 200mm. I don't think the converter would be good, f/4 may be too slow. Have you thought about the 200mm prime ? That would save you some money and you'd see if it is the focal lenght you need and if you can shoot at f/4 or really need 2.8.

Since the 70-200 is f/4 for a good amount of its reach, I had a bunch of shots yesterday in the 70-150 range where it stuck at f/4. There, I was getting shutter speeds of around 1/800, so while still not fast enough to freeze action, I'm sure that it would be a ton nicer at 2.8.

aktse

TaDa wrote:

Since the 70-200 is f/4 for a good amount of its reach, I had a bunch of shots yesterday in the 70-150 range where it stuck at f/4. There, I was getting shutter speeds of around 1/800, so while still not fast enough to freeze action, I'm sure that it would be a ton nicer at 2.8.

1/800 is fast enough to freeze action -- just not slapshots. In my dark caves (rinks around the bay area), I'm lucky to get 1/500.

1/800, f/2.8 -- looks pretty good to me.



1/1000 at f/3.5 -- fuzzy a the stick blade, but otherwise, still pretty good.



And I can't bring in my 70-200 f/2.8 (no lens longer than 6" at the shark tank). These are shot with my 135mm (or 135 mm with a 1.4x) and you have much closer seats at MSG than I do at the Shark Tank.

Also, what are you doing for white balance? I find that it's the key to good hockey photos (or basically, any indoor shots). If you're not using something, you need to pick something up. The ice will do in a pinch, but it's not the best (note: check out the White Balance Thread in techniques)

I was using the expodisc, but recently changed over to the SpectraSnap

TaDa

Those shots are awesome. I agree about the White Balance btw, just forgot my expodisc at home last night. Since I shoot in RAW though, I know that I can fix some of these up a little later for the WB.

Okay, so here are a few of mine from last night. Here is a 3 shot burst shot from the other side of the garden, at 300mm, f/5.6, AWB, 1/250 shutter speed.







At 1/250, there are some obvious things wrong. Prospal's name is a bit soft. Avery looks like a blur, etc. Pics are underexposed, etc. (Oh, and for you smart*!#@, no Shannahan isn't that old that he moves that slowly on the ice. He's actually on the bench )

Now, a pic after their goal, shot at 70mm, f/4, AWB, 1/640



Even though the safety netting is annoying, the pic has a lot more going for it at this shutter speed. Better lit, sharper (trust me that all the Rangers jersey's are crisp when you zoom in), etc. I can only imagine what I could do at 1/1000th or better.

Mitchell

You have a Canon DSLR. I always thought those have no noise at higher ISO. Why not just suck it up and increase your ISO to get the shutterspeed you want with your present lens? You may want to push your histogram to the right to decrease noise and then apply some noise reduction in PP.

TaDa

Mitchell wrote:

You have a Canon DSLR. I always thought those have no noise at higher ISO. Why not just suck it up and increase your ISO to get the shutterspeed you want with your present lens? You may want to push your histogram to the right to decrease noise and then apply some noise reduction in PP.

The 40Ds and up have noise reduction built into the body I believe. Mine gets pretty darn noisy at 1600, those these don't show it. But if you look at the full size image or try and sharpen it, out come the red pixels. I've played with a ton of software like noise ninja, and just don't really like the results. For my pictures, I just don't think that ISO 3200 is an option. These came out okay for 1600, but that's about the limit for my noise tolerance.

Besides that, even if I were shooting at ISO 3200, the first 3 picture burst would have sped up from 1/250 to 1/500. Still not ideal speed.

evoryware

But if the fastest you are getting now at f/4.0 is 1/640th and it's still underexposed, then the 1.4 isn't going to help much, is it? You need to shoot at 2.8. I have the 70-200 and I love the heck out of it.
I'd get the used 70-200 (which I'm wanting to go back to B&H and look at myself tomorrow), but not the TC. Sell the 70-300 but keep the 24-70.

Finally, if you are a Rangers fan you shouldn't be takin pics of a Ranger gettin checked!

claudermilk

I agree with Mitch, start by trying ISO 3200. I have no problem shooting that speed with my 20D--been doing it for years & that's a main point that got me to go with Canon. I can't imagine a body two generations newer is going to be worse. Those examples are a bit underexposed & that makes the noise much worse.

I wouldn't try a 70-200/2.8IS on a TC in this situation as you will be running the lens wide open & the camera at high ISO. BTDT, the results are not worth it. TCs are best left to primes.

evoryware wrote:

Finally, if you are a Rangers fan you shouldn't be takin pics of a Ranger gettin checked!

At least he's an optimistic Rangers fan. That EC race is still awfully tight. Happily, my favorite team just squeaked in their clinching game last night.

NeilL

aktse wrote:

I was using the expodisc, but recently changed over to the SpectraSnap

Hi aktse!

I was on the point of buying an Expodisc when I read your comment. Could you expand on your reasons for changing? Some others in this forum like Expodisc but I have an open mind!

Thanks.
Neil

aktse

NeilL wrote:

Hi aktse!

I was on the point of buying an Expodisc when I read your comment. Could you expand on your reasons for changing? Some others in this forum like Expodisc but I have an open mind!

Thanks.
Neil

For the technical nitty gritty, check some other threads . I haven't had the chance to do some control experiments like other people and there is a great thread in Techniques about the various white balance tools (SpectraSnap not included). This gist of the thread is that people should spend the money on a real tool and there is indeed value in an engineered white-balance filter rather than something home brew version (like a coffee filter or piece of paper).

For me, I just went and shot a few hockey games with the SpectraSnap and asked myself… are the results "good". Does the white balance tool improve the photos? And how does it compare to the other gadgets that I own and use?

The expo disc doesn't work for everyone, but it does work for a bunch of people (me included) and the hockey photos that I posted earlier were done using the expo-disc.

When I shoot any ice hockey, I tend to re-white balance every single time I move because the lighting can be different, the plexi-glass color varies and there are different scratches on the glass. Once I decide that my tool is "good" enough, the rest of my criteria follows down the path of ease of use.

My major beef with the expo disc is that they're specific to the size of the lens. As someone suggested, you don't have to screw in the expo-disc in and to just hand-hold it in front of the lens (done it myself). I do it all the time with this holding method at the Sharks games when I bring the expo-disc. At the same time, I find that I have to be very careful when holding it and I have to make sure that my lens is shooting through the expodisc and not my fingers or the black edge of the expodisc. If you buy it, I suggest that you buy the largest thread size so that you can hold it against any lens that is smaller and this will get you around the size issue. With the Spectra Snap, I don't have this issue; it's the size of a CD, feels like hard plastic, and I hand hold it easily.

I have also used one of those pop-up things and it works well too, but I would rank it behind the expo-disc (note – just by my observation and not a real study). It's not quite a one handed operation since I have to pop it open, hold it in front (or place it on someone or have someone hold it) and then close it (two hands) and put it away. The smaller Photovision ones can be worn around the neck too, but I feel I'm going to rip them one day or get it dirty; I can wash the expodisc and the SpectraSnap.

I immediately removed the rubber band things that hold the SpectraSnap to the lens when I got it and I wear it like a long necklace using the lanyard that it comes with. When shooting a game, I basically hold it up, take a white balance photo, release it and let it fall, change the settings, take some photos, change locations, repeat. It saves me about minute to two minutes each time that I move which doesn't seem like much, but when the lighting constantly changes, it can be a big deal.

I didn't understand it's value until I had opportunity to shoot an adult hockey game at the Shark Tank. When the game started, ¾ of the lights were off (miserable shoot). By the third period, the lights were being turned on segment by segment. I had to re-white balancing every minute to two minutes because the color changed as the lights warmed up and I could see the ice changing from blue, to yellow to red. The goalies were saying that within a span of 10 mintues, they went from barely seeing the puck to clarity similar to HD tv. If I was using the expo disc or the pop-up, I would have waited until things stabilized or switched to RAW and fix things in post. Can you just imagine… I’m holding the camera in one hand with a 70-200 attached, digging to find the disc, screwing it in (or lining it up correctly), take the white balance shot, put in my pocket, change the settings, and a minute or two later, I had to dig it out of my pocket and repeat. This is an extreme situation, but I made me realize the value of something study and hanging around my neck. You can argue that I could put the expo disc around my neck as well (like a necklace), but I still have to either screw it in, or hold it carefully! And yes, I can fix it in post, but I like to get the exposure as correct as possible in camera.

I like the SpectraSnap for various reasons:
1) One size fits all (size of a dvd/cd) -- just hold it in front of the lens with your free hand and has enough room for fingers
2) I can wear it around my neck and it's pretty durable
3) Cheaper than an expodisc
4) Gives acceptable results
5) Made by a dgrinner!

If you don't have a white balance tool yet, I suggest you buy one --- any one (except the little shower cap thing) – take your pick – the expo disc, the SpectraSnap, Photovision Digital Calibration Target, the one from SmartShooter, etc.

Out of the four that I currently own, which one would I use? All of them, but I'm currently reaching for the SpectraSnap first.

These were taken with the SpectraSnap at the Shark tank
-- at the adult game, under-exposed due to the lighting, and I should have used my 135mm, but still acceptable


And at the Sharks game:


Both look decent to me. I can probably fix them up with some more time in post, but they're good enough. I would love to use a 200mm f/2.0

In general, for ice hockey (and any indoor sport), use the fastest lens that you can (I won't shoot indoors sports without anything slower than f/2.8 and faster is preferred), white balance is key, keep an eye on the shutter speeds and check the histrograms.

I hope this helps.

NeilL

aktse wrote:

For the technical nitty gritty, check some other threads . I haven't had the chance to do some control experiments like other people and there is a great thread in Techniques about the various white balance tools (SpectraSnap not included). This gist of the thread is that people should spend the money on a real tool and there is indeed value in an engineered white-balance filter rather than something home brew version (like a coffee filter or piece of paper).

<snip>

If you don't have a white balance tool yet, I suggest you buy one --- any one (except the little shower cap thing) – take your pick – the expo disc, the SpectraSnap, Photovision Digital Calibration Target, the one from SmartShooter, etc.

Out of the four that I currently own, which one would I use? All of them, but I'm currently reaching for the SpectraSnap first.

In general, for ice hockey (and any indoor sport), use the fastest lens that you can (I won't shoot indoors sports without anything slower than f/2.8 and faster is preferred), white balance is key, keep an eye on the shutter speeds and check the histrograms.

I hope this helps.

Very generous of you aktse to reply at such length and in such detail. I very much appreciate it! Getting the value of your experience with these accessories is very valuable. And the result is that I will get a SpectraSnap! You convinced me it is more convenient, and the job it does in your samples looks pretty accurate!

Many thanks!
Neil