What zoom lense do I need for cycling shots, low light?
Hi... I'm looking for some advice. I have a D90, using a Tamron 18-270mm zoom which gives me great shots so long as the light is good.
I take photos for my husband's cycling club, beautiful country shots with cyclists flying by. This is my first winter with the club. Today was a very overcast day, I changed to ISO-Auto and F5.6 to 6.3 changing exposure to suit... but had to delete a lot of what should have been great shots because they were just way too slow. I switched over to fully Auto for a moment just to check what the camera thought about it and it popped up the flash. Hmm! My pics are usually pretty good so I am disappointed with today's results.
I also find that it doesn't do well indoors with the flash (SB 800)... I'm taking shots of small children that can't stay still for more than a second.
Any recommendations?
I take photos for my husband's cycling club, beautiful country shots with cyclists flying by. This is my first winter with the club. Today was a very overcast day, I changed to ISO-Auto and F5.6 to 6.3 changing exposure to suit... but had to delete a lot of what should have been great shots because they were just way too slow. I switched over to fully Auto for a moment just to check what the camera thought about it and it popped up the flash. Hmm! My pics are usually pretty good so I am disappointed with today's results.
I also find that it doesn't do well indoors with the flash (SB 800)... I'm taking shots of small children that can't stay still for more than a second.
Any recommendations?
0
Comments
Of course all would probably recommend the 70-200 F2.8 vr.
But i need more info for the other lens, you now use the tammy, what zoom distance do you find yourself using most often, for the club and indoors. Than start looking in those rangers for fast glass.
The Tammy, i think does not talk to the camera, as the Nikon lens do, try using the FV lock you should notice a difference, thats if your not going crazy with the zoom and distance indoors.
Sorry, just check your profile, Whats wrong with the 50 indoors, or the 18-55
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I would not use Auto anything (except focus), especially in low light. Set your ISO to at least 800 (if you have good noise reduction software, you can probably get by with setting it to 1600). Use the largest aperture (smallest number) possible. That's why the 50 is good for indoors: it has that f/1.8 aperture. The major drawback of the Tamron is that the max aperture is f/3.5 or so (at 18mm), which isn't too bad, but it gets to f/6.3 at 270mm. That's not letting much light in, and is most likely why your shots are blurry. To illustrate, take the 50mm 1.8, set it to f/1.8 and your ISO to 800, and use the fastest shutter speed possible. Not as blurry, huh? Of course, the advantage of the Tamron is the big zoom, so you only have to carry one lens (in good light).
The f-stops are the reason the pro glass is so expensive. F/2.8 lets a lot of light into the camera. F/2 lets in even more (check the price of a 200mm f/2 :lol). So, look at which focal length you use most often, and look for a lens (only one e) in that range that is f/2.8 or faster. Generally you can get faster apertures with primes, but zooms are more convenient.
However, since you said you were at f/5.6-6.3, that sounds like you're towards the 270mm end of your Tamron 18-270. Unfortunately, the best lenses for that kind of situation, such as a 300mm f/2.8, will cost about $3-5K... Or a 70-200 f/2.8 will cost $1200-$2000.
And, if you ever have THAT much money to spend, chances are you'll be stepping up to a newer DSLR body, possibly even a full-frame body, which would run you at least $2500.
So, your only option for less than $500 is to simply find a way to get MUCH closer to the action, and use either a 50mm f/1.4 AFS-G which you can get for $450 or so, or an 85mm f/1.8 which you can get for about the same, or less.
BTW, here's a couple things to consider when you're pushing the envelope in extremely low light with extremely fast action:
1.) Let the action come to you. If your camera has trouble tracking focus on a high-speed object, then simply pre-focus on a spot on the track / course, and snap the shutter as the action passes that point. That's how gymnastics photographers do it a LOT, because you simply cannot focus on someone's face while they're flying through the air, head over heels. ;-)
2.) Find the angle that will minimize motion blur, if your shutter speed is cutting it close. Usually, if they're coming right towards you then blur will be less noticeable than if they're passing you at a 90 degree angle...
3.) Get stable. It may not solve your motion blur problems, but it will at least help everything else in the image be sharp, AND it can aide in your autofocus accuracy / consistency. I'd get a tripod with a head that is able to pan, either a ballhead or a 4-way head can have this function. Either way, lock it down and that will open up a whole new world of sharpness when you start to "cut it close" with your shutter speed.
So, there you have it. If a $2500 used D700 is out of the question, or a $1200 used 70-200 2.8 VR, then you're still not out of luck. A medium-sized investment can go a LONG way towards dramatically improving your images. A $400 85mm f/1.8, and a $200 tripod, (don't buy a cheesy, cheap tripod!) ...and you'll be set!
Take care,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum