Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi Folks,

I'm new here, so please bear with me (especially if I'm posting in the wrong spot).
I'm pretty new to the DSLR world, and got a "starter kit" that I'm shooting with now.
I'm currently running the following:

Body: Canon xsi
Lenses:
18-55mm kit
55-250mm f4-5.6
50mm f1.8 (LOVE this lens!)

I'm *really* enjoying photography, and am now referred to as the "paparazzi" in my group of friends, as I'm always shooting at events, get-togethers, etc.
Anyhow, I do a lot of sports/action shooting, as I have a son who plays hockey and lacrosse. Outdoor shots are turning out great for me, as the lighting is sufficient, however I can seem to capture any acceptable shots indoors, regardless of the lighting. Now, I realize I should consider getting a better lens, however I guess that the other thing that I'm concerned with if the ISO limitations of my camera body, which is only to 1600.

So my questions is this: what do I upgrade first here to get to the point where I can capture some acceptable shots?

Keep in mind that I have all intentions to buy a nice 70-200mm f2.8 L lens (based on my reading is one of the better lenses to buy for sports shots), however I don't want to blow my budget on one item and still not get to where I want to be.

My initial thoughts are to pick up something like a T2i or t3i which both have much improved ISO capability, and hopefully find a good deal on a good lens.

Thanks,
Rob.

This is the right spot for this question.

I'm not sure what to advise you. My initial piece of advice is to select gear based on what you shoot now or will shoot with the new gear, not what is the neatest thing to have. These indoor shots, are they in hockey arenas? Or are you talking about indoor portraits of friends and family? While a 70-200, from just about any manufacturer, is a fantastic range that is immensely useful and versatile for sports and outdoor shooting it is not a first choice lens for shooting portraits inside - unless we're talking about a camera with a sensor that can handle the big ISOs. This can get expensive depending on your definition of acceptable noise. Your existing 50 1.8 and a newer body will help you out better if indoor portraits are your purpose. If you're shooting indoor hockey the 70-200 may help you better - it's considerably faster than your existing telephoto 55-250 so you'll get some shutter speed back that way and you'll notice improved image quality from the better optics. Bodies come and go, but good well selected glass(lenses) will last you many bodies and potentially/hopefully many years. If you picked up a decent 70-200 2.8 now it will still be a great lens when you get a newer body down the road.

Advice from someone that loves their 70-200.

Taking indoor shots without adequate lighting is difficult with any camera body but the most expensive. I have a 5DII and ISO 800 is my highest acceptable range before noise starts creeping in. I'm not sure if by indoor shots you mean a skating rink or in the house. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "acceptable shots". Do you need more light? If in the house, perhaps you need an external flash. Are you trying to capture high speed skating in an indoor rink. Perhaps your colour is off. Make sure you have the proper White Balance setting. Perhaps post-processing can make your images more acceptable.

the amount of acceptable grain is a highly personal matter, I can accept a well-exposed ISO 3200 shot from a relatively old APS-C sensor, just to give you a reference. A lot of professional sport photography is shot at much higher sensitivity. XSI might not be the best body, but with the right amount of light and lens it can produce great shots. If you're not making money out of this then I see no reason to buy an expensive piece of glass. Although, expensive glass usually retains its value for resale

I don't disagree with you. I was merely stating the fact that for my camera beyond 800 ISO one can begin to see the grain since Robi stated that his camera only goes up to 1600 ISO. I've taken great bird shots at 1600 ISO in good lighting conditions without any noticeable noise. But the appearance of grain, for pixle peepers, is detectable when the lighting condition is low.

Thanks for the replys folks.
Sorry for the confusion on the scenario in which I want to shoot.
It is in hockey arenas. I have been able to take some great shots with my current setup while shooting action (field lacrosse), as well as some great portraits indoors, however I'm finding that either my telephoto lens is not fast enough to handle action shots while in the arenas, or my sensor isn't able to obtain enough light with a fast enough shutter speed.

When I say "acceptable shots" I mean shots that are not super dark and/or blurry.

Thanks for the help and support!

Cheers,
Rob

From someone who has gone from a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 to 120-340mm f/4.5* with the same old body, the difference in daylight is substantial and has been well worth the investment. In lower light conditions, however, I didn't find as much improvement in my results. I've got two Blue Jays games in my flickr stream taken a few years apart if you want to compare.

So I don't think there is any one solution to your problem; which doesn't really answer you call for help here. For me, photography is a long term investment, so I went for glass. Five years after getting my first DSLR, when I go to upgrade next year I'll have had a sufficient leap in technology to finally put a dent in the problem.

[*] that's 70-200mm f/2.8 x 1.7

What's your budget?
How often are you shooting low light sports that require you to buy a 70-200/2.8 IS?

If I were you, I would pick up a Canon 7D and rent the 70-200 or any other lenses from Henry's whenever I need it.
I do pretty much the same thing but I bought a 1Dx instead.
I rent all my lenses from Henry's since I don't shoot all the time and the lenses I require are always different.

$80 to rent a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS for the weekend... DONE!

I was going to suggest renting the lens to try it out before making the decision. The 70-200 is a heavy lens, so that is another reason to try it first - see how you feel about holding it for an extended time.

There is a 7D for sale here

Thanks for the suggestions on renting lenses...I was honestly thinking about it! I assume that you folks are talking about Henry's.
Regarding how often I shoot indoors for sports, it would be 1-3 days per week for about 7 months of the year...definitely worth buying the glass I would think. My understanding is that the 70-200/2.8 is a great glass for not only shooting low light sports, but for outdoor action as well, is that correct?

As for looking at something like a 7d, I will not lie, I've been looking at them quite a bit, as have I been looking at the 6D, 60D, and 70D. I'm not sure about these being in my budget at the moment as I believe that I do need a lens AND body to get me where I want to be, however I guess we'll see.

If someone has a body that they believe would suit my needs for sale, please PM me at the moment, as I'm so new here that I don't have enough posts to see the classifieds yet!


Thanks again for the help, you folks are awesome!

Cheers,
Rob

Thanks, I'm going to have a look.

Cheers,
Rob.

Jays vs. Reds, June 2009:
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjk865sZ

Jays vs. Angels, Sep 2013:
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjJqrF5N

You should also check Vistek for lens rentals.

Awesome, thanks!

Cheers,
Rob

Ok thanks,
I'll have a look at Vistek.
Much appreciated!

Nice pictures!
Regarding the action shots, you've caught quite a lot of the action which is neat, you are right in not seeing as much of a difference between the lenses in this particular scenario.
I assume that you're zoomed all of the way out, which I assume would be more of a struggle to keep a fast enough shutter speed and still grab enough light.
I'll have to compare to the pictures that I took at the Jays game that I was at, as this would be an interesting comparison I think.

Thanks,
Rob.

If you don't mind my asking, what camera body were you using in these 2 shoots?

Thanks,
Rob.

Hey Rob the exif on those shoot says Nikon D80

Hey Rob,

Having 2 boys that have done everything from AA hockey to OFSAA Cross-country..here's my set-up for lenses.

70-200 f4 - Super sharp and covers all my needs for outdoors
200 2.8 - lens is a beast
85 1.8 - great for hockey/indoor gyms IMO

And much...much cheaper than a 70-200 2.8 IS

Ah,

Thanks for that info...never thought of that.
I'll look next time, I promise!


Cheers,
Rob

Thank you very much for this info...this will help me as to where to look more!

Cheers,
Rob.

FWIW, I've never met anyone that wouldn't trade their 70-200 f4 for a 2.8 that isn't (overly?) weight conscious. I have seen many f4 lens owners upgrade though...

I've read many people write that the f4 is as good or better than the f2.8. My personal experience is that on a ff the f4 has more distortion. Even lightroom does a bigger lens correction on the f4 than on the f2.8. As for changing lenses, I have the tendency to hesitate too much. The convenience of the zoom lens allows me to try more things without the hesitation.

Hockey arenas are usually very dark. Last time I was shooting at iso6400 1/640 f2.8 on a 7d. Lots of post work needed to clean up the noise and bring the exposure back to an acceptable level. If budget is a concern, at least get the 70-200 2.8 non-is and a monopod.

I've read those posts too. The problem with those posts is that they're mostly written by people with the f4 and not the 2.8. Funny that. This is not to say that the f4 is a bad lens, not at all. I just don't buy that someone would choose the slower glass if they had the budget for the 2.8 unless they're physically too weak to hold the lens.

This is why I have the 200 2.8..rivals ANY 70-200 2.8 in terms of IQ

And for my needs, a hobbyist, the f4 does me just fine.

The money that 1 tournament costs in Lake Placid for hockey or the gas to travel all over Ontario for 2 years running competitively, I could have easily bought a 2.8.

Canon's 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the sharpest of the four 70-200's. Both are fantastic. I find that for sports, I need the f/2.8.

My final suggestions are to get the 7D body. Rent the lenses until you have funds to buy the lens. Renting bodies are kinda expensive so you don't want to do it the other way around.
If budget is a concern, look into the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Also a very sharp lens. Tamron has fantastic VC. The only thing you might lose a bit is focusing speed and build quality.
DO NOT get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS for sports... AF speed is too slow.

Canon 70-200 f/4L IS - $1300~ plus tax
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - $2400~ plus tax
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC - $1400~ plus tax

Justification to get the Canon 2.8 IS II is up to you and no one else.

So it seems that the short answer here is to get a fast 70-200mm lens AND a more capable body.

I hear a lot of 7d suggestions, but what about the new 70d?
Any thoughts on that body?

In terms of a body, why not wait a little, I hear there's something important coming during October? Not sure how true it is.