I have a friend with a DRebel that is trying to take some basketball pictures of her 6th grade child. I let her borrow my 85 1.8 but she thought it was too long on her cropped body. The next logical lens from my perspective would be the 50 1.4, but I have never used one and have no idea if it would focus fast enough for sports.
Has anyone tried to use it for shooting indoor sports? How does it relate to the 85 1.8 for focusing speed and accuracy?
Agreed. The 35 f/2 might be a better choice. It's still not as quick as the 85, but it's quicker than the 50. Heck for that matter I couldn't tell much difference in AF speed between the 50 f/1.4 and f/1.8; she could pick up the latter for about $75.
Is it a first-generation Rebel? They're kind of crippled when it comes to shooting sports...
It is not a first generation Rebel, I think she just got it new about 6 months ago. Looked to be pretty nice, but then again I don't know anything about the Rebels.
I will forever avoid use of my Canon 50 1.4 for sports...not worth the aggrivation it would cause with the slow AF. I've used it for a few sports before I had the 85 1.8 or 35L, but I'd always go with one of those two over the 50 1.4.
Now, if the recently-announced Sigma 50 1.4 is any good, that will very likely change, and I'll be happy to use a 50mm again. I just won't use a canon consumer 50mm to do it....
I tried my 50 f/1.4 for volleyball and quickly went back to my 35L after only a few frames on my crop body. The EF 50 f/1.4 just did not cut it. I liked the FL but not its focus speed. The 85 f/1.8 paired with the 35L on a second body worked very well for me.
I have the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4 and was shooting the NAIA tourney this past week and the 50 1.4 on a 1D was quite acceptable. I did not notice a big diff between the af or keeper rate between the 2. Must be the 1D.
I've been satisfied shooting NCAA gymnastics with a 50/1.4. It's not quite as consistently fast/accurate as the 35L, but not too far off either. That's with a MKIIN, so YMMV with a Rebel.
stanj wrote:
The dreamy look is a problem at any distance as long as you stay wider than f2.0 or so.
But I don't — I shoot b-ball at f/2, and it focuses faster than the 85 f/1.8. My standard b-ball setup now is the 50 f/1.2L on one body and the 200 f/1.8L on another; I rarely switch to anything else.
malice4you wrote:
...Now, if the recently-announced Sigma 50 1.4 is any good, that will very likely change, and I'll be happy to use a 50mm again. I just won't use a canon consumer 50mm to do it....
Here's the announcement; it does look like a possible alternative.
I was using my 50mm f/1.4 for high school basketball in a dark gymnasium just yesterday. I thought it worked out well, the focus on my 24-70mm f/2.8 L was noticeably faster but there was a trade off. I needed the wider aperture of the 50mm.
This was on a 1D, which has pretty fast AF. I would expect it to be slower on a Rebel body. I would make sure she is using AI Servo focus over one shot. That would make a huge difference.
Hmm, the 50 f/1.8 is simply pathetic and the 50 f/1.4 in low light is much better, if still slow. In fact in low light the 50 f/1.8 will often give up.
I've used the 50/1.4 with a 30D for high school basketball and it worked very well. I also use an 85/1.8 and a 135/2 for indoor sports when I want longer reach. I've never conducted formal AF speed tests, but I certainly don't hesitate to use the 50/1.4 in a gym.
