OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #8 · 135/2 L for Low-light sports ? | |
ZoneV_Nikon wrote:
Your post is by far the most helpful.
I totally agree with you. I'm a newspaper shooter, too...by no means a veteran PJ, but I've done enough over the last couple of years to know what works for these sports. I know a 135/2 will in theory work well. I was really just asking whether the focusing speed of the 135 L was up to the task of photographing sports, since it's one of the original EF L series lenses from the first decade of EF lens production. I should have known better...of course it's up to the task...that's why Canon switched to EF mount...to create fast aperture, fast-focusing lenses with electronic interfaces.
I do have and use an 85/1.8 (Nikkor). It's fast focusing, and sharp. but it's a little short sometimes, and I have to use the 80-200/2.8 (slow aperture) which causes a 1.5-stop underexposure since my cameras stop at ISO 1600. I feel the 20D and 135/2 L will rectify this. First, I gain one stop right away. Second, the prime lenses tend to have faster T/ratios and actually pass more lilght for a given aperture. For example, the 135/2 L is T/2.2, while the Nikkor zoom is more like T/3.5. That's more than a stop right there. Finally, the 20D meters (and its sensor records) about 1/3 stop brighter than my Nikons. So I'd gain almost two real stops by going with the 20D + 135L. On paper, it's one stop, which threw me off initially, but then I investigated deeper.
I really want a 1D III, but can't afford it right now, but I can get a 20D for probably under $150. I can live with it for a while.
...Show more →
Zone,
I follow your calculations on the 20D and if $150 is all you have to invest then it might work for you. However, I'd strongly suggest you look for a 1DIIn. Nice copies are selling in the $450 -$600 range. You get a camera that will work (mostly) to ISO 1600, 10 fps, and superb AF - frankly nearly as good as anything still on the market. You'll be vastly more successful with a 1DIIn than you'll ever be with a 20D. (I've owned both.)
Yeah, the 135L is one of the "legends." Don't quite know what Canon did when they designed it, but if you learn to use the focal length, there are few lenses that surpass it.
Eland, I grant your point about zooms and f/2.8 - but again - only if you have the light. I do shoot football on a field so dark that with my 1DIV cranked all the way to ISO 25,600 I'm still at least a stop dark at f/2.8. I tried shooting with primes, but in the dark (and dust, dirt, wind, etc.) I couldn't make lens changes so I glue my 70-200L f/2.8 IS II to my 1DIV and do the best I can. Since most of the work is for a newspaper that prints in black & white, I do okay. They've just moved to an online PDF version and want color as well as B&W. There is a lot of noise at that high of an ISO. I'm no great and famous sports shooter and the towns I work out of 99.9999% of the world have never heard of, much less know how to pronounce their names, like Baboquivari, Tohono O'Odham, Ajo, etc. Things are dark out here as some of these facilities haven't had lighting upgrades (or I swear even repairs) since the '60s.
I'd kill for the chance to shoot indoors with my 24-70 and 70-200. Almost got the chance this fall when the local VB team fell one game short of making it to state. The finals are held in a "real" arena. That would have been fun. Oh, well there's always next year.
Robert
|
This lens, even on a 20D is going to fast compared to the dysfunctional AF of my current 1988-era Nikkor 80-200/2.8. I'm sure I'll get at least 50% of the shots in sharp focus with the combo. Right now, I get about 10% in razor sharp focus using the Nikkor 80-200 on my D1H (which has the fastest AF of any Nikon digital body when used with that particular type of lens...it's the lens that's the limiting factor, by far).
