Steve Spencer wrote:
I wanted to report back after using this lens to shoot the basketball tournament my son played in over the weekend. Based on advice here I set high speed burst to 20 fps and I enabled sports mode basketball, which worked ok. To me it seems like that mode focusses on the ball, which is sometimes what I want and I was able to get some shots that I like quite a bit. The lens doesn't always keep up with the boys when they are moving at top speed, however. You get the first 10 or 20 shots in focus but it seems to lag after that so really short burst are the way to go. You can see the focus missing in the viewfinder so knowing when to refocus is pretty easy. I am sure I could do better with more practice, but the bottom line is I was able to get the sort of shots I wanted to get. I have included four more action shots and a couple of portrait type shots from warm up. The lens is great for portraits and has no issues with that use....Show more →
I would suggest increasing your SS next time for even better results. You could easily triple it in that gym and have plenty of leeway left to avoid crazy noise.
artsupreme wrote:
I would suggest increasing your SS next time for even better results. You could easily triple it in that gym and have plenty of leeway left to avoid crazy noise.
I could have. I shot these in AV mode with auto ISO thinking the ISO might run higher, but the gym was pretty bright. If I paid more attention I could have shot in TV mode and kept the speed at something like 1/500, but I am not detecting any motion blur in these. The action shots, when in focus, are not less sharp than the portraits in which he was relatively still. The shots I am losing are almost all later shots in bursts that last longer than half a second. The lens can't seem to track the faster action for very long, but as I said I am still learning the lens and the camera. Perhaps it is me and I didn't fiddle with setting much so it is quite possible I could do much better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I could have. I shot these in AV mode with auto ISO thinking the ISO might run higher, but the gym was pretty bright. If I paid more attention I could have shot in TV mode and kept the speed at something like 1/500, but I am not detecting any motion blur in these. The action shots, when in focus, are not less sharp than the portraits in which he was relatively still. The shots I am losing are almost all later shots in bursts that last longer than half a second. The lens can't seem to track the faster action for very long, but as I said I am still learning the lens and the camera. Perhaps it is me and I didn't fiddle with setting much so it is quite possible I could do much better....Show more →
You can always set a minimum shutter speed to use in Av with Auto ISO or just use M with auto ISO and set your SS and aperture. I think you did great with the slow SS used, and your results will only improve with a higher SS. I would use minimum 1/400th there for basketball and you could even go higher as the NR tools we have at our disposal now are amazing.
Generally in these settings the light is consistent and there is no need for auto exposure, which is too reactive to changes in the reflective nature of the content filling the frame. Players in dark jerseys will cause over exposure while players in light jerseys will cause under exposure, etc. It can also speed up post when starting with a consistent exposure, rather than images that fluctuate and require more individualized attention.
100% agree about higher shutter speed and ISO, though the images presented here look good. What we don't see is how many were suboptimal because of motion blur due to the shutter speed and ISO combination. But it probably won't help with what Steve reported about the AF petering out during longer bursts. I still believe the EF 135/2 is too far on the old side and has difficulty with intense action. My theory is that the electronics in the lens are 1996 technology and the speed mismatch between that and what is in the R5II is too great. That's a 30 years technology difference. It's exactly why I sold the lens once I was more fully transitioned to mirrorless, because compared to newer EF models and current RF lenses, the 135 just felt too laggy and inconsistent.
While you won't want to hear it, the 70-200Z was killing it at the hockey tournaments I recently photographed. ISO 6400 1/1250 f/4 with the 1.4x TC in APS-C crop and it just blew me away that it could keep up with very fast U18 players while shooting at relatively close distances from ice level at the redline/center ice where AF will have more difficulty because of the greater changes in relative focusing distance than when working from farther away. It would be nice to see more lenses from Canon in the RF lineup with this level of AF performance.
rscheffler wrote:
Generally in these settings the light is consistent and there is no need for auto exposure, which is too reactive to changes in the reflective nature of the content filling the frame. Players in dark jerseys will cause over exposure while players in light jerseys will cause under exposure, etc. It can also speed up post when starting with a consistent exposure, rather than images that fluctuate and require more individualized attention.
100% agree about higher shutter speed and ISO, though the images presented here look good. What we don't see is how many were suboptimal because of motion blur due to the shutter speed and ISO combination. But it probably won't help with what Steve reported about the AF petering out during longer bursts. I still believe the EF 135/2 is too far on the old side and has difficulty with intense action. My theory is that the electronics in the lens are 1996 technology and the speed mismatch between that and what is in the R5II is too great. That's a 30 years technology difference. It's exactly why I sold the lens once I was more fully transitioned to mirrorless, because compared to newer EF models and current RF lenses, the 135 just felt too laggy and inconsistent.
While you won't want to hear it, the 70-200Z was killing it at the hockey tournaments I recently photographed. ISO 6400 1/1250 f/4 with the 1.4x TC in APS-C crop and it just blew me away that it could keep up with very fast U18 players while shooting at relatively close distances from ice level at the redline/center ice where AF will have more difficulty because of the greater changes in relative focusing distance than when working from farther away. It would be nice to see more lenses from Canon in the RF lineup with this level of AF performance....Show more →
Thanks for the comments Ron. There is definitely some lessons I learned from the shoot. Next time I will shoot with a higher shutter speed and a higher fixed ISO. If I would have shot with a fixed ISO of 800 or even 1600, there would have been no issues with noise and much safer shutter speeds. I almost always shoot with a fixed ISO anyway, I just decided on auto ISO in this instance for one less thing to think about when shooting. That said, one thing I was very impressed by was the exposure that the camera selected. It was almost always bang on and I don't think varied more than a third of a stop for any of the shots I took. I also learned a bit about how to get good focus acquisition, but here I would agree with your characterization of the lens being a bit laggy. Not terrible, but noticeable for this type of shooting. I also learned with this lens that short burst for about 10 to 15 shots are really all you can expect to get with good focus. At least with my technique. Sometimes you get 30 or maybe even 40, but only the first 10 or 15 shots are dependably in focus.
The lens isn't perfect or even close to it for this sort of shooting, but that said it provided what I wanted and needed. I got half a dozen shots of my son in action and several nice portraits that will serve as great memories of his time playing basketball. I might rent the RF 70-200 f/2.8Z next time, however. For me that will mostly be to allow me to get the shots that I want faster and with less time shooting. As a parent my focus is split between doing the photography and just watching my son play. If I can get the shots I want quicker and can set the camera down and just watch that would be a win for me and might well be worth the cost of a rental.
