I picked up a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens ($79.99) to use for certain things the paper sends me on, especially those low light ordeals and just to play with it a bit I took it to the basketball game Saturday night since I was shooting in a dungeon anyway.

The first shot is how this gym really appears light wise.....yuk!

Looking at the photos on the computer I found the 70-200 works much better, probably due to the stabilizer.

JS

Hey JS.....thanks for the look. I'm debating on either a Nikkor 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 for my D70 as I can't afford a 70-200/2.8 yet. Although I don't do much indoor sports, I've been thinking about it. This gives me a fairly good idea of what to expect.

John

Hey JS.....thanks for the look. I'm debating on either a Nikkor 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 for my D70 as I can't afford a 70-200/2.8 yet. Although I don't do much indoor sports, I've been thinking about it. This gives me a fairly good idea of what to expect.

John

Yeah, the problem is it tends to blur objects close up or underexposed. It takes a bit of practice to pan with it. The camera is so light though it's tough to pan with, although my shoulder hurt just as bad :eek:
Glad it helped posting this, just don't expect a lot of keepers.

JS

How is the autofocus on the 50/f1.8? I've heard that particular lens has the slower ring motor instead of the USM motors that are found on the more expensive/professional lenses so it wouldn't be too suitable for sports and action shots.

IIRC, that is why I bought the 50/f1.4 when I made my most recent equipment purchases.

How is the autofocus on the 50/f1.8? I've heard that particular lens has the slower ring motor instead of the USM motors that are found on the more expensive/professional lenses so it wouldn't be too suitable for sports and action shots.

IIRC, that is why I bought the 50/f1.4 when I made my most recent equipment purchases.

Ihave yet to try it on the 300D or the old 1D, but it's definately slower, which may be why the blur on many of the shots with it. Oddly the only blurred shots though were panning left right/right left. Only one jump shot was blurred though...odd.
For the $$ it's not a bad lens though. I think the f1.4 may be a better choice but most of what I want it for is not moving or very slow moving such as the Christmas stuff I shot for the paper in the auditorium so thats not an issue. I was basically playing with it the other night and knowing the team I was shooting figured I'd get three or four usable shots for the papers....I got em.
Actually this gym is so bad that when two bulbs go out its too dark for an f2.8! That night there were two lights out in the same area.....
The AD hates seeing any photographer show up as they all complain about how dark the gym is. Next week the heavy guns come out....I'm taking flash just to aggravate him :D

JS

JS I'm thinking about the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 or the 85mm. The 2.8's are not doing it in the gym I'm shooting in. It is just very frustrating. Friday night my wife was sitting with the superintendent of the school district while I was shooting the game. When I went up at halftime to talk to her my wife had alrready hit her up about the bad light before I ever got a chance to. Maybe in the future sometime the issue will be addressed. But I am not going to hold my breath.

yeah the AF isnt that fast. But for 70 dollars, what can you expect. JS, did you pick up the Mk I or II?

yeah the AF isnt that fast. But for 70 dollars, what can you expect. JS, did you pick up the Mk I or II?

Liven, this is the MKII 50mm. I tried to get the old version but they had none in stock except the FD mount, and they had four of those, plus two or three T-mount, none of which would help me, but like you said, $79 who cares, glass wise it's very good. It will work great for my non action stuff that I bought it for.

Funny though, the sports editor loved the stuff I sent him....go figure.

JS

haha, gotta love editors. They always pick the stuff I thin twice about sending to them.

haha, gotta love editors. They always pick the stuff I thin twice about sending to them.

Well they ran one shot on the front page (small) and then a very large shot on the front page of the sports, the largest basketball shot they have run this season so someone liked it.

JS

Liven, this is the MKII 50mm. I tried to get the old version but they had none in stock except the FD mount, and they had four of those, plus two or three T-mount, none of which would help me, but like you said, $79 who cares, glass wise it's very good. It will work great for my non action stuff that I bought it for.

Funny though, the sports editor loved the stuff I sent him....go figure.

JS

yeah, I look forward to using it for portraits. i already used it for one quick snaportrait, and it works great. Good bokeh, great DOF, all around a good portrait lens.

Most of the time I've been using the 70-200 f4 under sodium lights at ISO 3200 and its not terrible with some decent photoshoping. But I've been having better luck since I got the 85 1.8. At the next game I may try to use the flash for a change but I think I'm too addicted to using burst mode.

EF 85 1.8 - 1/400, f1.8, ISO 1600 (almost no photoshop)
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/502/medium/244225IMG_3475.jpg

EF 70-200 f4 - 1/250, f4, ISO 3200 (a LOT of exposure fixing)
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/502/medium/244225IMG_3039.jpg

I might pick up the 50 1.4 and I'd like to try it out in the gym but I'm not sure it would yield anything noticably better than the 85. Its funny, I'm not sure any 2 of the 12 lights dangling up there are the same color. Old Timer, I can certainly sympathize, unfortunately I think the mindset of most administrators is that if the lights are on and the ball is visible, what's the fuss about? Its not worth the money to them to upgrade even to fluorescents. Such is the fate of small schools.

Most of the time I've been using the 70-200 f4 under sodium lights at ISO 3200 and its not terrible with some decent photoshoping. But I've been having better luck since I got the 85 1.8. At the next game I may try to use the flash for a change but I think I'm too addicted to using burst mode.

EF 85 1.8 - 1/400, f1.8, ISO 1600 (almost no photoshop)
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/502/medium/244225IMG_3475.jpg

EF 70-200 f4 - 1/250, f4, ISO 3200 (a LOT of exposure fixing)
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/502/medium/244225IMG_3039.jpg

I might pick up the 50 1.4 and I'd like to try it out in the gym but I'm not sure it would yield anything noticably better than the 85. Its funny, I'm not sure any 2 of the 12 lights dangling up there are the same color. Old Timer, I can certainly sympathize, unfortunately I think the mindset of most administrators is that if the lights are on and the ball is visible, what's the fuss about? Its not worth the money to them to upgrade even to fluorescents. Such is the fate of small schools.


What camera are you using? I noticed in the top shot you get the same ugly green and whatever color that is on the wall. Obviously sodium lights are a pain, but, with some creative play with the custom color temps on the WB with the MK II N you can get the correct colors.....now If I can remember what that setting was, I forgot to write it down!

JS

yeah, I look forward to using it for portraits. i already used it for one quick snaportrait, and it works great. Good bokeh, great DOF, all around a good portrait lens.


Actually I hadn't thought of that...this may work for my project...thanks Liven...saves me buying strobes.....I hope!

JS

I'm using a 20D with auto white balance. I've tried the fluorescent setting, but it came out worse. Haven't played around with custom temperatures on the 20D yet. Since most of the lights emit slightly different color temperatures, I get strange gradients when shooting from the corners. Haven't been too successful in editing them out. For some reason it seems to be a bit exagerated with the 85 as opposed to the 70-200.

I'm using a 20D with auto white balance. I've tried the fluorescent setting, but it came out worse. Haven't played around with custom temperatures on the 20D yet. Since most of the lights emit slightly different color temperatures, I get strange gradients when shooting from the corners. Haven't been too successful in editing them out. For some reason it seems to be a bit exagerated with the 85 as opposed to the 70-200.


I get the same thing with all my lenses, any I ever used in this dump of a gym. I'm in a catch 22, I want them to fix it, but they want to turn the present gym into class rooms and build a new, bigger gym.....that will double my property taxes..... :eek:
The first plan would have cost 135 million , can't wait for the next plan :rolleyes: but it will include new lighting at he very least. This place is so bad I get a headach shooting there.

JS