Poor Lighting at Gymnastics Meet

[Micheal_Hall]

Gary,

I have two of the 200mm 1.8 lenses - they are (or, rather, were) Canon made.

Canon discontinued them last year, but there are many used lenses on the market that are in excellent shape.

As to the zooms, you won't find a zoom with an aperture better than 2.8 - they don't make them.

The 135mm 2.0 is an extraordinary lens. I love the thing and - thankfully! - it's still in the production line up.

~Micheal

[ QUOTE ]
After I read your post, I looked at the Canon Website for their lens lineup. I didn't find any telephoto zoom better than 2.8 and the fastest telephoto prime is the 2.0 135mm. Did I read your post correctly that you have a Canon 200mm 1.8? Or is it a different brand or obsolete?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L prime lens one of the 3 best lenses Canon has ever produced. Unfortunately, for some reason, Canon discontinued producing the lens last year. Now, you'll have to look to the used market to obtain one - pricing seems to run from $2500 - $3500.

I use the 200 f/1.8L for most very low light situations. Such as this one, shot today at a municipal hockey facility, no flash, at 1000 ISO, f/1.8, and 1/640th, with a 1D:
http://www.pbase.com/image/26714187 .

While I have not ever shot gymnastics, I wouldn't think the lighting would be a lot different. The Canon 1D can go up to 1600 ISO with reasonably good results. That's two-thirds stop improvement beyond the above shot. And then, perhaps you can drop down to 1/320th shutter speed, which is a full stop improvement beyond the above shot. Total improvement with different settings, same lens, same body, is 1 + 2/3rd stops, which is almost a cut in light by 1/4th.

If you live in a major metropolitan city, you should be able to rent the 200 f/1.8 for a reasonable fee. Here in the Dallas area it costs about $35 for a week day / week end to rent. Well worth checking out. Just an amazing lens.

Best regards, Bill

[Micheal_Hall]

Bill,

Unfortunately, gymnastics can be much different. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I shoot quite a lot of it and my last meet was 1/320th, 1.8 (200mm) @ISO 1600 ... and I could have used another 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop.

It was a pit!

However, the lens is a gem (I have two of them) as well as the 135mm 2.0 being indispensable for it.

~Micheal

[ QUOTE ]
Bill,

Unfortunately, gymnastics can be much different. ~Micheal

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the note. Learn new things every day.

I used to think the minimum for hockey, regardless of lighting, was 1/500th sec. And if fact, I've gotten to the point where I decline assignments if I can't shoot at 1/500th at or below 1600 ISO with the 200 (f/1.8). Shooting hockey at 1/320th just doesn't result in sharp enough images. Learned that long ago.

Lately, I'm starting to change to 1/640th for hockey, if I can get it, even it if means sacrificing another 1/3 stop of ISO (assuming I'm able to stay at or below 1600 ISO). I'm finding that, at least for my particular 200 f/1.8 prime, all the way down at f/1.8, I need another 1/3 stop shutter speed improvement. I threw away few images this past weekend shooting at 1/640th at f/1.8 - my sharpness of images improved. I must be moving the lens too much to stay sharp at 1/500th (have no choice but to set up at center ice).

Sound like Gymnastics is similar in the 'need for speed.'

Best regards, Bill

[Micheal_Hall]

Yeah, ideally, I would be shooting around 1/1000 or so if I really wanted sharp shots during a tumbling run. I can generally time a layout so that I get good shots at 1/320, but faster shutter speeds would make that a lot easier.

Realistically, I would be very happy with 1/500 - 1/640.

~micheal