Lens reach v ISO for evening footie game

ukhamsterclub

ukhamsterclub

Messages
8
Name
Nigel
Edit My Images
Yes
I am going back to a fairly poorly lit non league ground I shot a few seasons back and I remember then preferring to use a 200 1.8 I have as opposed to shooting at a very high with my 400 and 70-200. Since then Ive changed camera's, I was using 1D mark 1V's maybe or possibly 1DS but either way I am now using 1DX's (1 not 2).

So what I am asking in a long winded way is, would you prefer fewer shots but at a lower ISO, or more shots but at a much higher ISO. Ive shot better lit grounds this season at 8000 ISO where I found the images acceptable but I'm reluctant to push much over this?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.
 
Use the 400mm f/2.8 and fill the frame as much as possible for me.

I had a tennis event last month where the lighting was horrific. Indoors, no natural light anywhere, dark curtains behind the players and strip fluorescent lights pointing downwards in between the courts only. ISO was 12,800 to get anything worthwhile in terms of action at f/2.8. Was better just to fill the frame, shoot as much as possible and also pad the gallery with plenty of reaction and head shots etc.
 
Thanks Craig, I hear what you are saying. It's fair to say as the game is tonight and as it might rain, I suspect using the 200 could end up leaving me a very expensive paperweight given CPS don't support this lens anymore!
 
I would guess that the older model 70-200 is water sealed once you put a filter on the front. Is it silly to suggest investing in rain covers for your gear? They range in price depending on the brand but at the cheaper end you could probably get something like a StormJacket which will allow you to keep shooting without any worries.

I use the ThinkTank Hydrophobia covers on both my 70-200 & 400. They are more expensive and require a separate eye piece as well but worth the investment to protect both lenses and allow me to keep shooting in the rain.
 
fhoneill said:
I would guess that the older model 70-200 is water sealed once you put a filter on the front. Is it silly to suggest investing in rain covers for your gear? They range in price depending on the brand but at the cheaper end you could probably get something like a StormJacket which will allow you to keep shooting without any worries.

I use the ThinkTank Hydrophobia covers on both my 70-200 & 400. They are more expensive and require a separate eye piece as well but worth the investment to protect both lenses and allow me to keep shooting in the rain.
Click to expand...
I always carry a cheap Op-tech rain cover, in case of a sudden downpour. Although they are not very hard wearing, I think Ive only used them a handful of time and theyre holding up so far

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...Mqc1USGoV90r33JOmx4o0u3ZHtOT6XZ4OhxoCa5bw_wcB
 
fhoneill said:
Is it silly to suggest investing in rain covers for your gear? They range in price depending on the brand but at the cheaper end you could probably get something like a StormJacket which will allow you to keep shooting without any worries.
Click to expand...

No its not silly at all and I do use Aqatech covers for both my 400mm and 70-200 (although with that one it is a bit of a palaver) but I've never found a cover for the 200mm 1.8 lens I was referring to....the lens hoods on those lenses it just too big!
 
Has to be something out there for a 300mm (or bigger) that will do the job? Although I have to admit the only time I've ever seen anyone use one is indoors.
 
fhoneill said:
Has to be something out there for a 300mm (or bigger) that will do the job? Although I have to admit the only time I've ever seen anyone use one is indoors.
Click to expand...

Well I went with the 400 anyway, and at 16000 I could manage to get 1/1000 out of it. I thought the images looked good enough.......thanks for your time and advice though all and by the way... I did need the Aquatech!
View attachment 98451
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top