I shoot most of my pictures indoor, very low light and fast action sport...and the most important thing is that no flash can be use....badminton(just for u to know which kind of sport)

1st thing...how much different between a F/2.8 and a F/2.0, not the price I'm speaking of... I saw a 105 or 135 with F/2 stop, and there is one tele have a 80-200mm F/2.8 stop... zoom tele will be cool, but now sure if it will get as much light in as the F/2 stop

need help on those....

alan'07

 

First off, I'd like to say that I'm not a pro and nor do I claim to be. What I'm about to say is from my own experience only: I think that the difference from an F/2.8 and an F/2.0 is probably significant only in low light, but F/2.8 should already be mighty fast. As far as compensations for light, I've had to bump up the ISO to capture shots. I would think a F/2.0 would make images vignette, but I haven't tried, so I can't say.

As long as your white balance is set, you should be okay. I believe most people use tele-zoom lenses for sports, especially if you're far and trying to catch that moment.

 

Personally, I'd be first asking how close can you get, and how much sensor size do you have available.....

If you can, i'd go with a fast (f/2) prime lens if you have a nice large sensor (8mpx or better), then crop down. That way you dont have to crank up your ISO as high, and you still get the shot.

However, if you have a 6mpx sensor or something, maybe get the zoom.

Also, are you looking at lenses with IS (hopefully you have a canon)? If not, you shoudl be. IS lenses can buy you about 2 fstops when handheld shooting.

 

I am no expert either but I will chime in.. someone can correct me if I am wrong.

F/2.8 and F/2.0 It really depends on the lens. If you are looking to shoot in low light without a flash, you will either have to crank up your ISO or enlarge your aperture or increase your exposure (this is not posibble if you are taking motion shots). All three are related to get a properly composite picture. I think enlarging the aperture is the best since cranking the ISO will create a very grainly picture.

Therefore the faster lens (F/2.O for this case) will be better. However, you have to keep in mind that although you have a fast lens, it might not be wise to have it set wide open. Most lens have a sweet spot and most of the lens I have read about don't really have a sweet spot at the widest settings. With that said, it also depends on the number of blades and the contruction fo the lens. Therefore, the F/2.0 might not give you a better picture then the F/2.8. I say you read about it before you actually go buy a lens since they are fairly expensive.

www.slrgear.com is one that i use.

Again I am no expert but just speaking from experience.

I love the IS (VR for Nikons) on my lens. They do help, but if you are taking motion shots or pending shots they are not that useful.

 

the f/2.0 lens is a nice sweet lens to have and use, but it is a prime lens none the less... so it does have its limitation of zoom.

the f/2.8 though is not as fast as the f/2.0 lens, it does offer you the ability to zoom in and out whilst retaining the fixed aperture setting throughout the distances. for this lens, depending on lighting, i'd prolly say 1000 ISO should be your max. use anything higher and thus will result in loss of image quality as a result of the sensors being too sensitive to light.

hope this help.

imo. get the f/2.8 80-200mm lens.

 

I'm very sorry guys...haha...I had a Nikon D70s, it took me a long while to choose between Canon D400 and Nikon D70s...

to me, most of the DSLR at the level seem the same to me, so...I went with the one with better hand feel...(then I kinda still wanna go back with Canon, and then Nikon...and then Canon...yeah...it still kinda...)

anyway, I wish we can find a time to meet up and exchange experience...and so them we (maybe just me) can improve on the way...

so the blade on the lens huh...I might have to look in to those more ...

o...also..thanks guys...
alan'07

 

I just got the XTI 400D and it's a very nice beginners camera. I can't afford those higher end ones . The D70 is a great camera and like you I was bouncing between the D70 and the Xti. I end up getting the Xti because it was a newer model then the D70 and has more MP whcih doesn't really matter.

 

www.fredmiranda.com
www.dpreview.com

both have excellent review sections for canon and nikon setups.

 

what's your budget?

both the 105 and 135 f/2.0 isn't cheap. and they are both the DC series lens which means you have defocus control on the lens. the 105 2.0 is about 1g brand new, and i would assume the 135 being a little more. for that price, i would rather recommend the 85 1.4. you have one more stop of light and it's about the same price as the 105 2.0. for 300-400$ the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 is a very good option. the 50 1.8 being a little less than 100 is a really good bang for the buck. if you have the cash for a 70-200 VR, then i would get that on top of everything. just remember when dealing with low light, every little bit counts. shooting 1/30 at 2.8 means you can shoot at 1/60 at 2.0, and at 1/125 at 1.4.

 

I have a couple 2.8 zoom lenses and I'll tell you... it's usually not fast enough for indoors. And VR/IS will NOT help you in your situation, since it only helps with *your* movement. It doesn't stop the action for you. What you really want is something that's either 1.8 or 1.4. The 1.8 lenses being much, much cheaper than the 1.4's. You can get a 50/1.8 for quite cheap. Same for the 85/1.8.

The focal length will depend on how close you can get. But if you do have enough light where you shoot, 2.8 might work out well for you. It really depends on how well lit your shooting location will be.

Question is, what're you shooting with now? And how much do you want to bump up the ISO? I've done a few indoor shots where even with the ISO at 3200 and the lens at f/3.2, I was only getting about 1/15 or 1/20. Which would be way too slow for action shots. A stop or two faster on the lens would make a world of difference.

 

thanks for the site, I use to goto dpreview...but I think the 1st one you linked has a better info i need...

thanks by the way

alan'07

 

I did save up almost 1k to spend, so yeah....will see how it will goes, and yeah...it is a tough choice.

I would rather find a chance to test it before I buy it, but..it hard.

alan'07

 

ah...if you live anywere near fremont, I should take you there and test it out...haha

I have the D70s with the 18-70mm outfit lens, so can't get much light in while the F/3.5 isn't helping.

will try to do a little bit more research on which should I go with....my head hurt...

alan'07

 

What's the fastest shutter speed you can get with the 18-70 at f/3.5 and whatever ISO you find acceptable? f/2.8 to f/3.5 isn't that big of a difference... it's not even a full stop. I'm guessing that you're looking for a new lens since the 18-70 isn't cutting it for you.

 

just rent them first. Keeble & Shuchat in palo alto has stuff for rent http://www.kspphoto.com/

and what edy said, 1.8 versions of the 50 and 85 are very good bang for the buck if you don't need that extra 1/2 stop.