can you help a gymnast mom out?

[ukcatfan]

What I would not do is waste money on very fast lenses. I've seen people suggesting F1.4 lenses and I have to disagree completely. I've shot with those lenses and you wouldn't be using it to capture a gymnastics even because the DOF when it is full open will be very shallow... you would likely end up with photos where her hand is in focus and her body or blurred out... a fast lens is great for trying to get shots that you can pose carefully, but not for something like a sporting event.

At most you might want a F2.8 lens.

No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about on this. You must be thinking about the DOF from your experience using the lens with the subject close to your camera. The DOF gets much larger when you are farther away from the subject. I doubt you would be allowed within 50 ft of the athletes at a competition and would likely be even farther away. Just for example, an 85mm at f/1.4 and the subject at 50 ft gives you a DOF of 6 ft. It does not leave much room for error on your focus spot, but this is an extreme situation. Most people do not use the lens wide open unless it is a must because no lens is the sharpest wide open. So given that, an 85mm at f/2 and the subject at 75 ft gives you a DOF of 19 ft. That even leaves room for error if you slightly miss the focus point.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I have their App! Its a great tool!

 

[thomas998]

No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about on this. You must be thinking about the DOF from your experience using the lens with the subject close to your camera. The DOF gets much larger when you are farther away from the subject. I doubt you would be allowed within 50 ft of the athletes at a competition and would likely be even farther away. Just for example, an 85mm at f/1.4 and the subject at 50 ft gives you a DOF of 6 ft. It does not leave much room for error on your focus spot, but this is an extreme situation. Most people do not use the lens wide open unless it is a must because no lens is the sharpest wide open. So given that, an 85mm at f/2 and the subject at 75 ft gives you a DOF of 19 ft. That even leaves room for error if you slightly miss the focus point.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You are assuming that she will be 50 feet away from the gymnasts.

She isn't talking about shooting an event from the stands at some major event where you can't get on the floor. I'm assuming we are talking about the kiddie level of gymnastics where she will be much closer to the kids doing their routines, I'm willing to bet she will be closer to the 25 ft range which is going to cut the DOF down by about 75% from your 50 ft range... and that wont leave much room for error when your trying to focus on a moving object.

I also assume that when you buy a fast lens you use it as such... otherwise why would anyone pay for a 1.4 lens and then always use it at 2.0... makes no sense to me... when I put a fast lens on my camera I intend to use it wide open to maximize the bokeh otherwise why bother.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I also assume that when you buy a fast lens you use it as such... otherwise why would anyone pay for a 1.4 lens and then always use it at 2.0... makes no sense to me... when I put a fast lens on my camera I intend to use it wide open to maximize the bokeh otherwise why bother.

If I knew that I was always going to shoot at f/2 and had the choice between an f/1.4 and an f/2 lens, I'd strongly consider the former. I assume that it would cost more and be heavier, but it would almost certainly have better optics at f/2. As ukcatfan said, "no lens is the sharpest wide open". Faster lenses also have brighter viewfinder images and focus better in low light.

If the OP can really shoot from 25 feet away, a fast 50mm might be the cheap answer. At that distance, her frame would cover about 11' by 7'. Not super close in, but probably close enough to start with. At f/1.8, the 50mm would giver her a DOF of just over 5', which sounds reasonable for gymnastics.

I'd probably start with the 50mm f/1.8 because it is dirt cheap (about $120). From that, I'd learn from experience how much speed I need and how much reach I need. I might get an 85mm f/1.8, 135 f/2.8 down the road depending on what I learned from shooting with the 50mm.

If the OP will be shooting from 50 or 75 feet, that's a different story. Long and fast doesn't come cheap. I'd probably still start with the 50mm so that I could get some "scene" shots. Again, I'd use the information from the first shoot or two to understand what I need for a longer lens.

If it were me, I'd get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, the Canon 85mm f/1.8, the Canon 135mm f/2, the Canon 200mm f/2, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 for situations where I have more light. Based on the OP's comments, I think that the $10,000 involved might break the bank. Then again, your kids only grow up once.

 

[photo_chick]

What I would not do is waste money on very fast lenses. I've seen people suggesting F1.4 lenses and I have to disagree completely. I've shot with those lenses and you wouldn't be using it to capture a gymnastics even because the DOF when it is full open will be very shallow... you would likely end up with photos where her hand is in focus and her body or blurred out... a fast lens is great for trying to get shots that you can pose carefully, but not for something like a sporting event.

At most you might want a F2.8 lens.

I've got to ring in on this as well. Sorry but you're wrong. There's more to depth of field than just aperture. I'm also in total agreement that it's a good thing to have the room with a lens to stop it down a tad. No lens performs at it's best wide open. It's the nature of light.

And lastly... if this is the hard core competitive gymnastics that so many young girls are getting into... don't count on getting really close all the time.

 

[ukcatfan]

I also assume that when you buy a fast lens you use it as such... otherwise why would anyone pay for a 1.4 lens and then always use it at 2.0... makes no sense to me... when I put a fast lens on my camera I intend to use it wide open to maximize the bokeh otherwise why bother.

If you give up this way of thinking, I guarantee you will like what happens. By thinking creatively, you never just set it and forget it for any parts of the exposure triangle. You set it for what is needed to capture the shot and to tell the story you are trying to tell. There are times where the widest aperture might be needed or desired, but it is never all of the time you are using the lens.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

If you give up this way of thinking, I guarantee you will like what happens. By thinking creatively, you never just set it and forget it for any parts of the exposure triangle. You set it for what is needed to capture the shot and to tell the story you are trying to tell. There are times where the widest aperture might be needed or desired, but it is never all of the time you are using the lens.

DisBoards needs a like button

 

[photo_chick]

If you give up this way of thinking, I guarantee you will like what happens. By thinking creatively, you never just set it and forget it for any parts of the exposure triangle. You set it for what is needed to capture the shot and to tell the story you are trying to tell. There are times where the widest aperture might be needed or desired, but it is never all of the time you are using the lens.

Amen.

And in addition to that and just because the misuse of the term in the earlier quoted post is really bothering me every time it gets quoted again and I'm a little hormonal and a lot annoying that way... bokeh is actually the quality of that out of focus area, specifically the highlights, not the out of focus area itself. It improves when a lens is stopped down because it makes the aperture rounder and that makes the OOF areas blend better. More blades also help make the aperture rounder. And we do all of that because round highlights blend better than polygons and it's all about how the lens renders the light and about the only thing it has to do with the size of the depth of field is that you have more of a chance to see how good or bad the bokeh is with a shallow depth of field.

So if you want better bokeh you actually won't want have the lens wide open.

 

[thomas998]

So if you want better bokeh you actually won't want have the lens wide open.

Sorry but that statement makes no sense to me. If I shoot wide open the out of focus highlights are much softer than if I stop down. Not sure what lens you are using but I also don't see polygons, how many blades are in the lens you are using? Mine has 9 which might be the reason I don't see these harsh polygons you are talking about.

 

[seashoreCM]

Yes you need to focus more carefully at wide apertures.

If you buy the f/1.4 you can stop down to f/2.0 or f/2.8, etc. to increase your depth of field when light conditions permit.

But if you get the f/2.8 then you do not have the choice of opening the lens more when your depth of field requirements are less stringent but the light conditions are more critical.

Depth of field for two different lenses/cameras is the same for a given set aperture, a given camera to subject focused distance, and a given 35mm film camera equivalent focal length once the finished pictures are printed at the same physical size.

Since on average the closer to the front/field/action the seat is the harder it is to get that seat, and also since the depth of field is greater for greater shooting distances, you might want to consider a not so wide angle lens as your low light lens given a tight budget. Maybe a prime lens in the 70mm-80mm range. Then you would choose to sit not so close.

 

[tarheel618]

Update: after sometime debating I got the cannon T2i and will be picking up a prime lense, I am stuck between the 85 and 100. I am thinking to picking up the 50mm to take this weekend to "play around" with to see how well it works. The cost is reasonable and then I will learn what I need to do.

I can't thank you enough, everyone gave great suggestions and really started me on the basics of what to look for. I am sure I will be back with more questions.

 

[minie_meese]

My daughter competed in gymnastics level 5-9. The gyms she competed in often had places to move around so get as close as you can if possible to your girls when they compete. Hopefully they will be in the same rotation if they compete in the same session. I found I got the best shots of bars because it is relatively slow moving compared to the other events, especially with kids in the level 5 and 6 range. If you can move around you should do pretty well with vault, bars and beam. Your Canon should have a setting to let you shoot multiple shots. I would use that especially for vault and make sure you have a card that can handle a lot of shots. Getting good closeups of floor with a 50mm lens will probably be a difficult but at their ages, if they stick with it you will have a number of years to find the right lens. Some of my best floor shots were my daughter's final landing when she knew she did a great routine.

I know gyms vary a lot but most of the ones my daughter competed in had a decent amount of light but the bulbs were florescent or mercury vapor so I often found the white balance was off and ended up doing a lot of Photoshopping to get the white balance right. You might try a few test shots when you get there with different white balance settings so you don't have to do that.

Enjoy your new camera! and congratulations on having your daughters make it to the traveling team. It is a lot of hard work to get there.

 

[Mjkre]

Another gymnastics mom here! My daughter travel and competes as well and I am also looking to change cameras due to the same problems you have posted. So first, thank you, thank you, thank you for this thread!

Loved all the lens information!

Can I ask one more opinion? I have a preference for Canons and have a lot of old Canon lens from my SLR days (as well as those of my Dad). I will be purchasing new lenses as well. For a body, I am torn between buying the Canon T3i and the Canon 60D. Any thoughts? I am totally comfortable with getting the T3i and like its video capabilities. I am wondering, however, if the Canon 60D might make more sense considering I will be taking a lot of indoor sports shots. Or will it be overkill for what I am looking for?

Either way, I am not expecting miracles...just hopefully some decent shots. Any advice is always appreciated.

 

[tarheel618]

Can't tell you the difference between the two cameras, as I am like you, just starting out but I am very happy with the T2i. My plan is to order the 100mm prime lens. I am sure someone here will give you great advice

 

[Mjkre]

I agree it is a great camera. I have gotten used to the swival lens which is why I am leaning towards the T3i. I love the way it feels. However, I have been told that that the 60D would be better for what we are looking for-- indoor sports shots with no flash. But again, it simply may be too much camera for me. I am hoping someone will respond here but I may need to post a new thread. The T3i reminds me of my old Canon EOS SLR (we are talking a 20 year old camera) that served me so well for so many years.

I also think you were right with going with the 100mm prime-- assuming the distance is about the same as at our meets. Of course, there is always that one event that is up close!

BTW: my daughter is a USAIGC gymnast-- nationals are in Florida this year and she wants to extend it to a Disney trip of course!

 

[mousemom11]

Gymnastics mom here too. My daughter is competing Level 5 right now and moving to Level 6 in the spring. Do not count on being able to be close to the action all the time. What I have found is that even within one meet, you may be able to get close to one or two apparatus, but have the others across the gym. Vault is the toughest one to shoot, IMHO, because the gymnasts are in constant motion.

I have a Canon T2i with the kit EFS 18-135 lens, plus I bought an EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens for those long shots across the gym. Unless I am right next to the event, I shoot with the 70-200 lens. When I started out, I put the camera on the auto-sports setting and shot away. It was a great way to get me through the spring competition season until I could make the time to take some classes. I did that over the summer and have been shooting the fall season on Manual. Typically, I set my ISO on 3200, the aperture to 2.8, and then adjust the shutter speed to get the light meter in balance. There are times when I'm actually adjusting the shutter speed during the routine as they move from lighter to darker areas in the gym.

My current challenge is to get their entire body in focus during their routine, since a lot of times hands and feet are moving and can blur even if the rest of their body is in focus. I've been experimenting with a single focus point vs. multiple focus points to overcome this. I'd welcome any suggestions from those of you with more experience.

Here's one of the best ones that I've been able to get of her. This is her split jump on the beam taken with the 18-135 lens, since I was standing so close.

 

[wbeem]

I'm coming into this discussion very late, but there was something posted earlier (9/4, I think) that caught my attention.

Someone recommended flash, and another person said that it wasn't permitted at gymnastics meets. My suggestion is to try and challenge that rule.

Dave Black, a Sports Illustrated shooter and former gymnast, gave a wonderful presentation at Photoshop World of why flash is so important to sports/action photography. You're just not going to get the same quality using high ISO as you are with flash. As other comments in this thread have noted, there's still motion blur, varying light levels in the course, and white balance problems due to the existing lighting. Flash can help with all of these issues because of its short duration and consistent color.

So why do some places prohibit flash? Apologies for being blunt, but it's ignorance. I have a friend in Denver who is shooting karate tournaments for kids and she ran into the same problem. At first, they were worried that the kids would be distracted by the flash. Then, they said they're worried that parents will use flash as an excuse to complain if their kid lost.

In order to get around the first objection, she got them to agree to a demonstration during a practice session when nothing was at stake. As suspected, the kids never even saw the flash. It's short, and they're concentrating on what they're doing. From a participant perspective, it's a non-issue. If I had someone's foot swinging toward my head, I'd be focused, too!

With that in mind, the organizers were much more confident to address the parents, and could even preemptively dismiss those concerns because the same kids were at the practice session.

Of course, you can't guarantee that everyone will think logically when they've already convinced themselves that flash (or anything else) is bad. When you consider that your photographs will be MUCH better by using good lighting and you can demonstrate that to the nay-sayers, it may be worth (politely) challenging the status quo. Give them some useful information and both sides can benefit from better photos.

Just my thoughts.

Edit to add:

My friend just passed along this post about an Olympic gymnast. Some nice photos inside that show what you can do with flash and can't get with ambient gym light.

http://photographybydemetrius.com/b...ts-photography-olympic-gymnast-jessica-lopez/

 

[ukcatfan]

I'm coming into this discussion very late, but there was something posted earlier (9/4, I think) that caught my attention.

Someone recommended flash, and another person said that it wasn't permitted at gymnastics meets. My suggestion is to try and challenge that rule.

I am sorry for commenting here because earlier I said you did not even deserve my attention, but this just has to be addressed. Even if 99.999999% of kids are not distracted by a flash, there could be at least one kid that is. If that kid ends up making an error due to that flash going off and has a serious accident, then that kid could end up crippled for life or even dead! But hey, you got your shot right? You are the most inconsiderate person I have been in contact with in longer than I can remember!!! You have shown your true colors on this thread even more than the other one. :sad2

 

[wbeem]

I am sorry for commenting here because earlier I said you did not even deserve my attention, but this just has to be addressed. Even if 99.999999% of kids are not distracted by a flash, there could be at least one kid that is. If that kid ends up making an error due to that flash going off and has a serious accident, then that kid could end up crippled for life or even dead! But hey, you got your shot right? You are the most inconsiderate person I have been in contact with in longer than I can remember!!! You have shown your true colors on this thread even more than the other one. :sad2

Excuse me, but you're assuming quite a bit there. I did not encourage anyone to violate the rules. Instead, I encouraged someone to do a test during practice, to engage the gymnastic authorities and see if there may be a solution.

I believe you're making quite a jump to assume that will cripple a child for life.

 

[ukcatfan]

Excuse me, but you're assuming quite a bit there. I did not encourage anyone to violate the rules. Instead, I encouraged someone to do a test during practice, to engage the gymnastic authorities and see if there may be a solution.

I believe you're making quite a jump to assume that will cripple a child for life.

You didn't even understand at all. I hope you don't have children.