| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 17-55mm IS or 24-70mm L for Basketball.
Jeff Lack, Photographer
 |
Midlothian | VA | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 11.19.10 |
| ->> I'm getting ready to shoot basketball and was wondering if anyone could direct me towards the best short range lens. Currently, I use APS-C cameras and am considering the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses. Which one would be better for shooting under the rim? I understand the 17-55mm is not as sturdy, is not weather sealed and has somewhat of a dust problem. However, I take very good care of my equipment and it would be used mostly in good weather and indoors, so I'm thinking I would be ok. Because of the IS would the 17-55mm IS out perform the 24-70 L? Any thoughts would be much appreciated. |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New Castle | IN | USA | Posted: 10:25 AM on 11.19.10 |
| ->> It's doubtful that the IS will make any significant difference at the shutter speeds you will likely be shooting at. The 24-70 is my go-to lens for almost anything I shoot, provided the assignment doesn't require longer reach. I find it to be a great focal length when paired with a 1D (1.3x) for baseline under the basket shooting. It should be fine on a 1.6x camera but depending on the court, it could get a little tight. For me, the 24-70 is my bread and butter lens. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:37 AM on 11.19.10 |
| ->> I've thought about going to that but after borrowing one and testing it realized it is too short. I use a 70-200 on the baseline for my "short" lens. I have a body next to me with my 16-35 on it in case people start falling out of bounds or wrestling for a ball right in front of me. in my opinion once the players get past the free throw lane opposite where you're sitting the 70 is useless. three point shots, ball scrambles and any other pertinent game action near half court are pretty much unusable with the 70mm. |
|
Larry Lawson, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 11.19.10 |
| ->> I've used both the short lenses and heavily favor the 24-70 (the IS wasn't that big a factor compared to the extra range, and image quality). The 24-70 is incredibly solid and perfect [for me] for the short range that the 70-200 can't get (esp under the rim). The difference from a 17mm 24mm start point didn't seem to matter at all. Again, that's just me. As opposed to Chuck, I'm generally dodging the players if they're getting that close :) |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 1:51 PM on 11.19.10 |
->> Take 'em both and decide for yourself.
I shoot a 17-40 for effect. It's not good at all for up close and personal action shots, but if you want to be creative or get some general playing field shots you can have fun with the shorter length.
If all you are looking for is action shots, leave the shorter one at home. |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 6:26 PM on 11.19.10 |
| ->> A few of the shots from my recent update were with a 17-40mm but my main lens is a 70-200mm with a 300mm for opposite side of the court. I will say if you use a 17-40 or similar lens you will probably want to sit at an inside position if you use a 70-200 as your short lens sit on the outside. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Tarentum | PA | United States | Posted: 7:06 PM on 11.19.10 |
->> @ Chuck, here's a thread I feel qualified to post on. Amazing what a year will do ;-)
@ Jeff
I should start by saying I shoot Canon and these are on a pair of Mark III bodies. My 3rd body was a Mark II at the time.
I shot at the Petersen Center (Pitt) for two years and wasn't under the gun to get images for a paper or an editor. I was just there to shoot as many good shots as I could (even get creative) since I was working directly for the Athletic Department.
I used a 70-200 f/2.8 "in-hand". A 17-40 f/4 for the really close shots next to me, but rarely did I grab it unless it was in my corner.
I was fortunate to have a 2nd shooter with me most of the time. They'd focus on the other end with the 300 f/2.8.
When I was flying solo, I'd switch to the 300 as my second lens only if I was seeing really good action at the other end repeatedly.
When Pitt played UConn (women's), not much was happening on offensive end so a lot of action was shot with the 300 for one half. My only gripe? It's a PITA to carry the 300 f/2.8 to a game, compared to throwing the 17-40 f/4 in the bag.
My two cents. |
|
Jeff Lack, Photographer
|
Midlothian | VA | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 11.20.10 |
| ->> Thanks to everyone! It seems like the consensus so far would be to use these three lenses: The 300mm f/2.8 for the far side, 70-200mm f/2.8 for half court to free throw line, and 24-70mm f/2.8 for baseline action. I really appreciate all your comments! |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 11.20.10 |
| ->> If you don't have assigned positions, I like the 70-200 from the corner shooting towards the basket. Underneath you get a lot of arm pits and my clients don't like that angle. |
|
Peyton Williams, Photographer
|
Chapel Hill | NC | USA | Posted: 7:51 PM on 11.20.10 |
| ->> I shoot a ton of basketball near under the basket and I love the Canon 24-105 lens for that spot. It is a 4.0 lens but if you have enough light (or shoot on strobes like me), it's perfect. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:52 PM on 11.20.10 |
| ->> 17-55. You can always crop; you can't widen a shot in PP. Especially with 10 bazillion MP. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 11:25 PM on 11.20.10 |
| ->> I shoot with the 70-200 for 80% of my shots for both front court and backcourt. I use the 24-70mm f/2.8 for under-the-rim shots where I want whole body composition. I also have an 11-18mm that I use on occasion. Some really creative stuff can be done with wides under the basket. But for most everything else it's the 70-200mm. The 70-200 helps you get coaches, fans, scrums, coaches yelling at refs, yelling at players and just yelling. Don't forget, some of the most interesting stuff happens during dead balls when everyone else is chimping. |
|
Mark McIntyre, Photographer
|
Greensboro | NC | USA | Posted: 7:45 AM on 11.21.10 |
| ->> I will rotate between a 70-200 & 24-70 under the rim with a 17-35 as a floor mounted remote. Otherwise from game to game every image becomes similar. |
|
Ethan Klosterman, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Dayton | Ohio | | Posted: 7:20 PM on 12.06.10 |
| ->> For what it's worth, I use a 35 1.8 (1.5x sensor) and a 70-200 on the baselines. Works well. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|