# does anyone have experience with the canon 50mm 1.4 indoor sports



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

I shoot my daughters indoor volleyball and our gymnasium has the worst light. I use a 50mm 1.8 right now and I usually have to use ISO640 @1.8 to acheive a shutter speed of 1/250th that seems to be about the slowest I can shoot without motion blur. I would like to know if anyone has tried this lens with indoor sports. I find that on my 50d I do not care for ISO640 very much, but ISO400 I can live with.


----------



## Hardrock (Oct 7, 2010)

Sorry no experience with sports but lots with the 50F1.4.  As far as the 50D goes you should be able to shoot ISO800 with no issue. Especially if the expossure is on.  Do you print straight from camera?


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 7, 2010)

You arent going to gain much from going to 1.4 from 1.8. Try shooting at ISO 800. I have heard that the in between stops on the ISO tend to not be as good due to the camera processing or something.....someone else can probably explain more 800 shouldnt be too bad, it wasnt on the t1i which shares most of the 50d guts.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 7, 2010)

get some noise reduction software, 800 iso should be good enough on a 50D


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

No I dont print straight from the camera. I shoot RAW and they just dont look great. I will try 800 I wasnt aware that in btw stops was different. I will give it a try. I would love to use my Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC but since the 1.8 wasnt cutting it I wasnt going to try it much


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 7, 2010)

Is the issue with the pics noise related? Or do they just not look good overall? Could be the cheap glass or bad exposure, or the need for some more post processing.


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

no damnit its the noise!! Lol While the nifty fifty is cheap it produces sharp images. I can correct that horrible yellow from the lighting the graininess makes me think I am looking at news print. I have heard the 50d is great with noise but I just dont see it. Maybe it is the 640 I am curious if anyone else can chime in on this. Now that you mention it I shot a concert and think I used 800 and they didnt look like crap...hmm


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

sorry for the run on sentences and lack of punctuation. I post from my cell phone during the day. Punctuation is a pain at times...


----------



## Hardrock (Oct 7, 2010)

This may sound silly but shoot it using raw and jpeg. For some reason my 50D does alot better with noise at high ISO (like 2000 and above) with JPEG than my raw editing software (CS3). I by no means am a photosop master so that may be the issue for me but I have a very hard time getting rid of noise in noisy images with CS3. It does a pretty decent job but the jpegs always come out better.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 7, 2010)

Haha, no problem, cell phone here also. Do a test shot at each ISO. Sometimes overexposing slightly can help with noise also. You can always add NR in post.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 7, 2010)

Which ISO how to use with the 7D - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Read the top post.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 7, 2010)

Taylor510ce said:


> You arent going to gain much from going to 1.4 from 1.8. Try shooting at ISO 800. I have heard that the in between stops on the ISO tend to not be as good due to the camera processing or something.....someone else can probably explain more 800 shouldnt be too bad, it wasnt on the t1i which shares most of the 50d guts.



Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one.  I shoot sports and I shoot the 50 f1.4.  The advantage of the 1.4 is not in the difference in aperture although every little bit helps.  The advantage is in focus speed of the USM motor in the 1.4 over the traditional cheaper, slower motor of the 1.8.  

To the op, one thing that will help the noise issue of using a higher ISO is to do a custom white balance before you shoot and to get your exposure right in camera when you shoot, not just close and fix in post processing. If you exposure is dead on it will noticeably reduce the noise at high ISO.  I always have a Sekonic L358 in my pocket when shooting sports, indoor or out, day or night.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 7, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Taylor510ce said:
> 
> 
> > You arent going to gain much from going to 1.4 from 1.8. Try shooting at ISO 800. I have heard that the in between stops on the ISO tend to not be as good due to the camera processing or something.....someone else can probably explain more 800 shouldnt be too bad, it wasnt on the t1i which shares most of the 50d guts.
> ...


 
Do we have to be overly in depth with each post? I meant in regards to the OPs original problem, not everything else under the sun. Clearly the 1.4 is an all around better lens, but that wasn't what he was asking. While you are correct in your assesment, the issue here wasn't focus speed, it was shutter speed, which he isn't going to gain much going from 1.8-1.4. Hence the need to bump up the ISO. I would bet that the main issue here is the 1/3 stop ISO settings he is using. Its not a real ISO in the sense that it ups the sensor sensetivity, its a "faked" ISO using exposure manipulation, which flies in the face of what you just said about getting the exposure right to reduce noise.


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> To the op, one thing that will help the noise issue of using a higher ISO is to do a custom white balance before you shoot and to get your exposure right in camera when you shoot, not just close and fix in post processing. If you exposure is dead on it will noticeably reduce the noise at high ISO. I always have a Sekonic L358 in my pocket when shooting sports, indoor or out, day or night.


 
You know I havent done a custom WB in there (well except when I found a piece of paper on the wall one time) I always forget my grey card, but I did not relilze that I would reduce my noise figure if I set it in camera. That may be helpful as well. I also do think the USM would be nicer than the 1.8 that I have, not to mention I'm guessing it is just built better as well. I have seen it around for 300, which for a USM lens of that aperture it seems like a steal to me still.



Taylor510ce said:


> Do we have to be overly in depth with each post? I meant in regards to the OPs original problem, not everything else under the sun. Clearly the 1.4 is an all around better lens, but that wasn't what he was asking. While you are correct in your assesment, the issue here wasn't focus speed, it was shutter speed, which he isn't going to gain much going from 1.8-1.4. Hence the need to bump up the ISO. I would bet that the main issue here is the 1/3 stop ISO settings he is using. Its not a real ISO in the sense that it ups the sensor sensetivity, its a "faked" ISO using exposure manipulation, which flies in the face of what you just said about getting the exposure right to reduce noise.


 
I appreciate everyones help on this. I do think the partial ISO stops has a lot to do with it after reading the link you gave. Very informative. I will check this out next week. Her next game is Tuesday and Thursday so I will be able to follow up then.


Thanks again for all the input....I feel like I am learning a lot today for some reason. Things that I thought I already knew. (that would be a good title for a book...I am going to have to trademark that title...)


----------



## HikinMike (Oct 7, 2010)

Don't be afraid to bump the ISO. I shoot gymnastics and we can't use flash. I'm using the 5D and usually the 70-200 f/4L, so I'm used to using ISO 3200, f/4 and if I can get 1/320...it's a good day! Usually 1/160 to 1/250 is the norm.


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

HikinMike said:


> Don't be afraid to bump the ISO. I shoot gymnastics and we can't use flash. I'm using the 5D and usually the 70-200 f/4L, so I'm used to using ISO 3200, f/4 and if I can get 1/320...it's a good day! Usually 1/160 to 1/250 is the norm.


 
Wow, well I think the 5D does a little better in the noise deptartment......but 3200 really?? That is my next upgrade is the 5D MkII...just waiting to find a deal. I would love to use my 70-200 2.* IS indoors...but at our gymnasium....eeehhh I will have to pull up some pictures from last week.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 7, 2010)

Taylor510ce said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Taylor510ce said:
> ...




Let me get a bit more in depth for you then.  The op is using an ISO of 640 @1.8 to acheive a shutter speed of 1/250th.

f1.8 is 2/3's of a stop smaller than f1.4.  An ISO of 640 is 2/3 of stop above 400.  The math would then indicate that an f1.4 lens would allow the op to maintain a 1/250th shutter speed with an ISO of 400.  To your way of thinking, or at least your 7D reference, would be contrary to your posting and must actually make a difference thus solving the op's problem. (Numbers in red are full stops)

f Stop range in 3rds.
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22

50D ISO range:
100 125 160 200 250 320 400 500 640 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3200 

Simple math and physics.


----------



## HikinMike (Oct 7, 2010)

Ryan L said:


> Wow, well I think the 5D does a little better in the noise deptartment......but 3200 really?? That is my next upgrade is the 5D MkII...just waiting to find a deal. I would love to use my 70-200 2.* IS indoors...but at our gymnasium....eeehhh I will have to pull up some pictures from last week.



Maybe a little, but I'd like to think the 50D shouldn't be _that_ bad. Heck, I'll trade your 2.8 for my f/4...LOL!!

Here's some photos from our last event. I did use my 50mm f/1.8 for the two bar shots (#4 & #5)....since I was pretty close. I still had to crop it. The EXIF is intact.

Sock Hop Invitational 2010


----------



## Derrel (Oct 7, 2010)

I can't imagine the 50D topping out at ISO 640 indoors when shot in RAW with a good custom white balance...surely you should be able to get to ISO 1600 with a solid custom WB and decent exposure, then run some noise reduction on the keepers...I mean, really...ISO 640? My ancient D1h did better than that...my 20D can do ISO 800 no problem. Are you skipping all noise reduction?

The 50/1.4 tends to focus faster, and more reliably than the 50/1.8-II I used to have. The 1.4 is just a better-handling lens all around than the 1.8 model.


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 7, 2010)

Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Oct 8, 2010)

Ryan L said:


> Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.



Is that a %100 crop or just a bit of a crop? The noise is plenty workable, and should give perfectly fine results with some NR. But I have to say, if that is the kind of results from a 50D, I'm pretty unimpressed. Was you're exposure on target, or did you need to push it in post? You said you weren't having the right white balance in camera, what was it set on?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2010)

Ryan L said:


> Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.



Is that how it came out of the camera or have you altered the exposure in post ? any under exposing will give you more noise it's best to try and over expose a bit in camera


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2010)

Does arm wrestling count


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 8, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Taylor510ce said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Thanks for the lesson, I feel enlightened.  Going from a noisy 640 to what should be a perfectly useable 800 is $350 cheaper. Theres some simple math for ya.:mrgreen:


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2010)

There is something wrong with that ISO800 shot  it should not be that bad, just had a look through my shot for a shot at ISO800 with my 1Dmk1 which are meant to be noisy


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 8, 2010)

ok heres my thought. When I bring the Raw file into Adobe Elements the preview looks really dark. When opened its better, but darker than what showed on my LCD. if I shoot jpg + raw it looks good on the jpg but Raw is still darker. Clicking auto of course corrects it pretty close. clicking default underexposes the crap out of it.

Heres a question. In Adobe Elements when you open the raw file, if I set all the sliders to zero, my image is very dark. Should the exposure be as I saw it with them all at zero?

Does anyone know where I can post a 18 meg raw file for anyone to try on their computer? I could even email it if your email supports large files.


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 8, 2010)

anyone know if the sliders should be at 0???


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2010)

I think you are underexposed and have a bad white balance on the gymnasium shot. A better option would be to open the RAW file on your computer and do a screen grab of the Red-Green-Blue channels and their histograms....I opened the file crop above, and the red channel looks somewhat under-exposed to me...ISO 800 ought to look less noisy than that **IF** the exposure is good, meaning generous...you are in need of 1/3 of an f/stop more shutter speed here...you could jack the ISO setting to 1600 and OVER-expose, and probably get a less-noisy file than what you are showing us here...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2010)

Don't ever use the lcd screen to look at exposure, use the histogram now i know why it looks so bad you are underexposing


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 8, 2010)

I never said I use the LCD screen to check exposure. I use the meter. Than can I assume the metering on the camera if wrong too? I shoot manual 90% of the time, so do I need to add a add a full stop to what I see in the metering or what?


----------



## Sachphotography (Oct 8, 2010)

The 50mm f/1.8 is not cheap. It is a bargain for the price. Cheap implies junk and not good. It is great and tack sharp. Nothing beats it for the price.  It is sharper than the 20X the price 24-70 f/2.8

The biggest issue is that the 50d really failed at having great noise control. It was light years behind Nikon and I hope the 60d is much better for Canon's sake. ISO 800 should be usable and I think that you need to define what is usable for you. Pixel Peeping Peter who looks at all his photos at 200X zoom will not even be happy with ISO 400 on a D3S!!


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2010)

Ryan L.  Here is a nice test comparison with full size shots of the 50D higher ISO.  The shots are properly exposed.  The 50D while not the best kid on the block does seem to do a decent job. 

Canon EOS 50D Digital Camera Hi_iso_nr - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 8, 2010)

gsgary, Here is some RAW data. I dont think its really underexposed according to the histograms.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 9, 2010)

Thats strange


----------



## gsgary (Oct 9, 2010)

I would try using a better quality lens at iso1600 (70-200F2.8)


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 9, 2010)

rules that one out as well....this was with my 70-200 2.8L


----------



## Ryan L (Oct 9, 2010)

Maybe I just have a $hit sensor!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Oct 9, 2010)

Although the histograms aren't terrible, you still have room to stack it to the right which may gain you a little less noise.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2010)

Chances are that one of the individual color channels is at least 1 stop under-exposed. Artificial light does not have a full spectrum. I think you're expecting quite a lot from a 1.6x sensor with over 15 MP on it.


----------

