# Would be 50mm 1.4 be better ?



## lacogada (Oct 8, 2014)

Volleyball in low light conditions.

Lens was 70mm 2.8, iso 3200 , shutter was 500 or 640.

Though I would have to get closer, would a 50mm 1.4 make a significant difference (in light) to where I could drop the iso ?

What is the difference, "stop wise", from 2.8 to 1.4 ?

Low resolution shown ... what size image can be uploaded to the forum ?


----------



## sm4him (Oct 8, 2014)

I think volleyball, and swimming, are two of the absolute toughest sports to shoot.

I can't really imagine trying to shoot volleyball effectively with a 50mm lens. I'm sure it could be done, but after the necessary cropping in post I doubt you'd gain much IQ, if at all.

I'd keep using that f/2.8, and I'd try getting my shutter speed even faster, at least 1/800 or 1/1000. Yeah, you'll have a lot of noise, but personally I'd rather have to try to reduce the noise in a sharp photo than deal with the soft, motion blur of a high-speed volleyball game shot at 1/500.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 8, 2014)

I think you would be at 1600 ISO at 1.4 instead of 2.8 (I'm not so sure of that equation thing though)

I haven't had to shoot indoors yet but I'm glad my cameras can shoot high ISO without much worries.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 8, 2014)

Two full stops between 1.4 and 2.8, so you'd actually be able to get down to ISO 800 and maintain that shutter-speed, OR got to ISO 1600 and shoot at 1/1000-1240, BUT... as Sharon mentions shooting any sort of sport (except maybe darts and/or beer-drinking) with a 50mm lens is going to be a challenge.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2014)

The plusses of a 50mm are 1) it is fast! f/1.4 is as Tirediron mentioned, two full f/stops faster than f/2.8 2) it is small and light and easy to hold, swing, and handle 3)it is a short telephoto on an APS-C body, meaning it has about the same angle of view as a 75mm lens would on a 35mm film camera or full-frame d-slr 4)it is easy for most cameras to focus a 50mm fairly fast in ONE-shot focus acquisition, which is mostly what volleyball is ofen about: acquire subject, focus and shoot simultaneously.

You can shoot volleyball from floor level, or from above, in some venues. For the inexperienced shooter, the 50mm lens is easy to FIND the subject with. You can crop later. 1/640 will mostly stop volleyballs, with sometimes a little bit of blurring as the ball is leaving the hand on kill shots. On digs and sets, 1/500 will stop the ball.

I think a 50 is actually usable for volleyball on APS-C. If you do not shoot action all the time, or have a really finely honed sense of camera handling, you might find that a 50 works okay. In Nikon, the older AF-D screw-driver lenses actually focus faster on one-shot acquisition. The 50/1.4 AF-S is a slower focuser than the older, cheaper AF or AF-D Nikkors.


----------



## lacogada (Oct 8, 2014)

@sm4him
I'm quicky seeing how tough it is.
Thanks for the reply.

@astroNikon
I'm still not sure about the "stop" steps either.
Thanks

@tiredon


> sport (except maybe darts and/or beer-drinking) with a 50mm lens



  

Thanks for clearing up the stop question. Those two full stops might make a difference,
if I can get close enough to the court. (ya think)

@Derrel
Thanks for all the info, especially the tips on shutter speeds to try.
Also the tip on the AF-D vs AF-S, may try a used if I can find a descent price.

PS: Too bad I cannot edit my title.


----------



## Overread (Oct 8, 2014)

One thing that I've not seen mention is depth of field. At f2.8 things are thin - at f1.4 things are going to be really tight. You will have to nail your focus, even then you might find that many shots the subject has parts out of focus that you want in-focus because the 3D nature of their bodies. 

It might be that whilst the 50mm lets in more light (focusing and composition might be easier) you will still find yourself at f2 or f2.8 to get the depth of field you want on the subject.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 8, 2014)

The stops thing basically has to be memorized .. I haven't bothered memorizing it yet
==> http://www.nphotomag.com/files/2012/03/Understanding_aperture_f_stop_chart.jpg


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 8, 2014)

I'd still go with the 70-200 2.8. If they allow you floor access and you have enough room at the back of the court you can shoot under the net for digs. If there is height at the end of the court you can shoot overtop of the net. If you have a wide angle and can sit next the post at centre court you can get some nice shots.  From the position you are at the longer lens is still the way to go.

Volleyball is one of those fast move sports but if you watch where the setter is putting the ball you can follow the play and watch for blocks at the net. 

Trying to shoot with a 50mm would be a challenge, but anything is possible.  I added a lot of "if's" to this post.


----------



## shadowlands (Oct 8, 2014)

f1.4 nailing focus, with moving subject, depth of field... tough....


----------



## lacogada (Oct 8, 2014)

@imagemaker46

Thanks for the tips, sounds like you've shot your share of volleyball.

@Overread ... @shadowlands

Depth of field, my "newbie photo mind" did not think of that.
All I could think of was a faster lens for more light.

For me, the purchase of the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 lens was really a stretch.
Sort of dissapointing to need iso 3200 in the two gyms I went to.

Though this gym was a little worse than the first ... and one of the lights burned out during the game.

I do not have the pictures of the first game I shot on this computer, but you can see one that was chosen by the paper here :

Lady Trojans cruise to easy win over Destrehan | HoumaToday.com


----------



## lacogada (Oct 8, 2014)

@astroNikon

Thanks for the link to the stop diagram.

Hard to understand because the differences or not equal.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 9, 2014)

I've shot  Olympic and professional volleyball many times over the years and it is one of the tougher sports to shoot, especially if the shooting access is limited to a couple of spots.  The majority of what I have shot has been in the high school or university gyms that are as dark as shooting sports outside at night, or darker and usually flat, pulse light.  When you throw poor light into the mix it doesn't really matter how fast the lens is as the iso will still have to be up in the 1600-4000 range just to get the shutter speed to stop the action.

Just keep at it.


----------



## JoeW (Oct 9, 2014)

Imagemaker has a couple of really good posts in this thread.

Look, I just LOVE shooting with my 50mm f1.4, it is probably on my primary body more than any other lens I own and it's my default lens in most instances.  I think I do some of my best work with it, especially at wide open apertures.  But from a sports perspective, I think f1.4 or f1.6 or even f1.8 is going to be useless for you.  When I shoot at f1.4 and focus on eyelashes, only the eyelashes are in focus (and not even all of the eyelash if they're long or fake ones).  If you were shooting volleyball and using f1.4 while focusing on the ball (with appropriate ISO and shutter speed), the initial part of the ball would be in focus and about 2-3 inches of the ball beyond the surface closest to you would start to blur.  And the players would be flesh-toned light-forms.  You'll find that even at f2.8, shooting volleyball is tough to keep in focus...that's still a very limited depth-of-field.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 9, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> The stops thing basically has to be memorized .. I haven't bothered memorizing it yet
> ==> http://www.nphotomag.com/files/2012/03/Understanding_aperture_f_stop_chart.jpg



Don't bother memorizing it.  Here's the trick:  Use f/1.4 and f/2 as the base.  Alternately double them to get the rest of the stops, so -- 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, ... etc.

Also, you can use plan B:  Check your camera to see if it is incrementing in half or third stops, then spin the aperture dial while watching the numbers.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 9, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> Don't bother memorizing it.  Here's the trick:  Use f/1.4 and f/2 as the base.  Alternately double them to get the rest of the stops, so -- 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, ... etc.



Why look at that .... I would have never figured that out.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 9, 2014)

lacogada said:


> Hard to understand because the differences or not equal.


 
the math is actually:
 f/number = √ ( 2 ^ aperture value)

so  √ (2^2) = √ (4) = 2

so f/2 = AV of 2.

if you plot that out you get this scale:

AV1 = f/1.4
AV2 = f/2
AV3 = f/2.8
AV4 = f/4
AV5 = f/5.6
AV6 = f/8
etc
etc

everyone should learn the scale from 1-10.  same with your shutter speed steps and ISO steps (which are easier to understand since they are just doubled/half).

once you do, making exposure adjustments is ezpz. 

example:
Say you are shooting at 1/60, iso 800, and f/5.6
you notice youre getting motion blur and want to freeze things better.
you increase the shutter speed to 1/250.
you should know that 1/60 to 1/250 is two stops.
so now you can drop your f to 2.8, or if you dont have that option increase the ISO to 3200, or go to f/4 and iso 1600.  Now your exposure has stayed exactly the same but youre able to stop motion better.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 9, 2014)

I was never any good at math. I just take pictures instead of trying to understand it. Some people like to know all this stuff, it makes them appear more knowledgable when they talk to other people and any information is good.  I'm one of the least technical photographers I know, well apart from Dad, who has always told me the same thing about himself. He always said "it's just point and click"


----------



## Braineack (Oct 9, 2014)

you don't need to know the math, but I think knowing at least the full stops of your shutter, aperture, and iso jsut lets you use the tool better.

I just gave to math to show how the relationship works.  where you can't just be like 2.8 is double of 1.4, so why is it two stops?


----------



## Overread (Oct 9, 2014)

Generally speaking learning the stops tends to be something most people learn through practice. Rather than trying to sit down and dry-learn it like times tables its easier for most to simply pick it up as you talk about photography more and also look at your own photos and take more shots.

You'll soon start to get a feel for the numbers - if not you'll at least learn that a few clicks on the dial means one full stop (depends how you've got your camera setup - most do it in 1/3rd stop intervals these days - but you can set it to full stop intervals if you want or half I think).


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> you don't need to know the math, but I think knowing at least the full stops of your shutter, aperture, and iso jsut lets you use the tool better.
> 
> I just gave to math to show how the relationship works.  where you can't just be like 2.8 is double of 1.4, so why is it two stops?



Never was good at math. Although I did learn from your post, so thanks for that information.  I was handed a camera and told that when there was little light it's f2.8 and if you wanted it really sharp it's f11. Iv'e always tried to keep photography as simple as I could over the years.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Never was good at math. Although I did learn from your post, so thanks for that information.  I was handed a camera and told that when there was little light it's f2.8 and if you wanted it really sharp it's f11. Iv'e always tried to keep photography as simple as I could over the years.



Hey, if it works


----------



## hamlet (Oct 10, 2014)

You have to look at the transmission of a lens, not the aperture to get a correct reading of the amount of light your sensor is getting.

Go to this website. Under sharpness it tells you how much light will actually get to your sensor, you can browse other lenses to get an estimate. The F number shouldn't really be used for the amount of light passing through the lens anyhow, it just confuses a lot of folks.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 10, 2014)

I like my 50/1.4
but the aperture shouldn't be the deciding factor, it's getting the picture in focus and in detail .. thus your Depth Of Field.

you will probably calculate out that f/2.8 is a good point for what you are shooting.


----------

