Canon Rebel EOS XSi and EF Lens 70-200/4/L IS U

[CAnnie]

Having trouble getting clear action shots of high school football games at night. No problems until after dark.

This is my first post. Would like to know if I will ever get good clear action shots using this lens or will it never have enough light. Thanks for your help

[TCampbell]

We can't answer that question without knowing how much light you have available after dark.  Take a look at a current shot... what sort of exposure settings are you using (don't worry about whether the shot is blurry... we just need an example of a properly exposed shot -- even if otherwise blurred and unusable -- to serve as an indication of how much light you have and what f-stop you were using at the time.)

Most lenses offer a minimum focal ratio of f/5.6.  So assuming you were at f/5.6 already... an f/4 lens would gain 1 full exposure stop (meaning it would "double" the light).  That doubling of light means you can either double the shutter speed (hoping to get to 1/500th or faster... the faster the better) ... or ... you can reduce the ISO setting to drop the noise a bit.

An f/2.8 lens would gain two stops (4x more light than f/5.6) but of course those cost substantially more.

The image stabilization feature reduces blur caused by camera movement ... but does nothing to reduce blur caused by subject movement.  Having image stabilization does help the auto-focus system lock focus faster.   

Lastly... if you're wondering how a lens will work out... consider renting the lens for a game to test it.  Several outfits (LensRentals, BorrowLenses, etc.) will rent out lenses.  That'll help you make sure the lens you're buying is actually going to work for your purposes. 

[CAnnie]

Thanks for your help. There are stadium lights and I am on the field. f/4, 800. I think I would be better off to purchase the f/2.8

[ScottyP]

Hi,

You can get un-blurry shots no question. All that takes is a fast enough shutter speed. Look back at the speeds you need in daytime to freeze action. You will need the same speed at night. I would think about 1/400th is about a minimum speed?

Also, auto mode or "sports mode" will not cut it. Set the camera to Tv mode (shutter priority mode) and set the lowest shutter speed you can get away with while still freezing the action. If that gives you an underexposure, you need to boost ISO to compensate.

The problem will be the high ISO you will need if you can't get wider than f/4. High ISO will give you electronic static in the shot, which people call "grain" and "noise", and it will also give you less detail/resolution so you won't be able to crop much before you really see the reduced image quality. On a crop body you lol notice image quality issues as low as ISO 400' and it may be unacceptable to you at ISO 1600 or even less. You can apply noise reduction in post, but noise reduction steals even more detail. If you are just posting small thumbnails it will be less noticeable than if you are trying to make it fill a 24" monitor.

If you are ok with sharp faces but blurry feet and hands, you may find some success at slightly lower shutter speeds if you get good at "panning", where you follow a subject smoothly with the camera and take the shot with the camera in motion. The little blurred parts may bug you if you are a little OCD like me, but it can create a sense of motion that some like because the stationary background will look like it has motion blur.

[CAnnie]

I will work on it and probably buy an f/8.2. Thanks for your help

[TCampbell]

f/2.8 lenses are rather expensive.  So I thought I might offer an alternate suggestion.

You Canon XSi body is rather old and has a max ISO of 1600.  Of course "at" max ISO the images will be extremely "noisy".  Shooting max ISO on any camera will be loaded with noise, but usually backing off 1 to two stops worth of ISO is a huge improvement.  For considerably less money than the cost of an f/2.8 zoom lens suitable for sports, you might instead consider a new camera body with substantially better sensor performance.

Even a T3i would be a big step up in ISO performance (ISO 6400).  Shooting at ISO 1600 is no problem and shooting 3200 is still ok (a bit of noise but nothing that can't be managed in software by doing some de-noising and a bit of edge-sharpening (avoid over-all sharpening as that amplifies noise.))

Ultimately a 7D II (not shipping until November) would be THE camera to have (ISO 16000 ... but backing off a bit from max ISO would still let you shoot in the ISO 3200-6400 range without even hesitating.)  It also has a phenominal focus system and blazingly fast continuous burst speed.  Canon has a retail price of about $1800 (body only) but go check the prices on f/2.8 zooms and you'll see that's still a savings.

Buying an f/4 or even f/2.8 lens is going to get you 1 to 2 stops worth of improvement.  Buying a new body may get you 3+ stops worth of improvement, plus improved overall performance of the camera.

Just something to consider.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

f/2.8 lenses are rather expensive.  So I thought I might offer an alternate suggestion.

You Canon XSi body is rather old and has a max ISO of 1600.  Of course "at" max ISO the images will be extremely "noisy".  Shooting max ISO on any camera will be loaded with noise, but usually backing off 1 to two stops worth of ISO is a huge improvement.  For considerably less money than the cost of an f/2.8 zoom lens suitable for sports, you might instead consider a new camera body with substantially better sensor performance.

Even a T3i would be a big step up in ISO performance (ISO 6400).  Shooting at ISO 1600 is no problem and shooting 3200 is still ok (a bit of noise but nothing that can't be managed in software by doing some de-noising and a bit of edge-sharpening (avoid over-all sharpening as that amplifies noise.))

Ultimately a 7D II (not shipping until November) would be THE camera to have (ISO 16000 ... but backing off a bit from max ISO would still let you shoot in the ISO 3200-6400 range without even hesitating.)  It also has a phenominal focus system and blazingly fast continuous burst speed.  Canon has a retail price of about $1800 (body only) but go check the prices on f/2.8 zooms and you'll see that's still a savings.

Buying an f/4 or even f/2.8 lens is going to get you 1 to 2 stops worth of improvement.  Buying a new body may get you 3+ stops worth of improvement, plus improved overall performance of the camera.

Just something to consider.

---

An excellent point. Note that the new camera would improve the high-ISO performance of all the OP's lenses, not just the 70-200.

[CAnnie]

I really appreciate all the information from TCampbell, RobertTheFat, andebiggs1. All have been very helpful! In the past, I have mostly used the auto settings with excellent results. I really didn't realize my XSi was rather old.. Now that I have ventured into creative settings, because of night high school football, I have been forced to "up my game". Friday night is the next game and I am going to push my camera to the max. Canon support actually gave exact settings to try and I am anxious to try it out! I have been able to take some pretty awesome shots with the F/4 at my grandson in JH games as they are at 4:00 in the afternoon with plenty of sunshine so far. My other grandson is in high school with games at 7pm and stadium lights which very field to field. With the help you have all offered, I feel very optimistic. I am diffiently getting a new camera and if I understand correctly, the new one coming out in November would be the best bet, but I haven't checked the price yet. And the T3i would be the least upgrade I would want.? I will still also consider the F/2.8, both canon and Sigma (even though I'm pretty brand loyal).

Thanks for all your help. Will let you know Monday how Friday night images turn out.

CAnnie Bredfield

[ebiggs1]

" I will still also consider the F/2.8, both canon and Sigma (even though I'm pretty brand loyal)."

So am I, to the point I would not even try off-brand lenses or accessories.  Mostly because they are ____ , ... well, lets be kind and say 'poor quality'.  

However, lately especially, Sigma has upped thier game.   They have improved the customer support and service and most  all of thier lenses.  Some Sigma lenses rival Canon's own, this is a fact.  Plus they are usually a very good buy money wise.

Amost anything they have made in the last several years is top notch.  The SIgma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM is one.  It is not equal to the world class, best in class Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM but it is darn close and is about half the price.

I have added six Siggy's to my lens inventory.  They are that good.

I have recently bought a couple Tamron's. Mostly using the 150-600mm f5-6.3 and so far, I am super impressed with it.

It's poor build is the only real complaint. This Tamron lens has had a real rocky start and not a surprising with a lens from Tamron with their, at best, hit and miss, quality control.  Their 70-200mm f2.8 is also a real contender.  And their CS is improving.

[ebiggs1]

Any of the above suggestions is good advice.

But another option is an off-brand lens. The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is about as good as this focal length gets.  And it is way less costly as Canon's f2.8 at about half price ($1100 bucks).  Make no mistake the Sigma is a very capable lens.

Not knowing your price tolerence, the ideal solution would be the Sigma and a current Canon camera.

You can sell your current lens to help with the funding as one great thing about Canon EF lenses, they hold their value very well.

A Rebel T5i and the Siggy will still be less than two grand and if that combo won't do it for you, you probably can't do it.