What Lens to Use for HS Wrestling Photos - EOS R7

[Jhatfield]

Hello,

I am very much a newbie to photography. I have an EOS R7 that came with the RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM. I got a camera solely to take photos of high school wrestlers (my husband is the coach). 

When taking photos of fast action wrestlers in a gym, I'm finding out with this lens the aperture is not low enough to keep my photos bright. I have to increase my ISO to a very high level, which is obviously not ideal for noise. I've tried the auto settings just to see what the photos come out at, and while the photo looks better, the shutter speed is too slow to capture the action, those or similar settings wouldn't work for what I'm doing.

What type of lens would be best for keeping my aperture low (I don't think this lens gets as low as I need), so I don't need to increase my ISO, while maintaining fast shutter speeds? I need the light.  🙂  

I have friends with DSLRs that shoot wrestling photos that have f/2.8 70-200 lenses, however the lens world is confusing to me, I am not confident I understand what the lens details mean. Some are older, some newer. I know they make mount converters but it seems a mirrorless lens would lend to better quality when using a mirrorless camera?  

I know nothing about photoshop or other similar software, I'm not opposed to this, but when I take hundreds of photos at a tournament, I don't have time to edit this many photos if it's for lighting. Is it too lofty to think I just want the photos to come out decent right out of the camera? 🙂  

Again, please excuse my newness and naivety. I just need help and I live in a rural area where there little to no photography resources around  -stores, courses, etc., (at least in the sense of a live person to ask questions to). 

Thank you,

Jody

[Jhatfield]

Ah, I did read it but I don't think I really digested it. I'll definitely have to check this software out as it sounds like it is very user friendly. Thank you so much!

[ebiggs1]

"Question, why do you think most people use the 70-200 that I've encountered, when they are not much farther away than I am?"

OK, kido, like I stated above I can't really nail the best lens without actually being there with you. I gave you the lens of choice that I would use knowing what you have said. You said you can get almost in the ring. That certainly tells me a shorter FL is most desirable. Thus the RF 24-70mm f2.8L. Almost all the time a shorter FL is better because it allows more crop room. It will have a greater depth of field, DOF. That means more of the shot can be in proper focus. However if I was there and saw the RF 70-200mm f2.8L was best I would have no problem using it, either. Personally I own both. I use both as the situation warrants. Are both a possibility?

"What would you think the differences in the photo would be between the 70-200 and 24-70 assuming you get the lighting you want?"

The 70-200mil, I would expect to get right up close and personal with the combatants. And if that is the look you are after perhaps it is the best choice. Again not being there with you is a handicap for me.

"The other girl that takes photos with me actually uses a 100-400, sitting not much further away."

On the surface from what you have said I would never have suggested the 100-400mm zoom. What do her shots look like?  You know the 100-400mil is a much slower lens than the f2.8 zooms. If she is getting good light you will have no problem with one of the f2.8 zooms.

Here's the bottom line. I would prefer to use Raw and edit my shots in Photoshop over having the best lens in the world. Great photos are made in post not in the camera. If you do as I suggest, Raw and DPP4, and the other gals do not, you will blow them away with very much better photos.

[ebiggs1]

You know what would be a real help if you could post a sample of what you are doing now. If you don't want to or don't feel comfortable posting in public send it to my email or you can use the PM feature of the forum.

[Jhatfield]

Thank you, that is very helpful and I understand that you can only go off of what I'm telling you. I did not realize the depth of field is what the difference would be/better focusing. Possibly that is why I see more of the effect of an in-focus wrestler, but faded background, when I see photos of others, due to the zooming. I do not know what the 100-400 shots look like because she just got this lens. I hadn't considered the shutter speed is slower. I am in need of a faster shutter speed for sure. 

I am definitely going to start shooting in Raw and will look at the Canon editing software for my next round of photos, which is a home meet on Thursday! Hopefully I can download that software to a Mac easily, I find the Mac can be a bit finicky at times. I'll see what I can accomplish tonight. Thank you!

[wq9nsc]

I use prime lenses a lot because I like what they provide in terms of image quality and low light performance but they are not nearly as versatile as the 70-200 f2.8 which is why you will see so many of that lens at sporting events.  I usually have a 70-200 f2.8 on one of my camera bodies at sports events.

There are two major "flavors" of the 70-200 f2.8, one has image stabilization and the other doesn't.  Image stabilization helps you get sharp images at lower shutter speeds by minimizing blur caused by camera shake BUT it does nothing for motion blur caused by the speed of the subject.  I prefer IS lenses because I do take some photos of stationary subjects but if cost is a huge concern and you are mainly concerned about shooting athletic events then you won't be needing or using IS at the shutter speed needed to freeze a fast moving athlete.  Some people like using IS because it helps to reduce "jitter" in the viewfinder but I hate that with sports because I don't need the lens trying to make adjustments while I am following the action so I turn IS off when shooting sports.

You definitely want to shoot RAW and it takes very little time to gain a lot of expertise at editing RAW files and the results over JPG captures at a sports event are well worth it.  Ask your husband how he would feel about throwing away a large percentage of his team's talent before a meet and that will give you an idea what you are doing when you capture using JPG instead of RAW.  My now college age daughter is quite sharp and when she was in high school, she helped me edit some of her soccer match photos and she picked up Canon DPP proficiency in about 15 minutes.  DPP has a few things that drive me nuts but overall it is an excellent and easy to use program.

Since you husband is the coach, you can easily gain experience and try different setups by shooting a practice or two.

Rodger

[jaewoosong]

Canon : Product Manual : EOS R7 : Tv: Shutter-Priority AE (start.canon)

[shadowsports]

Hi Jody,

Conversion to .JPG.  Yes, DPP will allow you to convert RAW edited or unedited filed to .JPG.  

This is referred to as "batch processing".  You can convert 1 or more images.  Time depends on the size, number of images and the processing power and amount of memory installed on your MAC or PC.  A modern PC will be quite fast.  

Give it a try.   

[ebiggs1]

I will add another bit to this, the lenses that Rodger uses are very expensive. I mean very expensive. I know because I have a couple. But for me it was part of my livelihood so I guess it is partly excusable. Most of us can't afford or justify those lenses.

If you didn't pick up on it a prime lens has a single focal length while a zoom is exactly what its name suggests (multiple FL).