What kind of lense would I need?

[Ihaveaquestion]

For a Bboy battle?

The lighting is usually really dim.

Here is an example of the type of place.

http://www.style2ouf.com/english/videos/telecharger.php?ID_VIDEO=683

 

[KevinR]

If your close enough, a 50mm prime lens would work good here. If your further away, the fastest 80-200 type lens would work. But where talking big bucks on these lenses.

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

I dont have big bucks

 

[KevinR]

I assuming you won't be close. Because the 50 would be pretty cheap. I just meant the 80-200.

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

Is this the one your talking about?

http://www.shopping.com/xGS-canon_lense_ef_80_200~NS-1~linkin_id-3062269

 

[KevinR]

I was talking more like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=91680&is=USA

or maybe this

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA

You might be able to by with the one you posted with a high iso setting but with the speed these guys move, I have my doubts. Thats why, if you can get close, a 50mm 1.8 would really be the way to go.

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

How close is close?

I can get in the first row.

Is that a zoom lense?



___

Is their a cheaper Telephoto lense that would work?

 

[Rob]

You'll probably want something at 100+ mm for this kind of thing, as Kevin suggests an 70-200 would be perfect, but it's going to cost quite a bit to get the level of light (low f-number) that you need without another tradeoff somewhere else.

Bear in mind that a 50mm lens offers about the same magnification as your eyes; so choose a length of lens which suits the circumstances. The 70-200 is very versatile, but it's going to be more expensive to get the necessary light, so perhaps compromise with a 100mm or thereabouts? I don't like going below about an f2.8 for light purposes, but that's just my opinion. I would probably go for a 100 or 135mm length with about f2 or f2.8 to save cash.

Example: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12058&is=USA

If you don't mind grainy images, which should work well with this kind of subject anyway, then choose a film with a large ISO number like 1600 or 3200 and you'll be able to shoot in very low light even with a higher f-number lens.

Let us know what you think.

Rob

 

[Rob]

How close is close?

For a person, whole body subject filling the picture:

A 50mm lens will be about right at about 10-12ft, whereas a 100mm lens will be fine at 20-24ft, 200mm at 40-48ft etc.

The f4.5 minimum lens you listed in your link will probably be too dark to get the shots in the speed you require.

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

Thanks rob.

So if I used this one the pictures wont come out clear?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12058&is=USA

The other one cost more than the camera

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

http://share.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=EeAMmLNm3bsm7F8g&notag=1

This is how close I could get with my point and shoot nikon 3200.

 

[thebeginning]

It depends on how much you were zoomed in on your P&S for us to know how close that was (looks fairly wide though, so that's pretty close). After seeing your descriptions, i think the 50mm 1.8 would do very well, and the 100mm 2.0 would do even better. Are you shooting digital or film?

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

Right now just my digital point and shoot (if Ritz will ever let me have it back).

I'm just pricing everything out before I decide.

Ill have a film slr for the fall (photography class).

I was going to buy a 350D at the end of this month but I held the 20D first.

So going digital SLR is going to have to wait a couple months.

 

[Rob]

Personally, I'd say the 100 f2 would do the job a treat. I like prime lenses (ones which don't zoom) as I find that it's one less thing to think about, which results in me improving my composition with what I've got. Another benefit is that the "jack of all trades - master of none" theory, where something which is specifically designed to do one job, will do it better. You will generally get a lower f-number and therefore more light with a prime lens. However, you're stuck with it's length... It's a trade-off.

If you value highly sharpness, low-grain and the ability to take a shot fast, I'd say a prime is the way to go. However, if you want flexibility then get a sensible zoom like the 28-70 or 70-200. I personally have a 20mm and a 105mm which go everywhere with me. The lenses I don't always take are a 180mm for long situations and a 50mm (1.2) for low light. If I were going to your event, I'd stick with my 105mm as it's a 1.8 and it's going to be fine in that kind of light with a 400 ISO film which isn't going to break down and go grainy (like a 3200 would).

Horses for courses and all that.

Hope I've helped rather than confused!!!

Rob