EF135mm f/2L for sports photography?

[bobby]

Hey y'all,

Once this COVID thing is over, I'll go back to shooting race cars. Depending on the race, the kit that I ususally take is a 5D IV, 16-35 2.8 III, 100-400 II, 1.4x and 2x Extenders, sometimes an 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 II and a 1D X II. I'm thinking about complementing that kit with a 135 f/2L, but am not sure if the AF on that lens is fast enough for sports. Does anybody have any experience shooting action with that lens?

-bobby

 

[Sporgon]

IMO my 135L is blistering quick !

 

[RBS]

The 135 f2 is fast enough for sports, in my experience about the same as the 70-200 f2.8 which is quite good. It doesn't focus quite as quickly as my 200 f2 or 300 and 400 f2.8 primes but very little does, the only time you will notice focus speed is when rapidly shifting between two scenes greatly varying in distance.

This is from an inside 3V3 soccer tournament my daughter played last winter, I used the 135 f2 on a 1DX and a 200 f2 on a 1DX II. The lighting inside was abysmal forcing the ISO in the 8000 to 10000 range for a sufficient shutter speed with the lens wide open.

The first image is from the EF 135 on the 1DX and the second is from the EF 200 on the 1DX II, both shot wide open @ 1/640, f2 I would say that the lower cost EF 135 on the older 1DX body did quite well compared to the heavier and more expensive EF 200 f2 on the newer body.

 

[bobby]

@RBS Thanks for those sample pictures and thanks for comparing it with the 70-200 f/2.8! I work with the 70-200 every now and then, so that's a pretty solid reference point.
Will definitely rent a 135mm for the next race then and might buy one if I find it useful

 

[RBS]

You are welcome and good luck with the setup, I think that you will like the EF 135.

Some Canon glass seems pretty expensive for what it does but the EF 135 f2 and EF 400 f5.6 both have impressive price/performance ratios in my experience. I bought an EF 400 f5.6 with my first 1 series body back in 2005 and although it has largely been retired in favor of the much faster 400 f2.8 I still use it for hiking where the smaller size and weight make it much more practical. I would also put the EF 85 f1.8 in that very good price/performance category.

Rodger

 

[bobby]

I already own the 100-400 II and paid about $1600 for it a few years ago. Tens of thousands of photos later, I still feel like that was such a steal! With a 1.4x and 2x extender the 100-400 covers anything between 100 and 800mm. Shooting at a race track means that I'm moving around a lot, so I prefer to leave heavy and big glass at home.

I own the 85 f/1.2, but that isn't very practical for sports. So usually that one stays home when I'm at the track. Whenever I'm covering 24h races, I'll usually bring the 100-400 and extenders for daylight shooting and a 70-200 2.8 and 85 1.4 IS for after nightfall. The 135 2.0 should definitely make for a nice addition to that setup though. I'll bring the 16-35 2.8 III as a general purpose zoom for stuff like crowds and the pitlane.

As far as value for the money goes, I've found it impossible to beat the 50mm 1.8 STM, so far. It's a pretty useful "in between" focal length and I'll usually throw it on the 5D classic or EOS 30 when I'm concerned about breaking the camera or getting my stuff stolen.

 

[RBS]

The 85 f1.2 produces gorgeous images but focus speed isn't its strong point, a friend of mind once quipped that the 85 f1.2 is better suited for photographing a funeral instead of a wedding I would put the 100 macro in that same slow performance category sort of like the GM diesel cars of the late 1970s where you needed to make a reservation in advance if you wished to merge onto a highway.

I have been tempted by the 100-400 because it would be an excellent single lens to take hiking, thanks for likely costing me more money soon For football and soccer I will have either the 300 or 400 f2.8 on one body and the 70-200 2.8 on the second which covers pretty much what I need. Now that I have the 1DX III, I may make some use of the 24-70 f2.8 on the 1DX for wider angle crowd and player images.

My only complaint about the Canon 1DX series platform is they really need a single button that can be programmed to instantly and temporarily shift between two sets of exposure settings. I would love to be able to do a single button push to go from my usual wide open aperture fast shutter speed setup to a narrower aperture slow shutter speed to provide better depth of field for post score celebrations and similar. The three programmable setups are usable but nowhere near as convenient as pushing a single button to provide a temporary second set of parameters before releasing it to go to game settings.

The only non-Canon lens I own now is a Sigma EF 50 f1.4 Art. If your 50 1.8 ever dies, take a look at the Sigma because it is most impressive and focuses quickly.

Rodger

 

[bobby]

It might be related to the body that the 85 1.2 is mounted on, but generally speaking I'd say sports is the only genre that I wouldn't use it for. It's actually an all time favorite of mine for events, even though I mostly use it with a flash and at f/4-f/8 then. I also sometimes use it in the pitlane, where cars are approaching at up to 30mph and I don't have any issues there.
Haven't heard anything about the RF85 1.2's AF performance yet, though. If that lens is much faster than the EF counterpart, I'll probably upgrade when I switch to the R system. Just bought my first RF lens last week (15-35 2.8 IS) so I'll pretty much have to upgrade to the R5 when it comes out, I guess.

Sorry for most likely costing you money, haha! Do you have a wide angle like a 16-35? If so, I'd probably think about putting that on the 1D X. Personally I feel like there needs to be a decent gap between focal lengths to warrant taking that lens out to an event. Since you've already got the 70-200 I feel like you'd be duplicating the 70mm ish range. That comes from a guy though who breaks out the old 28-70 2.8 once a year. I'll literally grab the 16-35 + 100-400 every time.

I understand, but I guess that comes down to the individual shooting style. I shoot in Tv 90% of the time when I'm at the track. I'll grab some tracking shots at 1/125 sec and will then switch to 1/800 or faster to freeze the action. I feel like turning the wheel is fast enough in this instance to not need a dedicated button. I'll only rent a 1D X II a few times a year for low light stuff. Most of the time the 5D IV is actually the better camera for me due to more leeway when it comes to cropping.

I've heard that the Sigma 50 1.4 Art has some issues when it comes to nailing focus. My friend had a Sigma 35 1.4 Art a few years ago and that thing was garbage. Thanks for the heads up though, if AF works well!

 

[RBS]

I think the 85 f1.2 focus speed issue shows up when people are using it in dark venues without a flash along with wide open aperture which is a stress test for the focus speed and stability of any lens and particularly one that will have a very shallow depth of field under a lot of typical working conditions. On the 1DX series and 5DS R body it is fast enough for me but I have never tried to use it for action sports where the small and inexpensive f1.8 is probably a better choice for fast action.

I won't be making the move to mirrorless anytime soon. I tried both Canon and Sony mirrorless bodies before ordering my 1DX III earlier this year and for action sports I still much prefer an optical viewfinder. The lag is less with current mirrorless bodies but still present and I keep both eyes open while shooting which is a near requirement with football and the time lag of the EVF doesn't work well for me there. Mirrorless still have the issue of not focusing as quickly as the best DSLR models when radically shifting from one point to another such as capturing the beginning and end of a long pass play in football, the separate dedicated AF sensor still has an acquisition speed advantage. Maybe when Canon brings a 1 series mirrorless out I will give it a try but I am very happy with my long EF primes and the performance of the DSLR for sports so I will wait until the benefits exceed the drawbacks for me of making the change to a different system.

I shoot a lot of high school sports so much of it is in very poor light so the usual setup is wide open aperture with shutter speed as fast as required by the sport and letting ISO float if lighting is uneven across the venue. I still own the 17-40 f4 I bought with my 1DM2 and haven't made the switch to the 16-35; the 17-40 provides nice sharp high contrast images and I haven't missed the extra stop in situations where I use that lens.

Realistically a 35 mm prime on the third body might be a pretty good setup, one I haven't tried. I think with Sigma, there is far more variance in quality control and I wouldn't buy one used or from a place that makes it difficult to return. I remember reading about someone who went through three of the Sigma 35mm before he found a good one and I have read about some of the longer Sigma glass that just won't calibrate within the very wide range available on the Canon bodies. My 50mm Sigma required one step of offset and that was being pretty picky. My Canon 50mm f1.4 has been the only unreliable lens I have owned, it was repaired once under warranty and I paid for another repair a couple of years after (both for non-functional AF) and the AF system died about a year after the second repair. It seems to be a common issue with that particular Canon lens and I wasn't going to buy another unreliable copy of it so I gave the Sigma a try based upon reviews and was pleasantly surprised. At least on the 1DX and 5DS R bodies, focus is fast and stable.

Hopefully sports will be returning in the near future! I photographed some birds yesterday out of boredom with an EF 800 f5.6 I plan to use for wildlife in the Colorado Rockies once life returns to near normal.

Rodger

 

[bobby]

That is the exact situation where AF issues with the 85 1.2 show up! Even then, my experience has been that it'll usually nail focus on the second attempt. Too slow for sports? Sure. So I'll just rent the 85 1.4 IS a few times a year when I need the AF speed. When I'm shooting at the track at night, every third of a stop counts.

I agree with you on the EVF vs OVF issue. I particularly think that an EVF absolutely sucks when used with tele lenses. It's actually pretty nice on wide angle. However I'm working on taking the video side of the business underwater right now and the R5 seems to be perfect for that. I'm honestly not willing to invest a couple grand in an underwater housing for the 5D IV due to its age at this point. I'd rather buy the latest and greatest camera available so I'll get many years of good use out of it. Plus let's face it, even with the C-LOG upgrade, the 5D IV's video capabilities are rather limited. Mostly by the absolutely horrible rolling shutter. Fingers crossed they'll address that issue on the R5!

The 17-40 has gotta be the only Canon EF wide angle L lens I've never used before. The 16-35 4.0 IS is nice for video, the 11-24 is in its own league, but definitely a niche product and the 16-35 2.8 has always been my bread and butter lens. Never got to trade any iteration of them in because they ended up being insurance claims by the time I upgraded. The only one that's still alive is my current 16-35 2.8 III and I just had a close call with that one days before everything went on lockdown: As I was getting on a boat in Thailand, I dropped the 5D IV with the 16-35 attached on a metal handle bar. Broke off the hood, but the lens itself is fine. Phew.

I've only shot a single football game before, have never covered soccer. I'd think a 35mm prime would probably be THE focal length to go for as far as crowds are concerned.
I've heard about the Canon 50 1.4 issue. Did you look into buying a 50mm 1.2? Why did you end up going with the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2? I rented the 50 1.2 once but kinda figured that it wasn't worth the price tag to me compared with my 50 1.8 STM. But if 50mm is your focal length, I'd argue the 50 1.2 is the one to go for.

I really can't wait, either! Was looking for some files a few days ago and checked my most recently used CF card. The files were dated March 25th. Boggles my mind that I haven't touched that camera in almost two months.

 

[RBS]

Underwater video sounds like a blast! Glad you dodged a bullet with the 16-35. I have had a few close calls on the sidelines which is why I keep both eyes open and even then there are some close calls. A friend recently retired from his work as a sound crew member on a NFL coverage crew, his primary job was aiming the parabolic mic but his other job was keeping a firm hold on the leash of a camera guy to jerk him out of danger when necessary.

I seriously considered the 50 1.2 and rented one but the focus speed drop-off in low light was just enough that it concerned me. The Canon 1.4 does focus faster but the image quality of the 1.2 is in a class by itself. I thought I might use it some for indoor sports so I was concerned about the slow focus speed, peformance is pretty much the same in low light as the closely related 85 f1.2. A friend had a Sigma 50 1.4 and I tried it and I was amazed at focus speed and image quality. The last time I thought about Sigma was back when I still had a Canon film camera and at that point they were just the low cost, lesser alternative to a good Canon lens but it seems they have upped their game in some areas. I don't think they have anything that compares to Canon quality and performance in the tele range but that 50 was impressive enough that I bought one and the first one I got seems to be a good copy, Sigma quality control seems to be a bit lacking given reports of people sometimes ordering multiples and keeping the best one.

The toughest part of the sports shutdown for me was watching my daughter miss her sophomore year of high school soccer. She broke the school single season record by 7 goals her freshman year and only needed 8 more goals this season to set the school career record so it was tough for her to sit it out. Now her next field sports opportunity will be in fall because the football team recruited her to be their kicker. She was practicing soccer penalty kicks and the football coach was walking by and saw her send a ball through a new net and he went into recruiting mode. Several of his players had been telling him that he should be watching her kick but he wasn't a believer until he walked by during practice. Hopefully things will be somewhat normal by Fall but it will be weird for me being on the sidelines of a football game with my daughter because the last time she was on the sidelines with me at football was carrying gear while I shot at a college stadium. It will be nice for her to get back on the athletic field but she has put the downtime during the pandemic to good use and has two journal articles under review in bio-math that she is publishing with a group of college profs. But we will both be happy when more normal times return.

Rodger