Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Need a Lens (or camera) for LOW LIGHT ACTION. Suggestions?

Sep 16, 2011 1:53AM PDT

I have an Olympus E500, but may need to upgrade to a new body and/or lens. Any suggestions? I am not opposed to getting used... I don't need the best of the best.

I want to shoot better action shots during low-light situations (without a flash if possible). Do I need a new camera altogether... or do I need to invest in a better lens... or both?

Primary uses for low-light: evening football & indoor basketball (sports in general)

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Low Light = Expensive
Sep 16, 2011 3:08AM PDT

If you are otherwise pleased with your E-500, a good fast lens for it would be over $1000:

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200mm-2-8-3-5-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1P5RE

A new camera will have much better high ISO performance, enough that it coupled with a modest lens might work just as well as your Oly with the above fast glass. A newer camera will have other performance benefits as well in terms of auto-focus and cycle times. Here is one of the best budget low-light shooters:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004V4IWKG/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_d0_g23_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1R6Q4GZ705SWHE51CJCX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

A "cheap" fast telephoto lens for the Nikon:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001044RIQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1316192560&sr=1-2

- Collapse -
Answer
Starting with the lens(es) ...
Sep 16, 2011 6:04PM PDT

If money were no consideration ... never mind. Let me tell you where I ended up.

Canon makes two truely awesome lenses, an f1.2 - 50mm and an f1.2 - 85mm. I have both in an FD mount (used to sit on an A1 and later on a T90.) But the same lenses exist in EF mounts as well - at a price. Having said that, the f1.4 - 50mm and the f1.8 - 85mm are also very fine lenses and not quite so pricey.

Since I couldn't use the FD lenses on newer Canon bodies (they made EF, their autofocus format, incompatible with the old FD mounts by increasing the flange distance) I ignored autofocus for a long time. But I couldn't ignore digital. Eventually I bought a Micro Four Third camera (Panasonic Lumix G2) for the express purpose to revive these lenses (and another few). I then discovered what a nice system I had there in its own right.

One can easily get adapters for Canon FD lenses to Micro Four Third bodies, and with an extension factor of 2x I now shoot in low light with the equivalent of f1.2 - 100mm and 170mm, which is quite exciting, but nothing for action shots where you would like autofocus to work.

Starting from the EF versions of these lenses, you could re-mortgage two or three of your palaces and buy the latest in F1 bodies - which is what I would do if I had those palaces Wink and there would be no extension factor to consider.

Or, if you really liked yout E500 you could try to source 2nd hand FD lenses for a decent price, which you could then have converted following this link: http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=40605

In this case you would still have no autofocus but an extension factor (of 2x, I suppose, same as with my Micro Four Thirds case.)

I started this discussion from two Canon lenses that I know pretty well, since I owned them for many years. But if you are looking at other fine lenses, a similar path may well be possible. I do believe, though, that starting with the lenses is the best course here.

On another tack: Things are greatly assisted by using a camera body with a large sensor and good performance at high ISO ratings. Ultimately you are faced with photography's "eternal triangle" again: "film" speed, light power of lens and shutter speed. No good compromising on shutter speed in action photography, so you can invest in ISO ratings and powerful lenses.

- Collapse -
Answer
What is your BUDGET?
Sep 16, 2011 7:03PM PDT

When asking questions like this, one of the most important pieces of information is how much can you afford to spend?

There is a huge difference in cameras and their capabilities if you have plenty of money.

I had the Nikon D3 that I got when it first came out a few years ago. INCREDIBLE low light performance due to it's high ISO capabilities. It was $5k for the BODY only.

It was followed by the D3s which performed even better in low light. It now is sitting around $5k for the body too.

I had to sell my cameras due to lack of money and sold BOTH D3 bodies.

I NEEDED one and got the Sony a55 for it's low light capabilities.

Is it the same? NOT EVEN CLOSE although the Sony is a nice camera, it's not even close and hell, for the money, it shouldn't be.

Go to DPReview.com read up on the different cameras if you'd like.

Another thing. One person responded with fast lenses. This is all good and true but a fast lens will NOT change how the cameras sensor captures light in low light. It will allow you to use a faster shutter speed for the same situation but usually at a larger aperture which means you'll lose depth of field and often, sharpness.
YES, I prefer a fast lens but I never usually shoot at their max apertures anyway simply because of the lack
of depth of field and again, because at say 2.8 vs 5.6, pics just aren't as sharp on 2.8.

Also, my a55 reacts and processes everything soo much slower than the D3, it's now becoming painful but again, $800 for the body vs $5000.

Mind you, today you can buy a D3 for around 3 grand if that's a consideration. Note that you would need lenses for it too.

I'll set this thread to be tracked so let me know if you have more specific questions.

Good luck, George

- Collapse -
Oops, I missed the last part of your question
Sep 16, 2011 7:08PM PDT

When shooting sports, you will probably want to use a large aperture to isolate single players perhaps and if so, then the fast lenses are also what you need. HOWEVER, they don't change the fact that you still have low light limitations such as the sensors not being able to handle the light and their performance not being as good as the cameras' sensors that I mentioned.

Also, a monopod might help to hold the camera steadier in lower light.

- Collapse -
Answer
Low light actions
Sep 20, 2011 5:03AM PDT

I will recommend these to be a minimum:
A camera that can get you good clean images at least up to ISO 3200 (higher even better).

A lens with at least 200mm and f/2.8 (image stabilization version is better).