Is the RF 28-70's AF fast enough for indoor sports?

[R2D2]

Having a fast zoom available for indoor (and outdoor) sports would be nice. Is the autofocus fast enough (on an R5?). It'd be for stuff like baseline basketball, sideline volleyball, trailside mountain biking, etc.

This is what I like to shoot out on the trail...


.

I could give up a stop vs a fast (f/1.4) prime, for the convenience of a zoom. Maybe even 2 stops (RF 24-70 f/2.8L)? I'm using an RF 24-105L f/4L right now (my basic "slow" event lens), but need another stop or two of lens speed for close fast-moving stuff. As long as the AF is quick enough!

Or do you think I should just stick with primes and perhaps add a second body? Maybe an R3??? :-D

Many thanks for any advice you could offer me!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

I have used the 28-70/2 for indoor events but these are social gatherings where subjects move...but not sprint

It feels a touch slower to accommodate focus than the 24-70/2.8 but I have not measured. Ultimately 70mm is a bit short for indoor sports. Aside from team photos, autographs, coaching moments I tend to start with 85mm and go up from there (70-200 is right at home for this type of work).

 

[R2D2]

I have used the 28-70/2 for indoor events but these are social gatherings where subjects move...but not sprint

Yeah, the 28-70 is really ideal for those kinds of (low light) events. I was hoping that its utility could be stretched to what I'm shooting more of nowadays.

It feels a touch slower to accommodate focus than the 24-70/2.8 but I have not measured.

That RF 24-70 f/2.8 is also on my short list. Would like that extra stop however, if at all possible.

Ultimately 70mm is a bit short for indoor sports. Aside from team photos, autographs, coaching moments I tend to start with 85mm and go up from there (70-200 is right at home for this type of work).

Definitely. I have the RF 70-200 for exactly that (and the Sigma 135 f/1.8 to supplement). I do really like to get up close and personal at times tho, and would prefer a very fast (wide) zoom for the unique perspective.

Many thanks for weighing in. I appreciate the suggestions!

R2

 

[R2D2]

Has anybody tried the 28-70 for action shooting? Thx

R2

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

Has anybody tried the 28-70 for action shooting? Thx

R2

Can you borrow or rent it to try? That would give you best (first hand) experience if it is sufficient for your need.

 

[R2D2]

Has anybody tried the 28-70 for action shooting? Thx

R2

Can you borrow or rent it to try?

Good thought. I have a couple of pro friends who shoot RF (don’t know if they have this lens yet tho). Maybe a chance to reach out to them!

That would give you best (first hand) experience if it is sufficient for your need.

That’s for sure. Lensrentals doesn’t have one available at the moment. Wanted to see if anyone here had any thoughts before spending $142 on a rental (kinda steep).

Thanks for the suggestions,

R2

 

[richardperson]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

 

[PhotosFlight]

I used a 70-200 f 2.8 MII on a 6D MII for a couple seasons of collegiate basketball. I got the R6 as the pandemic hit and so have not used it inside with that lens. The results at f 2.8 on the 6DMII were very good but they would be even better on the R6 given it's stellar high ISO performance. The RF 28-70 at f 2 should be fantastic. Plenty of light for the AF.

 

[OSP2017]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

I've shot box lacrosse players with this lens mounted on an R5; it worked very well for me. Perfect lens if you don't mind the weight.

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

I used a 70-200 f 2.8 MII on a 6D MII for a couple seasons of collegiate basketball. I got the R6 as the pandemic hit and so have not used it inside with that lens. The results at f 2.8 on the 6DMII were very good but they would be even better on the R6 given it's stellar high ISO performance. The RF 28-70 at f 2 should be fantastic. Plenty of light for the AF.

It is not the quantity of light but moving those large focus elements around quickly that gives me pause.

 

[R2D2]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

OP here. I did end up buying the RF 28-70 f/2 for event shooting (to complement the RF 70-200 f/2.8). Wow what a lens! (actually they're both excellent)

Unfortunately COVID has shut down my indoor sports opportunities thus far, so I haven't been able to give it a proper testing in a gym environment.

However I did recently shoot a nighttime mountain bike (Fat Bike) race with it (on the R5), and I'd have to say that it acquitted itself quite well. I used Spot AF for the shoot (waaay too many glasses, goggles, headlamps, and helmets being worn for Eye AF), so I tracked (panned) along with the riders myself. IBIS was Off. Most action shots were at 50mm.

The light was terrible (and the sodium vapor streetlamps played h#ll with the colors). Shutter speeds were very marginal at 1/250 sec (lots of up and down movement too). Lens was wide open. ISO (RAW) was set at 10,000. Most exposures were pushed 1-3 stops in Post also. Exposure Simulation was disabled to maximize AF performance (it was DARK out there). And cold (0 F). And snowing. And windy. No problems with any of the camera/lens/battery functions in that environment though. Mine? Yes! ;-)

AF was snappy for initial acquisition. I didn't wait around for any CDAF fine-tuning before hitting the shutter (no time for that as the riders buzzed by at 15-20 MPH). Distance to subjects was generally 10-25 feet (tried to keep it about 15). I submitted 383 images (4K 2160) to the race organizers. Here's a handful...


Click on "original size"


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.

Be kind please! :-D (did I mention it was COOOLD and Dark?!)

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[R2D2]

I used a 70-200 f 2.8 MII on a 6D MII for a couple seasons of collegiate basketball. I got the R6 as the pandemic hit and so have not used it inside with that lens. The results at f 2.8 on the 6DMII were very good but they would be even better on the R6 given it's stellar high ISO performance. The RF 28-70 at f 2 should be fantastic. Plenty of light for the AF.

Thanks for this info. I've been using the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for outdoor sports and it's a joy to shoot with.

R2

 

[R2D2]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

I've shot box lacrosse players with this lens mounted on an R5; it worked very well for me. Perfect lens if you don't mind the weight.

Good to know! I don't mind the weight at all when shooting events. For walk-around? Yes.

R2

 

[R2D2]

I used a 70-200 f 2.8 MII on a 6D MII for a couple seasons of collegiate basketball. I got the R6 as the pandemic hit and so have not used it inside with that lens. The results at f 2.8 on the 6DMII were very good but they would be even better on the R6 given it's stellar high ISO performance. The RF 28-70 at f 2 should be fantastic. Plenty of light for the AF.

It is not the quantity of light but moving those large focus elements around quickly that gives me pause.

Actually the (4) elements on the focusing carriage aren't "too" huge.




.



AF is pretty snappy (IMO). I gotta try it out in the gym sometime though to be sure.

R2



--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

Galleries by Jekyll & Hyde

www.pbase.com

 

[richardperson]

Wow, those night mountain bike shots looks really good for such poor lighting. Thanks. I love the 28-70mm, but the R5 is a bit too slow for volleyball. Looking forward to trying it on the R3.

 

[PhotosFlight]

I used a 70-200 f 2.8 MII on a 6D MII for a couple seasons of collegiate basketball. I got the R6 as the pandemic hit and so have not used it inside with that lens. The results at f 2.8 on the 6DMII were very good but they would be even better on the R6 given it's stellar high ISO performance. The RF 28-70 at f 2 should be fantastic. Plenty of light for the AF.

It is not the quantity of light but moving those large focus elements around quickly that gives me pause.

I suppose you'll have to rent one and see if it is fast enough for you.

 

[Alekhine]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

I have both the R3 and the 28-70. The combo is absolutely fantastic and the AF is really fast, I would say immediate.

 

[R2D2]

Wow, those night mountain bike shots looks really good for such poor lighting.

Thanks. Having that extra stop (vs f/2.8) really helps with that. Noise and detail are just OK at 2160 px, but I'm glad I didn't have to deliver anything higher res (yuck!).

I love the 28-70mm, but the R5 is a bit too slow for volleyball. Looking forward to trying it on the R3.

Question for you. Were you using Eye Detect or a Single (Spot?) AF point? Eye Detect can be slower to acquire, but I'm OK with using Servo Spot and doing the tracking myself (been doing that for a long time), if that's a better solution with the R5. Thx

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[David Carlyon]

Has anybody tried the 28-70 for action shooting? Thx

R2

I had an evaluation copy for a weekend, and used it for a Tennessee Walking Horse show. Most of the event was actually in a covered, open-sided arena, though that can actually be more challenging than indoor events, with the bright background and darker subject. It wasn't exactly a fast-action event, but still required constantly tracking subjects in motion. It performed quite well on my R5. Focus and tracking was excellent. It's a heavy lens though, and combined with the Profoto A1 in the hotshoe, it gave me quite a workout!

 

[richardperson]

The OP question was a little ambiguous to me and I would like to hear the answer to the other half of the question. Yes, f/2 is my minimum for good indoor sports in less than great lighting. I use my 135mm f/2 for the close ups, but having been using 85mm and 35mm primes for the wider shots. My R3 arrived today so next volleyball tournament I would love to have the 28-70mm for variable wide shots, but wondering how the AF speed of that combo is and if it is fast enough to catch volleyball. This probably cannot be answered unless someone with and R3 has used this lens for a similar application. But, here's hoping someone has.

I have both the R3 and the 28-70. The combo is absolutely fantastic and the AF is really fast, I would say immediate.

Thanks, that is helpful. I am going to try it on my next volleyball tournament and see how it goes. I have the 85mm f/1.2, which I use a lot, but sometimes I want just a bit wider. Was considering the 50mm f/1.2, but I use the 135mm f/2 for tele, so f/2 really is enough for me, and I hate to buy a lens I don't really need. I would rather save up for the RF 135mm f/1.4.

Come on Canon and quit screwing around with $20,000 1200mm lenses that nobody will buy and give us a usable lens.