I started last year and had a similar "feel it out" period. However, I started with outdoors then moved to indoors. Used the kit lens the camera came with (it was a used Canon Rebel SL2) because I had no clue what I was doing, didn't understand any terminology -- I just wanted to see if I liked photography at all. Thank god the camera store guys talked me through the basics and didn't try and get me on some expensive camera I wouldn't know how to use. Now I have a Tamron zoom lens because the kit lens was unfortunately hit by a ball and beyond repair (my soul left my body when that happened) for outdoor and a 50mm prime lens I scored an amazing deal on for indoor. It's heartening to hear that it's not all about gear so long as you maximize what you have!
Sorry to hear about the lens getting hit. I totally agree on how your skills are so much more important then the camera and lenses. I also love the 50mm lens for almost doing everything.
First off, let's just say that buying a Canon R5 is a good deal. But if you're going to be shooting sports, you should invest in the Canon R3. But once again, that is a very large cost. What you may want to do is invest in a used Canon 1dx Mark II or Mark III. You want to invest in a used EF 400 mm f/ 2.8 lens and then purchase an EF to RF adapter. Also, if possible, try and find a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. This will be a great starter lens for use indoors and outdoors. And most definitely hold on to that Canon EF 70-200mm it will definitely pay dividends when using it indoors.
Totally! I’m looking at a coupe new RF lenses to add to the collection but there so expensive. Might go f4 in the ones I know I’ll use outdoor cause there almost then half the price.
@@EvanOlbrichtNegative do not get the F4 versions. You will have buyer's remorse when using them indoors. If you have already purchased the Canon R5, then save your money, which could take a little bit of time and invest in at least this one particular lens, which is the Canon RF 100-300mm. If you haven't purchased the R5 then look into the Canon 1dx Mark II or Mark III as a used purchase. That camera is built specifically for sports.
Ya, I have the Canon R5 now. I bought the RF 24-70 f2.8 lens for indoor sports so I was thinking a 100-400 lens but the cheaper version for outdoors cause you don't need that long of a lens indoors anyways.
@EvanOlbricht You have a lot to learn about photographing sports indoors. When you're shooting basketball, you definitely need something a little bit longer than a 70-200mm f/2.8. That will handle a lot of shots up front and close up and do quite well when shooting in burst mode. My R3 shoots 30 frames per second. If I'm correct, the R5 shoots around 14 frames per second or maybe less, I'm not sure. The 70-200mm will do great for volleyball 🏐 but you will be losing out trying to get shots on the opposite side of the court in basketball. If you're shooting outdoors for baseball, football, or soccer, you definitely need something longer than a 70-200. I would recommend a 400 mm f/2.8 or a 300 mm f/2.8 prime lens. You can get these both used in the EF version and use them with the EF to RF adapter.
you need a 70-200 f2.8 (indoor sports) and a 100-400 for good light/outdoors. I’ve been using those lenses for the last 5 years selling tens of thousands dollars worth of prints. For team photos any wider angle lens will do.
Ya, I love the 70-200 f2.8. Canon also just released a 100-300 f2.8 so I'm trying to decide which one would work better for me. Cause the new one could kinda be like both of those lenses combined and its still an f2.8. Also thinking about the 15-35 f2.8 for more creative wide shots.
Interesting. I had been thinking of the 135mm f/1.8 RF on my R5 for volleyball and basketball. I do have an older 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon to use with my D4s. I am still finding more grain than I like. I am shooting at around 900 to 1200th of a second with an ISO of 1000 to 16000. Wide open of course. I do have a 70-200 f/4.0 RF glass but I found that just too slow.
Ya, for shooting indoors I’ve been using my 50mm f/1.8 or 24-70 f/2.8. I use manual and set the iso from 1000-2000 and then keep the aperture at the fastest. The best results I’ve been getting is with the f/1.8.
@@EvanOlbricht My Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D version did very well last night. Shooting at f/2.8, 1200th of a second and letting the ISO float, staying around 1250. I made some test shots with the Canon R5, 70-200, the f/4.0 version. Made some test shots indoors and I was very surprised even at over 6500 ISO very nice. Good enough for me as long as not viewing at 100%
I was wrong. The ISO was much higher. Between 4500 and 8000. Less noise than when shooting at an ISO of 1000 to 1200. Maybe more light on the sensor with a higher ISO? Still shooting at 1,000-1200th of a second at F/2.8. The images looked much cleaner using the higher ISO and after processing they looked really good. Will use my Canon f/4 lens next with auto ISO and will see what happens.
@@chesterjohnson4504 That's super interesting that the images looked cleaner using the higher ISO. Definitely let me know how the f/4 lens works next.
Hey just found you from Reddit! Subbed! I actually shoot using a mft camera. Olympus e-m1 mark II and now OM-1. With 40-150 f2.8. It’s not typical to hear but I like the extra reach and lightweight lenses. I’d recommend them honestly. You get higher burst rates with c-af and an AI that saves frames before the shutter is pressed that has been a life saver for me!
Ya, that’s super cool. I shoot with Canon and my favorite lens right now is the 70-200 f2.8. I’ve never shot with Olympus but I definitely wanna give it a try.
I started last year and had a similar "feel it out" period. However, I started with outdoors then moved to indoors. Used the kit lens the camera came with (it was a used Canon Rebel SL2) because I had no clue what I was doing, didn't understand any terminology -- I just wanted to see if I liked photography at all. Thank god the camera store guys talked me through the basics and didn't try and get me on some expensive camera I wouldn't know how to use. Now I have a Tamron zoom lens because the kit lens was unfortunately hit by a ball and beyond repair (my soul left my body when that happened) for outdoor and a 50mm prime lens I scored an amazing deal on for indoor. It's heartening to hear that it's not all about gear so long as you maximize what you have!
Sorry to hear about the lens getting hit. I totally agree on how your skills are so much more important then the camera and lenses. I also love the 50mm lens for almost doing everything.
Thanks for the tips! Super helpful!!
Glad it was helpful!
First off, let's just say that buying a Canon R5 is a good deal. But if you're going to be shooting sports, you should invest in the Canon R3. But once again, that is a very large cost. What you may want to do is invest in a used Canon 1dx Mark II or Mark III. You want to invest in a used EF 400 mm f/ 2.8 lens and then purchase an EF to RF adapter. Also, if possible, try and find a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. This will be a great starter lens for use indoors and outdoors. And most definitely hold on to that Canon EF 70-200mm it will definitely pay dividends when using it indoors.
Totally! I’m looking at a coupe new RF lenses to add to the collection but there so expensive. Might go f4 in the ones I know I’ll use outdoor cause there almost then half the price.
@@EvanOlbrichtNegative do not get the F4 versions. You will have buyer's remorse when using them indoors. If you have already purchased the Canon R5, then save your money, which could take a little bit of time and invest in at least this one particular lens, which is the Canon RF 100-300mm. If you haven't purchased the R5 then look into the Canon 1dx Mark II or Mark III as a used purchase. That camera is built specifically for sports.
Ya, I have the Canon R5 now. I bought the RF 24-70 f2.8 lens for indoor sports so I was thinking a 100-400 lens but the cheaper version for outdoors cause you don't need that long of a lens indoors anyways.
@EvanOlbricht You have a lot to learn about photographing sports indoors. When you're shooting basketball, you definitely need something a little bit longer than a 70-200mm f/2.8. That will handle a lot of shots up front and close up and do quite well when shooting in burst mode. My R3 shoots 30 frames per second. If I'm correct, the R5 shoots around 14 frames per second or maybe less, I'm not sure. The 70-200mm will do great for volleyball 🏐 but you will be losing out trying to get shots on the opposite side of the court in basketball. If you're shooting outdoors for baseball, football, or soccer, you definitely need something longer than a 70-200. I would recommend a 400 mm f/2.8 or a 300 mm f/2.8 prime lens. You can get these both used in the EF version and use them with the EF to RF adapter.
Ya, I’m definitely looking at getting the RF 70-200 f2.8. That lens is amazing for so much.
you need a 70-200 f2.8 (indoor sports) and a 100-400 for good light/outdoors. I’ve been using those lenses for the last 5 years selling tens of thousands dollars worth of prints. For team photos any wider angle lens will do.
Ya, I love the 70-200 f2.8. Canon also just released a 100-300 f2.8 so I'm trying to decide which one would work better for me. Cause the new one could kinda be like both of those lenses combined and its still an f2.8. Also thinking about the 15-35 f2.8 for more creative wide shots.
Interesting. I had been thinking of the 135mm f/1.8 RF on my R5 for volleyball and basketball. I do have an older 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon to use with my D4s. I am still finding more grain than I like. I am shooting at around 900 to 1200th of a second with an ISO of 1000 to 16000. Wide open of course. I do have a 70-200 f/4.0 RF glass but I found that just too slow.
Ya, for shooting indoors I’ve been using my 50mm f/1.8 or 24-70 f/2.8. I use manual and set the iso from 1000-2000 and then keep the aperture at the fastest. The best results I’ve been getting is with the f/1.8.
@@EvanOlbricht My Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D version did very well last night. Shooting at f/2.8, 1200th of a second and letting the ISO float, staying around 1250. I made some test shots with the Canon R5, 70-200, the f/4.0 version. Made some test shots indoors and I was very surprised even at over 6500 ISO very nice. Good enough for me as long as not viewing at 100%
@@chesterjohnson4504 Ya, totally. The ISO nowadays can hold pretty well and usually doesn't look too grainy.
I was wrong. The ISO was much higher. Between 4500 and 8000. Less noise than when shooting at an ISO of 1000 to 1200. Maybe more light on the sensor with a higher ISO? Still shooting at 1,000-1200th of a second at F/2.8. The images looked much cleaner using the higher ISO and after processing they looked really good. Will use my Canon f/4 lens next with auto ISO and will see what happens.
@@chesterjohnson4504 That's super interesting that the images looked cleaner using the higher ISO. Definitely let me know how the f/4 lens works next.
Hey just found you from Reddit! Subbed! I actually shoot using a mft camera. Olympus e-m1 mark II and now OM-1. With 40-150 f2.8. It’s not typical to hear but I like the extra reach and lightweight lenses. I’d recommend them honestly. You get higher burst rates with c-af and an AI that saves frames before the shutter is pressed that has been a life saver for me!
Ya, that’s super cool. I shoot with Canon and my favorite lens right now is the 70-200 f2.8. I’ve never shot with Olympus but I definitely wanna give it a try.
Canon does make 70-200 2.8 with or without IS
Ya, that is a great lens. But the longer length like a 100-500 does work better when your shooting field sports or anything at a further distance.