File :-(, x, )
How long is 85mm on APS-C? Anonymous
Yes, I know it's 136mm on 1.6 crop for Canon.

But that's not the real question. I read that the 85mm 1.8 is the best lens from Canon to shoot indoor sports. Well, cheapest minus the 50/1.8. It's supposed to be very accurate and fast to focus.

My real question is, how far away do you have to be to get full body shots with 136mm equivalent?

Basketball courts are under 30 meters long. How much coverage do I get out of this lens?
>> Anonymous
Oh, shoot. Wrong measure. A basketball court is 15 meters wide or 50 ft.

From the sidelines, that's about 7 meters away from the middle of the court. Can I shoot full body with it or will I have to back up?
>> Vincent
According to my calculations
At 15m away (half court), your subject will exactly fill the frame if it was 4.194m Wide and 2.811m Tall
roughly 14 feet wide, 9 feet tall

So thats a bit much, you probably want to get closer, maybe 7-10m
>> Vincent
>>113214
7 Metres = 1.9 Horizontal, 1.3 Vertical
(6.4 feet wide, 4.3 feet tall) Or vertical you will just fill the frame of a tall guy
But you will probably be shooting at a downward angle, which will give you a bit more breathing room.
>> Anonymous
How do you guys calculate this? I know of DOFMaster for DOF stuff, is there a formula?

>>113216

I'm not sure I understand the numbers. Yes, I'll be shooting vertical probably, so does that mean I can only get 1.3 meters on my frame?

If yes, that probably means 3/4 of the body. :/
>> Vincent
>>113217
I have an Excel spreadsheet for calculating this sort of thing, (Mostly for calculating what lenses I will need for Surfing (among other sports) at each location)

Basically you can do some basic Trig and divide up a triangle into 2 equal parts, then knowing the Distance and the Field of View. Work out the "opposite" end of the triangle.

But I am assuming you are shooting in landscape orientation, therefore your pic will be 1.9m WIDE, and 1.3m TALL. So if you shoot in "portrait" orientation, it will be 1.9m tall, and 1.3m wide (Good height for people)
>> Anonymous
Oh, awesome. So in portrait mode, if I'm focusing at 7 meters away, the tallest thing I can fit in is 1.9 meters?

So the 85mm works perfect then.
>> Anonymous
Vincent, I found this website:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Is it the "Dimensional Field of View Calculator"?

I've input 85, 1.6 and 7 meters and it gives me:

Horizontal:1m 85.29cm
Vertical:1m 23.53cm
Diagonal:2m 22.7cm

I think that's the same thing you got, right? What's the diagonal FOV?
>> Vincent
>>113224
Diagonal is just the distance measured from one corner to the other (Kind of like how they measure TV's, Monitors Etc) Doesn't mean much truthfully. Fisheye lenses are measured this way, (180 degree diagonal usually)

But ya basically same numbers, yours are a tad more exact.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Thanks, I'll bookmark that website.

One more thing. :|

From the picture, do I have enough DOF?
>> Anonymous
>>113240
Since you want full body shot, there won't be a place for other stuff (like, player on the other side of court, or the basket he is shooting at) so yes, 1.5m is enough to get your peon in focus.
>> Anonymous
>>113369
He probably has a 50/1.8 for that.

And if he doesn't, he's either dirt poor, just plain ass lazy, or too stupid to be using a camera.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I'd say this was one case where a zoom would be handy, but for the price, IQ and aperture that lens should do very nicely. As long as you know the limitations and work with it you should get some nice photos.
>> Anonymous
>>113387

The fastest zooms are 2.8 but I'm not sure if I can freeze motion with them. Court is fairly well lit.

But the cheapest 2.8 is like, the Tamron 17-50. Focus issues aside, I'm not going to risk it because I'm buying online and it's a real hassle of returning things.

Besides, the 85/1.8 is cheap!
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>113405

You'd probably have to up the ISO if it came to it, but I've seen it done with the 70-200L. It's swings and roundabouts. Whatever you feel suits your needs.

I really do agree with you on the idea of the 85mm 1.8 being good value though. Taking the plunge to even a third party 2.8 zoom might be expensive (although Sigma and the rest make some good ones). Even then you might regret not getting even wider apertures after spending all that money. This way you'll get a nice fast lens with great IQ which should be good to freeze movement or help keep the ISO and noise manageable for shooting in these dim conditions with fast movement. The 85mm will be good for other things too, like some portraits and so on.

Make sure you practice loads with it before hand so it is intuitive to you what scene and DOF to expect, etc. Take around parks and shoot loads with it and you'll know just what to expect and where to position yourself (important with FFL!).

No flash photography, I am guessing?

Oh and post results if and when you do it!