Corey Oringderff , Jul 22, 2008; 10:23 p.m.
how well will this lens perform with sports pictures? I have read up on it and it performs well with portrait pictures,
but nothing about how well or poor it performs with sports pictures.
Scott Ferris 
, Jul 22, 2008; 10:46 p.m.
Bob Atkins 
, Jul 22, 2008; 10:48 p.m.
Christopher Hartt 
, Jul 22, 2008; 10:50 p.m.
Darts? The way my friends throw darts, I'd want at least an 85mm - 50 pushes the trust factor a little too far.
Puppy Face , Jul 22, 2008; 11:33 p.m.
I've used it a few times to shoot my Canadian friends in curling tournaments. Worked like a charm. Not very demanding
lighting or fast action though.
Robert Morris , Jul 22, 2008; 11:46 p.m.
What sport? and are you using a cropped body or a full frame. I own this lens and on my film body its beautiful but on my digital cropped body its a little tight. You may want something longer depending on what sport your shooting.
Tommy Lee , Jul 22, 2008; 11:59 p.m.
I found it (I use a 50/1.8 MK1) actually works well on indoor Karate matches on a full frame 5D body. If you use it on
a 40D or 4XT/XSi, it could make do with club volleyball..
G Dan Mitchell , Jul 23, 2008; 12:08 a.m.
It should be fine... if you can get close enough.
Corey Oringderff , Jul 23, 2008; 12:10 a.m.
the sport is rollerblading, or as a more exact term 'aggressive skating.' I will be taking pictures of people grinding down handrails, on ramps, etc. it will also be used for portraits and just going out and taking pictures of things that interest me, but my main focus is on rollerblading. I dont think a telephoto is really necessary ($$$) when a decent prime lens will do fine. I wont be sitting in bleachers yards away from the people I will be taking pictures of, I would have the ability to pick my own spot, so the money put out for a nice zoom lens doesnt seem like the best purchace right now.
Jim Strutz - Anchorage, AK , Jul 23, 2008; 12:16 a.m.
The f/1.4 version doesn't have the lightning fast AF that a ring type USM motor does. Not to say it focuses slow, but it's not much faster than the low cost f/1.8 version either. Image quality isn't improved a great deal either. I have one, but I don't find it worth the extra cost, and wouldn't consider it a great sports lens either. The 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are much better lenses, but are too long for some uses.
