Which lens for indoor sports ?

[wanderer488]

Which prime lens is good for sports, ??? I guess fast focussing ???. I am looking prmialry for indoor kiddie sports and will be relative close to the action. I thought the 85L was good but I read its more for portraiture ?

Any thoughts would be appreciated

[c3p1]

The 85MM 1.8 is highly recommended for basketball. I don't own it---yet. But I have shot with the 50mm 1.8 and that works fairly well, just doesn't get you close enough to the action.

[mspringfield]

It depends on how much you want to spend. If money is no object then the 200 F1.8 is second to none. Expect to pay close to $4K for a used copy.

Michael

[Spearin]

What kind of sport(s) will you be shooting?

The 85mm f/1.8 is great for its price. I noticed in your gear, you're using a 135mm f/2 on a 5D... I think that combo would be pretty nice as well, but I haven't used either in action.

[calicokat]

85 F/1.8 or the 135L are your two best bets, the 85L focused too slow for fast moving sports such as basketball

[allyv]

I use the 85 f1.8 but to get the best sharpness you've gotta put it up to 2.2. The canon or sigma 70-200 f2.8 are good lens aswell.

[chrishunt]

What sports? Any fast prime will work. Get one the length that you need.

50 f/1.8
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
135 f/2.0
200 f/1.8

There there's a whole bunch of f/2.8 zooms that you could use if you need zoom...all depends on what sports you are going to shoot.

[SuzyView]

I've used the 85 1.8 for indoor sports and it's the best of the bunch for the price.

[mebailey]

I would try the 135L.

[SmileMaker]

The lens I have used the most for High School sports is my 80-200 2.8L.
It comes in real handy for indoor activities where use of a flash is prohibited.

[wanderer488]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.. I would love to get the 200 1.8 but unfortunately money is an object.. I will look at the 85 1.8 & 50 1.4. I have not used the 135L because I thought it was too long ..

The type of sports are indoor soccer, basketball and floor hockey for my nieces and nephew. The only outdoor stuff is soccer.

Thanks again everyone - more suggestions are always welcomed:)

[kevbailey]

I know I'm late on this thread, but if you havn't made a purchase yet I'd recommend the 85/1.8. I am shooting indoor speed skating in a dark rink. I have both the 85/1.8 & the 135L/2.0. I have discovered that I get better shots while using the 85 in this situation.

Kevin

[theJingster]

if you want a middle ground, since everbody seems to be torn between the 85/1.8 and 135L, there's also the 100/2. i'd probably go with the 85 though, if you really want a prime, since it's also a must-have for portraiture. otherwise, look into a zoom like the 70-200L

[sageone]

the 70-200 2.8 without IS is a great lense. I use it to shoot high school wrestling and basketball in a gym. Works great.

[sageone]

PS...also shooting in raw for better post processing capabilities also helps.

[kevbailey]

Here is a shot where I was focusing on the second girl. It was shot at 1600-ISO using my 85 fully open and I believe 1/200th SS, which is actually a little too slow for this type of setting. I normally run no slower than 1/250th.

Also capturing in RAW does give you an advantage, because you're going to be underexposed. I find that even though it's undersposed another complete stop, I can control the grain better at 1600 than I can 3200. The end result will be a smoother shot. Also, for me, I have to have the shutter speed fast enough to stop them and they are moving quick, so I'm really pushing the limits.

[wanderer488]

Thanks the suggestions - all opinions and info helps :D

Great Shot !! I totally agree with 135L; Ihave it and its great !

I am considering ...

85L 1.2/ 85 1.8/ 50 1.4 - Looks like people really like the 85 1.8 & 50 1.4.

Maybe I will get both :) The primary use is my nieces and nephew soccer and baseball games.. they surely don't move as fast those rollerbladers.. :):lol:

[wanderer488]

the 70-200 2.8 without IS is a great lense. I use it to shoot high school wrestling and basketball in a gym. Works great.


Curious ??? would the IS version be just as good ?

[sageone]

Curious ??? would the IS version be just as good ?

When it comes to sports photography, the IS won't help you, according to a couple pros I spoke to prior to purchase. However, if it was for still life, portraits, etc., then yes, I imagine that it would come in handy. I would never use it so I didn't want to spend the extra dough. If money isn't an issue, you can always turn off the IS (I think).

[wanderer488]

When it comes to sports photography, the IS won't help you, according to a couple pros I spoke to prior to purchase. However, if it was for still life, portraits, etc., then yes, I imagine that it would come in handy. I would never use it so I didn't want to spend the extra dough. If money isn't an issue, you can always turn off the IS (I think).

Thanks I did not know that ! On other versions of IS lenses, you can turn it off. I would assume that you have that ability on this lens too.. I am considering the IS version (in the future) as I shake a little..

[sageone]

wanderer...are you shooting sports too or still life, etc? If it's exclusively sports, like it is for me (most of the time), the IS isn't a factor. Combine that with a steady hand, which I think I have, the IS wasn't worth the extra money. However, if it was unlimited budget, I'd go with the IS, just to be safe.

[wanderer488]

wanderer...are you shooting sports too or still life, etc? If it's exclusively sports, like it is for me (most of the time), the IS isn't a factor. Combine that with a steady hand, which I think I have, the IS wasn't worth the extra money. However, if it was unlimited budget, I'd go with the IS, just to be safe.


Thanks Don, I am shooting my nieces and nephew sports ( ages 4- 7 - soccer/ baseball/basketball - so the sports is not as fast as rollerblading ), but for the rest of the time it would be still life & travel. Unfortuntately, I do not have a steady hand ( a little shake), that's why I am considering the IS - unfortunately, budget is not unlimited.. just have to save those pennies.:D :)

[kevbailey]

I any shooting you do that involves movement, such as your neice & Nephew's sports, you will need to shoot at quicker shutter speeds. No less than 1/200th, because your shots will have motion blur if you go any slower. That is why IS does nothing for that type of photography. Also, at that speed, a steady hand is not quite as critical as if you were shooting at 1/50th. Unless you shake a lot, it won't be a problem at higher shutter speeds.

You will be surprised at how fast little guy and gals move when your taking photos.

[liza]

I shoot sports for the newspaper, the yearbook, and for sale to parents. I use 2 DSLR's with the 50 f/1.8, the 85, f/1.8, the 100 f/2, and (sometimes) the 200 f/2.8L. The 85 and the 100 stay on my cameras most of the game, although I will use the 50 for under the basket shots and the 200 for cross court shots. In high school gyms, the lighting usually isn't good enough for f/2.8 zooms. And to freeze motion, I shoot at ISO 1600, no slower than 1/400 (with 1/500 or faster being optimal), and 1 to 2 stops down from wide open.

[kevbailey]

I wish I had some more light where I shoot. The walls are covered in a brownish/green carpet, the ceiling is navy blue and they only have flourescent lighting sparcly spaced in the ceiling. I have to shoot when they are directly under one of the light fixtures and while they are aiming towards me just about to go into a turn. That's when I have the best chance of stopping the action and have enough light for their face. If someone gets in my spot, I'm really fighting for every shot

[superdiver]

Liza, do you use RAW as well?

[wanderer488]

I any shooting you do that involves movement, such as your neice & Nephew's sports, you will need to shoot at quicker shutter speeds. No less than 1/200th, because your shots will have motion blur if you go any slower. That is why IS does nothing for that type of photography. Also, at that speed, a steady hand is not quite as critical as if you were shooting at 1/50th. Unless you shake a lot, it won't be a problem at higher shutter speeds.

You will be surprised at how fast little guy and gals move when your taking photos.

Thanks for the tips, and yes they are faster than I anticipated :lol: and if you fill them up with sugary drinks - they are lightning fast :lol: :lol:

[wanderer488]

I shoot sports for the newspaper, the yearbook, and for sale to parents. I use 2 DSLR's with the 50 f/1.8, the 85, f/1.8, the 100 f/2, and (sometimes) the 200 f/2.8L. The 85 and the 100 stay on my cameras most of the game, although I will use the 50 for under the basket shots and the 200 for cross court shots. In high school gyms, the lighting usually isn't good enough for f/2.8 zooms. And to freeze motion, I shoot at ISO 1600, no slower than 1/400 (with 1/500 or faster being optimal), and 1 to 2 stops down from wide open.

Thanks Liza for the pointers, I will post some pics after the next game !!! :D :D

[kidpower]

I used the 85 1.8 to shoot ABA basketball last season (the entire season). It did an excellent job. These guys are fast so I usually ended up shooting around 1/500 (and even that wasn't fast enough sometimes). Lighting is a challenge in most indoor arenas/gyms, and the 85 1.8 handled it very nicely.

[kidpower]

I used the 85 1.8 to shoot ABA basketball last season (the entire season). It did an excellent job. These guys are fast so I usually ended up shooting around 1/500 (and even that wasn't fast enough sometimes). Lighting is a challenge in most indoor arenas/gyms, and the 85 1.8 handled it very nicely.

[kidpower]

I used the 85 1.8 to shoot ABA basketball last season (the entire season). It did an excellent job. These guys are fast so I usually ended up shooting around 1/500 (and even that wasn't fast enough sometimes). Lighting is a challenge in most indoor arenas/gyms, and the 85 1.8 handled it very nicely.

[kidpower]

I used the 85 1.8 to shoot ABA basketball last season (the entire season). It did an excellent job. These guys are fast so I usually ended up shooting around 1/500 (and even that wasn't fast enough sometimes). Lighting is a challenge in most indoor arenas/gyms, and the 85 1.8 handled it very nicely.

[kidpower]

I used the 85 1.8 to shoot ABA basketball last season (the entire season). It did an excellent job. These guys are fast so I usually ended up shooting around 1/500 (and even that wasn't fast enough sometimes). Lighting is a challenge in most indoor arenas/gyms, and the 85 1.8 handled it very nicely.

[liza]

Liza, do you use RAW as well?

I use RAW for cat pictures. If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting in RAW, IMO. I know a lot of people beg to differ, but I like the look of the image much better. It may take more time, but to me it's worth it. After all, you can batch process them if you're pressed for time.

And, Fraser, you're welcome. Hope everything works out.

[kevbailey]

I shoot raw as well. It just makes sense!

Kevin

[basroil]

RAW files tend to give you that little edge you need when dealing with high ISO pictures with odd lighting. and of course, raws are better if you under/over expose the picture (less noise when bumping up the exposure). that 5d +135mm should do great for most pictures, but bring the 24-70 just in case. many people would steer away from the 24-70 because they are thinking of being far away (as in club/highschool/college/higher sports). when you can get right there with the action, a wide angle shot can make your little kid look like a big professional.

as for the 70-200, i can vouch for it's greatness in outdoor sports (1/2500s @iso 100 was common), and for indoor events (concerts, recitals, dancing [nothing too fast though]), as well as a nice candids lens. got it too late for basketball season though, i was dissapointed... but considering my 50mm 1.8 @2.8 and ISO 800 gave me 1/400s shutter, the 70-200 2.8 could also work fairly well

[liza]

It's more than just a little edge in terms of image quality. And I tend to seek the correct exposure as I shoot to minimize noise. The trouble with gym sports is that the lighting cycles creating shifts in lighting conditions. The first time I converted an image and applied the optimization feature in Raw Shooter is what sold me on RAW. I can't adequately describe the difference, but there is one.

[superdiver]

I have been shooting in RAW as well for the last few months, and with basketball season coming up soon i was thinking I might shoot in RAW and decrease the exposure a little to give me a little more speed and then lighten it up in RAW...doe sthat make sense?

[liza]

No, don't do that. It introduces noise. Always strive for a properly exposed image. If anything, shoot to the right just a bit.

[sageone]

Raw is the way to go for indoor sports I find. Being able to correct an image that's "off" is wonderful - not that you can't do it in jpeg, but you have greater flexibility in raw.

[superdiver]

How far to the right?

When people say "one stop" do they mean the NEXT stop with the dial, or do they mean to the number "one"? I always assumed they mean to the NEXT stop with the dial...

[joeflux]

I have been shooting in RAW as well for the last few months, and with basketball season coming up soon i was thinking I might shoot in RAW and decrease the exposure a little to give me a little more speed and then lighten it up in RAW...doe sthat make sense?

To be more specific. If you have enough light where you can stop action with your shutter speed, then sure go ahead and do the correct exposure. if you have way too much light yeah go for shoot to the right which will give you more exposure. However. And this is from personal experience. If you don't have enough light were you have to shoot at 125 shutter and that cannot stop sports action, you will end up with a correctly exposed picture but the hands and feet might be all blurry. Trust me I shot hockey like this and it was bad. Later I shot baseball, and I did not expose perfectly. I underexposed because I wanted that 350 shutter or higher. Benefit was that my photos came out not blurry in the hands and legs. Then I cranked it up on exposure on post using RAW. It was awesome. Some of the shots that same baseball game I shot JPG. Those I could not fix that much. Sure I had a bit of noise added with RAW. But it made the shot look great after processing it with software. You can fix an underexposed shot. You cannot fix a blurry hand when the pitcher throws, or when the hockey shot is slammed you can't fix that either. Think of it, it's logic :)

I shoot NFL, NHL, and MLB right now.

Good luck. I have learned tons of tips from this forum and once you read everyone's tips you do it yourself and you learn how to do it YOUR way. Keep up the good work.

Now the RAW vs JPEG shoot preferrence, I haven't nailed that one yet. I flip flop. usually JPEG for NFL with tons of light. and RAW for NHL since I have low light in the arena.


Sample of Tv 125 and Av 4.5 where the shot is ruined in sports. Who cares if it's perfectly exposed. The goalie is perfect, the offense is blurry.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l210/powerflux/IMG_5473.jpg