Indoor sports, fast lens.. what would you recommend for this size area?

[Lightstream]

The area I'd be shooting in is slightly larger than a tennis court and lit by mercury vapor lighting. Fast action and motion stopping are needed. Fast glass addicts are given permission to go nuts in this thread. I am eyeing a 200/2.0 ISL (well, IS for good measure since it comes with the deal).

Most who know me do so as 'slow zoom shooter' who doesn't mind a f/5.6 and whose work usually enables me to get away with the slow aperture, but when I decide I want speed, I want SERIOUS SPEED.

Name your lens choices and why ;) what focal lengths would be sufficient on a 40D (1.6x crop) to cover an area the size of a tennis court? Is a 300/2.8 too long? I could stick it on my 5D but the 5D lacks the sheer fps for sports work even though its AI Servo is superb (you should see what I can get out of it..)

[superdiver]

How much room do yu have betwen you and your subjects? the 300 might be nice, if you can get the right distance, maybe the 135 f2?

[kidpower]

Agree with above. Where might you be positioned? Do you have freedom of movement (or even want to). Any number of primes (if that's what you are looking for). 85 1.8, 100 F2, 135 F2 , 200 2.8, 200 1.8, 300 2.8 can all deliver superb indoor action oriented photos. Leave out the 2.8's if you think the lighting will be marginal. It's really a matter of distance and style (what and how you want to capture the action).

Just some thought.

[MDJAK]

Got your sights set on the new 200, huh? Probably the best choice of all. Either that, of the 70-200 f2.8, which offers greater versatility, and with the ability to set high ISO, somewhat obviates the need for big expensive glass indoors.
mark

[30DShooter]

If you can afford it I would go for the 200 1.8. And if you can afford to buy 2, please buy one for me!! :-)

[nicmo]

I would recommend a 70-200 f/2.8 for the versatility with indoor shooting.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Why, 200mm 1/8 pf course :)

(or.. granted, 200mm f/2 IS ) :(

[lungdoc]

For the anticipated price difference in the F1.8-F2 200mm lenses versus 2.8 counterparts you could buy yourself a good chunk of a MkIII (focus issues aside for the moment) and probably all of a 5D Mark II (assuming it has 5 FPS or more) - either of which would allow you bump ISO and compensate for the extra stop. I know it's not a direct answer, but for many people they'd have to ask themselves where the money is better spent. At the exotic glass level bodies start to look cheap and decent ISO 3200 and usable 6400 is pretty attractive. Amazing that they managed before such ISO capability was available.

[30DShooter]

Amazing that they managed before such ISO capability was available.

It's not amazing, it just emphasizes a point......IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GLASS!!

[lungdoc]

It's not amazing, it just emphasizes a point......IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GLASS!!

Well then maybe I don't get it. I think most would agree that all the current Canon bodies are better at 1600 ISO than film was at 400; the latest are better at 3200. If that's the case then you should now only need /f 5.6 to do what /f 2.8 could do before for low light. Maybe we're just shooting in lower and lower light and the bar has been raised. I still think the question of spending the money on a faster body versus a faster lens has some validity, especially when we're talking about big dollars for one stop of difference and the comparator lenses (200 2.8's or 300 and 400 F4's) are also excellent.

[30DShooter]

Well then maybe I don't get it. I think most would agree that all the current Canon bodies are better at 1600 ISO than film was at 400; the latest are better at 3200. If that's the case then you should now only need /f 5.6 to do what /f 2.8 could do before for low light. Maybe we're just shooting in lower and lower light and the bar has been raised. I still think the question of spending the money on a faster body versus a faster lens has some validity, especially when we're talking about big dollars for one stop of difference and the comparator lenses (200 2.8's or 300 and 400 F4's) are also excellent.

Don't get me wrong about spending that kind of money! Instead of spending $4K on a 200/1.8, I would spend it and buy several excellent lenses. But I wouldn't spend it on a body. A $200 lens on a $4K body makes no sense to me.

[The Fox]

D A $200 lens on a $4K body makes no sense to me.
What about a $6k lens on my rebel body?

[30DShooter]

What about a $6k lens on my rebel body?

You missed the point. If you can afford a $6K lens, you will not be shooting with a Rebel. And vice versa. If you can only afford a $200 lens, you probably will not be shooting with a $4K body (IMO). Hmmmmm.....they say you're born with it....?????

[lungdoc]

Don't get me wrong about spending that kind of money! Instead of spending $4K on a 200/1.8, I would spend it and buy several excellent lenses. But I wouldn't spend it on a body. A $200 lens on a $4K body makes no sense to me.

You're not following me here. I am not referring to $200 lenses. I am referring to the price differences between say a 300 2.8 IS $3899and a 300 F4 IS $1120; or more specifically that between a 200 2.8L (or 70-200 2.8 IS for that matter) and a 200 F2 IS. All excellent glass where you are paying a LOT for one extra F stop and maybe that money is better spent on a higher ISO body. I personally in the example cited by the OP would strongly consider the merits of a $600 2.8 L on a 1D Mark III as opposed to a 200 1.8 on a 40D.

[Lightstream]

Hmm, all good points and all noted, keep them coming :)

Yeah I did think about how nice a zoom would be. There are times when the poor feet just aren't fast enough to grab that shot and where the fingers can do it in time. I do lust for fast glass though ;)

A good point was made about considering total system performance (ie. camera body + lens and the effective light-gathering power of both). It's a real pity I am not fond of the 1-series and no longer keen on a 1DMk3. I'd actually rather buy the glass because it doesn't depreciate as fast nor does it do wacky things with AI Servo.

The bar has indeed been raised: the pro's on today's sidelines (I'm not a pro, btw) have gone for the very best that technology has to offer in order to do their job better and thus the standard has been going up for a while. What may have seemed amazing in the days of ISO 1600 film and f/2.8 glass with manual focus is now being pipped by f/2.0 and ISO 6400 under even crappier lighting (the whole 'save the world' thing :p)

I'm thinking 40D, ISO 1600 or 3200 with the new 200/2.0 and 70-200 f/4L IS (because I have this already) on 5D as 2nd body....

[Lightstream]

Got your sights set on the new 200, huh? Probably the best choice of all. Either that, of the 70-200 f2.8, which offers greater versatility, and with the ability to set high ISO, somewhat obviates the need for big expensive glass indoors.
mark

My precioussssssssssss ;)

[mebailey]

Another vote for the 135L...

[Reibs]

I used my 70-200 2.8 IS last winter at an arena for a speed skating event. I found that I really had to boost up the ISO to 800-1000 to get decent shots. If I do this even again this year, I'll be buying a 135 2.0L or an 85 1.2L. I would think that either of these lenses will be good for the reach you would need in a tennis court.

Good Luck

[jmpsmash]

what kind of lighting condition are we talking about?

with mercury vapor lights, it will be tough to go over 1/320s btw, they tend to produce very bad color cast at speeds higher than that.

[Zilly]

and they pulse as well what sport are you shooting yoda as i think you could go wit f2.8 glass (70-200 my recommendation) and still get a fast enough shutter to give pleasing results.