Indoor sports lenses?

[n1as]

I'm beginning to think there are very few good choices for lenses for indoor sports. I'm shooting indoor basketball, cheerleading and some wrestling. Oh yea, some indoor track too. In addition, there are other indoor events such as band concerts, plays, etc. My requirements for lenses are pretty simple.

1. Fast. f/2.8 is too slow, esp. for a zoom, f/2 is better.
2. Sharp. Any fast lens that isn't sharp until f/4 is next to useless.
3. Flat. Corners and off-center areas need to be sharp, not just the centers.
4. Fast AF. Basketball players MOVE. I need fast and accurate AF.
5. Short Tele. Something in the 40mm to 140mm range is needed.
5. Light weight. Sorry, but the big stuff truly hurts my back & shoulders and I'm not willing to spend the evening "dancing" with a monopod :-)

With these constraints, I come up with a fairly short list of lenses to use. Focus speed keeps me away from the 3rd party lenses. The speed requirement keeps me away from the zooms. I'm down to these as possibilities:

1. 50 f/1.4
2. 85 f/1.8
3. 100 f/2
4. 135 f/2 L

Am I missing anything?

Are there any zooms that cover the 40 - 120 range that are worth considering? I've use the 24-70L but it is a tad slow and a tad heavy.

Are there any zooms I should consider. 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 have both been ruled out. I'd love to find a good quality 50-150 f/2.8 but I fear the Sigma would disappoint due to weight, build quality and AF speed.

[Riff Raff]

I don't think I would use the 50mm f/1.4 for those purposes. It's not great wide open, and the focus mechanism is a bit odd (Micro USM with a clutch type mechanism for full-time manual focusing). My picks would be 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0L. And of course the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS when you have a little more light. ;)

[gasrocks]

85/1.8 is the best for what you will be doing. 135/2 is 2nd best if you need more reach.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Your missing these;
200mm f/1.8L or 200mm f/2L IS

Also, with todays DSLR ISO noise handling and IS, f/2.8 should not be out of the running anymore.
You really should be considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IMHO.

Most of your range is covered in one lens with very "primelike" image quality.

[woolbr8stl]

I use the Canon 1.8 for indoor basketball and love it. Great for baseline pictures and sidelines. Fast enough focus and with the 40D I get very usable shots @ 1.8 1/320 or 1/400 ISO 1000-1250

[kchau]

drop the 50 f1.4, the focus is odd on this lens as other people have stated, 85 f1.8 is much better suited.

[Cadwell]

Also, with todays DSLR ISO noise handling and IS, f/2.8 should not be out of the running anymore.
You really should be considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IMHO.

Most of your range is covered in one lens with very "primelike" image quality.

I tried the EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM for some indoor canoeing on Saturday (because it was a particularly well lit venue by the standards I am used to) and ended up throwing it away in disgust and getting the primes out. It simply wasn't AFing well enough compared to the primes (on both my Mark II and Mark III bodies).

For what it is worth the primes I was using were the OP's original list

1. 50 f/1.4
2. 85 f/1.8
3. 100 f/2
4. 135 f/2 L

with the addition of the 24/1.4L for some wider stuff.

The 50mm f/1.4 USM does surprisingly well for indoor sports despite the comments regarding micro-USM and my copy is pretty damn sharp wide open. Those of you that don't have a sharp copy I suggest you see about getting it returned / fixed.

[MT Stringer]

The only one on your list I have used for basketball is the 85 f/1.8. All of the games I've shot have been with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. During the last game I did notice some focus trouble on about 4 of the 225 shots. Other than that, no problems.


I might add, I have used flash on all but a couple of the games.1/250, ISO 800 f/3.2
Mike

[oaktree]

I have all 4 lenses and have used the 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and 135/2.0 for basketball. If price is no barrier, get the 135/2.0. It's sharp at f/2.0, fast focusing, etc. If you're on a budget, either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 are very good.

Edit: Your choice may also depend on how far you will be from the court. SInce I'm in a NBA arena about 40 ft from the court, the 135/2.0 is the lens I use. If I was in the front row, I might be using the 85/1.8. I don't have a fast zoom.

[TitusvilleSurfer]

I tried the EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM for some indoor canoeing on Saturday (because it was a particularly well lit venue by the standards I am used to) and ended up throwing it away in disgust and getting the primes out. It simply wasn't AFing well enough compared to the primes (on both my Mark II and Mark III bodies).

For what it is worth the primes I was using were the OP's original list

1. 50 f/1.4
2. 85 f/1.8
3. 100 f/2
4. 135 f/2 L

with the addition of the 24/1.4L for some wider stuff.

The 50mm f/1.4 USM does surprisingly well for indoor sports despite the comments regarding micro-USM and my copy is pretty damn sharp wide open. Those of you that don't have a sharp copy I suggest you see about getting it returned / fixed.
But the 70-200 f/2.8 IS has INSTANTANEOUS auto focus??

[Anders Östberg]

The lenses I most often use are the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2 and 300/2.8.

If the light is decent I also use the 70-200/2.8. Sometimes (rarely) I may use something wider, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 16-35/2.8.

Usually f/2.8 is too slow but with the 1D III it's possible to go one ISO stop higher compared to the Mark II, so it has become more useful than before.

[Mr B Pix]

I use the 85 f1.8 for basketball and gymnastics. Every once in a while (depending on conditions) I have used the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

If I could pick another to have, I'd like to have the 135L :D

[Cadwell]

But the 70-200 f/2.8 IS has INSTANTANEOUS auto focus??

:lol: Really? It isn't even the fastest of my zooms let alone start comparing it to something really quick like the 85/1.8 or 135/2.0. I have 6 lenses which plainly AF faster than the 70-200/2.8.

However, I didn't mention speed in this instance, I said the lens "simply wasn't AFing well enough compared to the primes" and in this case I was referring to accuracy. The extra stop (and sometimes more) of light hitting the cameras' AF sensors when using the prime lenses meant that the percentage of in-focus shots from the primes (on both camera bodies) was much higher than from the zoom. Don't forget that the AI Servo AF sampling rate is directly related to the amount of light reaching the AF sensors. Speed is nothing without accuracy and it really doesn't matter how fast the AF motor on a lens is if it gets it wrong.

[therealmr]

the 70-200 f/2.8 IS isn't that quick to the punch with AF. My 16-35 is faster than it, and I'm pretty sure it is comparable to the 85 f/1.8, as well. It isn't lightning fast...

If you have the money, go for the 70-200 f/2.8.

[n1as]

OP back.

I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8, but I have tried a couple of other f/2.8 lenses in my gym; 24-70L and 17-55 f/2.8. In both cases, I found the zooms to be 1/3 stop darker than the primes. With the 50 and 85 primes, I shoot ISO 3200, 1/500 f/2.2. With the zooms, I have to go to 1/250 f/2.8, and as I've proven to myself many times, 1/250 is too slow.

Sooo, despite the many cries of "70-200 f/2.8", my experience suggests it won't work.

BUT BUT but,

If I use flash and bounce off the ceiling, then I can use the 70-200 f/2.8 or maybe even my 70-200 f/4 and that would be GREAT! The problem here would be getting enough light from the flash to get at least a couple of stops above ambient and having the flash recharge fast enough.

I'm still working my system & skills to try to get better results.

[AdamLewis]

Your missing these;
200mm f/1.8L or 200mm f/2L IS

Also, with todays DSLR ISO noise handling and IS, f/2.8 should not be out of the running anymore.
You really should be considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IMHO.

Most of your range is covered in one lens with very "primelike" image quality.

IS helps with lowlight sports 0.0000%.

[jmpsmash]

drop the 50 f1.4, the focus is odd on this lens as other people have stated, 85 f1.8 is much better suited.

i wouldn't discount it so quickly. while the OP has a special interests in basketball, his thread was titled indoor sports. there are indoor sports where the 50mm is an appropriate focal length. i have used it extensively for indoor badminton and i never find it worse than the 85/1.8, 100/2 or the 135/2.

[CyberDyneSystems]

IS helps with lowlight sports 0.0000%.
I mentioned a lens, but never said a word about IS being an advantage.

I can't recommend the non IS version as;
A: I've not used it enough to know one way or the other,
B: I have used it enough to know that the newer IS version, which is equipped with the much improved USM AF that was pioneered on the 300mm f/2.8L IS, has faster better AF than the older non IS design.

This improved AF makes the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS the fastest focusing zoom I own, and the only zoom I own that compares well with many of the primes mentioned.

RE IS = 0%
We here this often, and I agree that IS does absolutely nothing to help with the subjects motion,
... but to say it helps 0% in total is to assume that there is also 0% chance that I or you as a photographer could have any negative effect on what could otherwise a perfectly well timed shot do to our own human induced camera shake.

Just because we are shooting fast subjects does not mean that a stable platform or IS can't help make a shot that much better by helping to eliminate the effects of camera shake.

I put it to you that it is well within the realm of possibility that IS could save a shot that I might otherwise trash with my own instability.

Therefore I disagree with this statement, as it is too sweeping.

[CyberDyneSystems]

OP back.

I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8, but I have tried a couple of other f/2.8 lenses in my gym; 24-70L and 17-55 f/2.8. In both cases, I found the zooms to be 1/3 stop darker than the primes. With the 50 and 85 primes, I shoot ISO 3200, 1/500 f/2.2. With the zooms, I have to go to 1/250 f/2.8, and as I've proven to myself many times, 1/250 is too slow.

If your already at ISO 3200 @ f/2.8 and can't get the shutter speeds you need, then your obviously absolutely right!