Basketball Lens

[pcasciola]

Ok, pee wee football season is over and I need to get a basketball lens now, that is unless the thrifty fifty will work. I probably will not be able to use a flash, and there is some sunlight getting into the gym but not much. I'm planning on picking up a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 soon, but I think that will be marginal at best. I'm thinking more along the lines of a 50mm f/1.4 and/or 85mm f/1.8, or maybe even the 85mm f/1.2 if my budget allows it. I was also considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L, but it's a small gym and that might be a bit much with the 1.6x crop.

[Transfix]

When I'm shooting basketball, my 70-200 2.8L is my primary. I wouldn't leave home without it. That's on a mark II 1.3 crop. Here are some samples. Mostly with the 70-200. There will be some 24-70 in there as well.

http://gallery.mikestrong.net/list.php?exhibition=18

[timmyquest]

I was at a vollyball game tonight and my initial thoughts were that the 70-200 would be too long, and i must say i think it'll fit nicely in a basketball court.

The 50mm on the other hand isnt quiet long enough, ala 85mm f/1.8 ;-)

*edit*

1.3 crop btw

[drisley]

The 85F1.8 and the 135F2L would both be awesome for basketball.
However, I would recommend you stay away from the 85F1.2.
While it is a great lens for portraits, it's autofocus is much slower than the 85f1.8, and it often isn't a good choice for fast action.

[billsh]

I shot both of my son's playing basketball several years ago. It was a lot of fun. In all the gyms we shot in, the lighting was HORRIBLE. I was shooting film at the time, so the different light colors made for a difficult time processing the prints. Because of that, I shot B&W some of the time. With younger kids, there is a lot of emotion while they are playing. With high speed grainy B&W film, I was able to shoot some interesting shots which emphasised their intensity. You might want to try B&W.

I shot with my 70-200 2.8L most of the time, using the lower end. Depending on how close to the court you are, you may want something a little shorter. The zoom was a big advantage.

Have fun

[pcasciola]

I should have mentioned I am going to be really close to the court. It's a rec league for 9 and 10 year olds, and they play two games at a time on a half court each. So, I am typically going to be within 5 feet of the baseline and sidelines at all times, and the shooter will be 10-20 feet away. That's why I thought the 70-200 would be a waste because I'd have it at 70mm 90% of the time, and the 50mm or even the 85mm would make more sense in terms of speed and compactness.

Because of the poor lighting conditions, and no flash, I'm trying to decide if I'd be better off shooting at f/1.8 or f/1.4 with the primes, or f/2.8 w/IS.

[Transfix]

IMHO, 1.4 and 1.8 don't provide enough depth of field. For what I've shot, 2.8 works best.

Do you intend to expand your basketball photography beyond this rec league? If so, at other venues, the 70-200 could make you more versitle.

http://gallery.mikestrong.net

[pcasciola]

IMHO, 1.4 and 1.8 don't provide enough depth of field. For what I've shot, 2.8 works best.

Do you intend to expand your basketball photography beyond this rec league? If so, at other venues, the 70-200 could make you more versitle.


Yes, good point. I plan on shooting variety of sports, but I'm trying to buy the lenses as I need them. I bought the 300mm f/4 for football which worked out very well, and I definitely plan on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for next baseball season, but I was hoping to hold off on that purchase until after the holidays since it's a big one.

The consensus definitely seems to be f/2.8, which I've also seen on most samples that I've come across. I wonder how the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 would do in that case? It's definitely a lens I plan on getting in the next week or two anyway, and being the court is so small, 75mm (120mm effective with the 1.6 crop) may be just enough.

[JABACo]

I have two 10D's. Both with 420ex's with each a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f1.8. I sometime use a the flash but often not. Camera's set on TV mode with a minimum 1600 ISO.

[billsh]

Phil,

If you will be on the sidelines, you will probably want something shorter than the 70-200. If you can use your feet as a zoom, I would try the 50. I agree you won't have enough dof if you go below the 2.8. For the price you will pay for the 50 1.8, I would suggest you purchase it and see how it works. It's a lense you would use later anyway.


Sorry, didn't see you already own it. That's an even better price.