HS Basketball "Small Lens" recommendation please?

[snyderman]

Hi:

Total noob here. Appreciate some help regarding a 'small lens' for shooting high school basketball indoors under (probably) some poor lighting conditions. I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 for longer shots, but a smaller lens for those closer, 'under-the-basket,' or 'timeout huddle' shots is probably needed.

Since I'm new at this and have already blown the budget, recommendations for a lens that won't break the bank a second or third time would be most appreciated. Oh, and I've learned that flash is not allowed so it'll have to be a pretty fast one as well!

Also, the smaller lens will probably see double-duty next fall at night football games.

Thank you for your recommendations. First games are (yikes!) later this week!

dave

[Dan-o]

To not break the bank go with a 50mm 1.4 or even cheaper with the 1.8 version.

[TopGear1Ds]

What body are you shooting with?

How wide do you want to go? Prime or zoom?

[snyderman]

What body are you shooting with?

How wide do you want to go? Prime or zoom?


Sorry, I should have stated: Canon 30D. I'd like to stay with a small zoom lens and not as much a wide-angle lens.

Thanks for asking questions for better clarification.

dave

[Dan-o]

There really isn't any wide zooms that will stop down to 2.8 for cheap.

[jacuff]

There are few lenses that won't break the bank. You REALLY need f/2.8 or faster lenses, especially if flash/strobes aren't allowed. In a zoom, you'll want either the 16-35mm f/2.8L II or the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Since you are shooting the 30D, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be an option as well. You'll find the gap between 55mm and 70mm is pretty minimal. The EF-S lens is also cheaper then either of those two L lenses.

For primes consider the 28mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/2.8. Also the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. The 135mm f/2L is also a great lens though not quite as necessary if you've got the 70-200mm f/2.8L.


BTW: You probably already know this, but IS won't help you to freeze the action.

[snyderman]

There really isn't any wide zooms that will stop down to 2.8 for cheap.

Thanks Dan. Appreciate your (accurate) reality check! Looks like I'll be looking for a lower priced, non-C lens for this application. f/2.8 a must, tho.

dave

[snyderman]

There are few lenses that won't break the bank. You REALLY need f/2.8 or faster lenses, especially if flash/strobes aren't allowed. In a zoom, you'll want either the 16-35mm f/2.8L II or the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Since you are shooting the 30D, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be an option as well. You'll find the gap between 55mm and 70mm is pretty minimal. The EF-S lens is also cheaper then either of those two L lenses.



Thank you for the recommendations. I'll look into the pricing/available on your ideas and try to cover as much ground as possible between what I already have (70/200 f/2.8) and what I can afford.

thanks again.

dave

[krb]

I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Might be worth looking for one.

You really should consider one of the 50mm primes though. They are both sharp and with such wide apertures they will handle the indoor lighting well.

[eror11]

I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Might be worth looking for one.

You really should consider one of the 50mm primes though. They are both sharp and with such wide apertures they will handle the indoor lighting well.

If going with a prime after all, Id rather try the 24 or 35 /shrug

[DDCSD]

Have a look at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. Great lens, sharp wide open and a tremendous value at $214 shipped from Cameta Camera's Ebay store. This lens is almost $400 at every other dealer. I bought mine from them and it should be up to the task.

Ebay link (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-24-60mm-F-2-8-EX-DG-Lens-for-Canon-Rebel-XSi-XTi_W0QQitemZ350124469841QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera _Lenses?hash=item350124469841&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A570|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A131 8)

[Mike R]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 It's a gret lens. However my gym is like a cave and I also cannot use flash so I use my 85 1/.8 lens and shoot at f/2.2, 1/400 and ISO of 1600

[snyderman]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 It's a gret lens. However my gym is like a cave and I also cannot use flash so I use my 85 1/.8 lens and shoot at f/2.2, 1/400 and ISO of 1600

Mike:

Thanks for the recommendations. Not sure if I'll go for the small zoom or a prime lens for my second choice here. Right now, I'm sort of leaning toward that 17-50 for cost considerations.

The home venue I'm shooting is about a step above 'cave' status, so I'm going to try the 70/200 2.8 and see how it does so I can make a better decision on the shorter lens.

dave

[Mike R]

Mike:

Thanks for the recommendations. Not sure if I'll go for the small zoom or a prime lens for my second choice here. Right now, I'm sort of leaning toward that 17-50 for cost considerations.

The home venue I'm shooting is about a step above 'cave' status, so I'm going to try the 70/200 2.8 and see how it does so I can make a better decision on the shorter lens.

dave
Good idea to try a 2.8 lens to see if it'll work out before spending the money.

[lauderdalems]

After shooting a game last night with the 85 1.8 at 3200ISO, I'm going to have a hard time going back to the heavy 70-200 2.8IS. Noise was not as bad as I expected and noiseware too care of it.

http://gamedayphotos.uwa.edu/BBM/MBBindex08.htm

[mpeters]

If your are in the typical high school gym and not using artificial light you will likely need better that 2.8 to get an acceptable shutter speed (at least 1/400th and preferably 1/500th).

Before you drop any coin on a lens, I would highly recommend going to the facility you are going to be shooting at and seeing what you have for light. If ambient under the basket is 1/250th ISO 3200 at f2.8, buy a fast prime (or two). 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2. You indicate you are budget crunched so the 135/2L is out of your range (but a spectacular lens none the less.

[Zivnuska]

I think you already have the lens you want!

Frankly, 70mm is plenty wide for most basketball situations. At 200mm, it will let you get shots down court or on the sidelines/bench. Try it for several games before you decide what lens, if any, you want to add. It won't take long to know if f/2.8 is fast enough and if 70mm is wide enough.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is terrific for basketball unless you need something faster. Last year, most of my games required the 85 f/1.8 set at f/2.2 to get 1/640sec at iso 3200 (dark, dark gyms). The prime at 85mm forced me to shoot tight and now I wouldn't want it any other way. This year I will have supplemental lighting, so it is 70-200 all the way.

BTW, the depth of field starts to get pretty slim at apertures of f/2.0 or wider.

"Shoot tight, crop tighter" (quote stolen from Dennis)

[pantherphotos]

I just bought the 50mm f/1.8II for indoor HS basketball games. I know it is not the greatest, but I am very pleased with it. I was able to shoot ISO 1600, SS 1/640-1/800 very comfortably. The shots were clean, with very little noise.

The only complaint was that lack of reach. I did get some noise when trying to get pics at the top of the key. I only tried it to experiment a little. But for shots under the basket or in the lane, it was very nice. Just my 2C worth...whatever that translates for me being a noob too.

[snyderman]

I just bought the 50mm f/1.8II for indoor HS basketball games. I know it is not the greatest, but I am very pleased with it. I was able to shoot ISO 1600, SS 1/640-1/800 very comfortably. The shots were clean, with very little noise.

The only complaint was that lack of reach. I did get some noise when trying to get pics at the top of the key. I only tried it to experiment a little. But for shots under the basket or in the lane, it was very nice. Just my 2C worth...whatever that translates for me being a noob too.


Thanks and good luck shooting basketball. I decided to go with the trusty Tamron 17-50 and use it a lot more for the baseline type shots. It seems quite a bit sharper and easier than wrestling with the 70-200 for the closer in shots under the basket. Probably a wider field of vision and better for PP cropping, I'd guess.

Total newb as well!

dave