Indoor shooting with 70-200 L f/4?

[norcal99]

I'm currently in the market for a lens with the above range and would love to get a 70-200 L f/2.8 to shoot indoor sports and/or concerts but don't think I can afford a $1000 lens at the moment. Would the 70-200 L f/4 be too slow to shoot these types of events? I'm using a D60 and will most likely be using a tripod/monopod. One day I hope to own the IS version of the f/2.8 but until then, do you think this lens will suffice? Any input is appreciated.

[pcasciola]

In my opinion f/4 is too slow for indoor sports unless you have really good lighting. I took some pictures at the Meadowlands Area with my 300/4L which worked out good because it's lit up like daylight in there, but for the more lighting challenged gyms, I prefer to have f/2.8 or faster to stop the action.

If you can't afford the 70-200/2.8L right now, why not check out the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM? It's about $100 more than the Canon 70-200/4L, and from what I've seen anyway, I think at f/4 the Sigma is better.

[norcal99]

Has sigma quality improved any over the past few years? I remember a few years back that the Sigma lenses felt "cheap" and had some focusing issues. For $100 more that sure does sound sound interesting. Has anyone actually shot with this lens?

[gramps]

Have you considered the 85 1.8? It's a great indoor sports lens.

[pcasciola]

Cheap Sigma lenses are still that, cheap, but there's nothing cheap about the 70-200/2.8 EX HSM except the price tag. I'd take a Canon 70-200/2.8L over it, but that's another $400.

Gramps has a point, too, the 85/1.8 is what I try to use for indoor sports as much as I can, but it sounds like you need some more length. If you think you can get by with 85mm, that lens is under $400 and is really good for the money, and super fast at f/1.8 which will give you over double the shutter speed as f/2.8 even.

[norcal99]

Gramps you bring up an interesting idea. I've never thought about shooting with a prime lens. I'm accustomed to being a little versatile with zoom ranges but totally neglected primes.

I do need a good amount of zoom because it really depends how close I can get during some events. I just got a job as a sports photographer for my college and sometimes floor space is a problem. The reviews for the sigma seem pretty good but I might try and just save up for the Lens if $400 is the approximate price difference.

[tim]

There's an excellent pictorial review of the 3 70-200 lenses around, I don't have the link, but if you search you should be able to find it quite easily. If you do, repost it here for all to see. I'd look but i'm busy right now, sorry.

[Mike H]

I have the Canon 70-200/4L and think it's a great lens. However, when I shoot indoor sports I don't even take it with me; it's just too slow.

The 85/1.8, 135/2L, and maybe even the 200/2.8L are all worth looking at, depending on how much speed and focal length you'll need. Try visiting the places that you will likely shoot in and take some test shots to determine what are likely shutter speeds and apertures for a given ISO in those places. Doing that should help you see what you really need.

Mike H

[pcasciola]

Tim, is this the review you were talking about?

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

And there's also CDS's review here of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 compared to the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS from last year:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22421&highlight=70-200+sigma+canon

[gramps]

I have shot indoor basketball with my 70 - 200f4 on the 20D. It can be done BUT ISO at 1600 - 3200 is a must. With some good noise software the pictures are "acceptable" but not nearly as good as what can be done with the 85 1.8 prime.

[tim]

Tim, is this the review you were talking about?

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html


Nope that's not the one, there's one that's not in English that compares them by F stop instead of my length. That one's useful too though, anyone have a link to the other one so I can complete the set? ;)

The 85 1.8 sure it's faster, but obviously it's nowhere near as long as the 70-200, so I wonder if they're comparable? And do you need a monopod/tripod with the Sigma 70-200?

[pcasciola]

And do you need a monopod/tripod with the Sigma 70-200?If you do, you'd also need a monopod/tripod with 2 of the 3 70-200 Canons, because only one of them has IS, and it's about $1700. The Sigma and the three Canon 70-200s are all great lenses, it's just a matter of which one you can afford. Some people like the F4L over the other 3 just because of the smaller size and weight. I remember someone on this board having both the f/4 and f/2.8L IS for that very reason, but I don't remember who it was.

Oh, and that review I posted is primarily by F-stop and not length. They compared like 5-6 f-stops on each of the 5 lenses at 70, 135 and 200mm.