Indoor glass

[Simon Turkin]

I have done a lot of research im looking to add a zoom that will work well in low lighting. I have it basicly narrowed down to two lenses. The 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8. I shot with a 50 1.8 and found it to be okay. The focal length was short sometimes but long sometimes. I wish i could get both the lenses I listed above but thats not a possiblilty now. I think the 70-200 would be better because I shoot a lot of outdoor sports also. Im looking for a little input. Am I missing anything? Thanks in advance...

[tstowe]

70-200 2.8 is ok. I just bought an 85 1.8 that I'm going to use for basketball and wrestling later in the year.

[snyderman]

Simon:

Like tstowe said, the 70/200 is 'ok' but the 85mm f/1.8 is much faster and more useful (imo) for indoor sports shooting. The 70/200 is a little more cumbersome for basketball due to the fast movement of shooting targets. The 85mm just seems to be the 'best fit' for me right now.

As you mentioned in your post, some lenses are even too long at times. The 85 qualifies. I do have the 24-70 which I'm going to try during basketball games because it is a tad shorter and might work better for the under the basket action. haven't tried it yet, but will.

dave

[Simon Turkin]

Simon:

Like tstowe said, the 70/200 is 'ok' but the 85mm f/1.8 is much faster and more useful (imo) for indoor sports shooting. The 70/200 is a little more cumbersome for basketball due to the fast movement of shooting targets. The 85mm just seems to be the 'best fit' for me right now.

As you mentioned in your post, some lenses are even too long at times. The 85 qualifies. I do have the 24-70 which I'm going to try during basketball games because it is a tad shorter and might work better for the under the basket action. haven't tried it yet, but will.

dave
What i think im going to do is go to the venue i shoot in b4 i buy the glass with my 70-300 and see which focal lengths work bc if there all to long I will know that the 70-200 is no good..

[dmwierz]

Huh? The 70-200 is only "OK"? This is without a doubt the one single lens that more sports photographers rely on above all others. For indoor sports (basketball, hockey, etc) this lens is just about the only lens I use.

If you need the extra aperture of the 85 f/1.8, you might consider you don't have enough ambient light to shoot. If you're shooting at f/1.8 your depth of field is going to be very thin and this will impact your images. I'm not saying you won't get good captures, though. Also, and this is my primary beef with the 85 f/1.8 for sport, it's just too darned short.

I have the 85 f/1.8 and only really use it for portraits and occasionally (as in rarely) use it for sports.

[Bkolowski111]

The 70-200 is THE lens to have for indoor sports.

[gromeo]

Just like DW mentioned the 70-200 is my main lens for many indoor sports along with my 24-70

[Simon Turkin]

Just like DW mentioned the 70-200 is my main lens for many indoor sports along with my 24-70

This would be my shaq and kobe combo but just like the old school lakers i cant afford both. So I have to make choices in a high school gym, with no more then six feet from the baseline to the wall wouldnt the 70-200 be on the long end and id be cutting off limbs??

[patwill]

I think the correct approach to shooting indoor HS sports is to test the venue with fast primes like 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 and 135 f2.0. Shoot some with one of these to see how bright the gym is. If you can get reasonable shutter speeds when setting a fast prime at f2.8 then you know it is safe to invest in a zoom.

I have all five of these lenses (50 f1.8, 85 f1.6, 135 f2, 24-70 & 70-200). They are all very good quality glass and well suited to sports shooting. I love it when there is enough light to use the zooms, but I would never go to a new-to-me venue without packing the fast primes.

[gromeo]

This would be my shaq and kobe combo but just like the old school lakers i cant afford both. So I have to make choices in a high school gym, with no more then six feet from the baseline to the wall wouldnt the 70-200 be on the long end and id be cutting off limbs??

Simon, I find the 70-200 very versatile for HS basketball, take about 95% of shots with this lens, but I tend to shoot very tight under the basket and if I need full body shots I take those near the top of the key or when they are coming up court.

[dmwierz]

Simon, I find the 70-200 very versatile for HS basketball, take about 95% of shots with this lens, but I tend to shoot very tight under the basket and if I need full body shots I take those near the top of the key or when they are coming up court.

I'm with Romeo 100%. Even when shooting HS level basketball and below, I use the 70-200 almost exclusively. I always brought my 24-70 f/2.8 but virtually never used it (except for team shots).

[snyderman]

Huh? The 70-200 is only "OK"? This is without a doubt the one single lens that more sports photographers rely on above all others. For indoor sports (basketball, hockey, etc) this lens is just about the only lens I use.

If you need the extra aperture of the 85 f/1.8, you might consider you don't have enough ambient light to shoot. If you're shooting at f/1.8 your depth of field is going to be very thin and this will impact your images. I'm not saying you won't get good captures, though. Also, and this is my primary beef with the 85 f/1.8 for sport, it's just too darned short.

I have the 85 f/1.8 and only really use it for portraits and occasionally (as in rarely) use it for sports.

Know what you're saying and have seen many a shooter with the 70-200. The HS conference I shoot allows me to be right on the baseline literally inches from the action if I choose. Mostly work with the 85mm at 2.0 or 2.2 and get 1/640th in most gyms. And yeah, some are pretty much like dungeons!

dave

[Mike R]

The lighting dictates which lens I use. At one HS, its like shooting in a dungeon and I have to use my 85 f/1.8, shooting at f/2.2 At another location, the lighting is great and I can use my 70-200 f/2.8 - It is the better lens for basketball.

[Sibil]

As far as which lens (prime vs zoom), besides the aperture, it also depends on the body used, that is, the crop factor.

I own, or have borrowed/rented most of the lenses mentioned in this thread. I find myself keep going to the 85, time after time, shooting ISO 1600 or 3200, at f/2.0 or f/2.2 to get shutter speeds of 500 or faster. If the 2.8 zooms got me the shutter speed I needed, I would love to buy them, but they just don't cut it for the gyms I shoot in.

BTW, as I type, I have a rented 135 which I used yesterday. All I can say is wow, what an incredible lens. I am headed out in a couple of hours and can't wait to use this lens again. I if had $1000 to buy a lens for basketball, I would seriously consider the 135 versus the 24-70 or the 70-200 although I would be losing versatility.

So, IMHO, the bottom line for indoor glass is:
Lighting conditions
Location of the shooter with respect to where the action is
Body

My 2

[Zivnuska]

When I first started shooting indoor sports (mostly basketball) I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The venues that I shot were MS and HS and it became apparent that a larger aperture lens would be the ticket. Hence, I purchased the 85mm f/1.8 (and a 1D Mark III) and shot it at f/2.2 to get fast shutter speeds. The 85 was great but as Dennis said the dof is very thin--about the diameter of the basketball. Nonetheless, things were improving and I set to work on improving the weak link--ME. After a year, it became clear that the maximum quality of my images were limited by the quality of the light. As Dennis also stated, there can be a point where you just don't have enough light to shoot.

When I came to this realization, I purchased Alien Bee strobes and now I returned to shoot the 70-200 almost exclusively with much better results.

Ambient Lighting--My first year of shooting sports, poor MS lighting, 85mm, f/2.5, 1/400sec, ISO 3200, 1D Mark III

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/trial-8.jpg

Strobes (1 Year Later)--First attempt at using Strobes bounced off the ceiling (two Alien Bee B800s) --Same gym, same place on the floor, same daughter, same angle, 70mm (70-200), f/4, 1D Mark III, AWB--no correction! Compare the colors to #1.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/_D3E1713.jpg

Strobes--What can be done in same gym, same daughter, f/6.3, 70mm (70-200), ISO 640, 1D Mark III. I have this print at 20 x 30 inches at my office and you can count the dimples on the ball and the stitches in the uniform.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/_D3E2783.jpg

Bottom line. Listen to Dennis and you can skip my learning curve. The 70-200 is a great lens. Consider supplemental lighting. Watch Dennis' tutorial on indoor lighting challenges and solutions and learn from a pro.

Rarely use the 85 any more.

[Sibil]

^^^^^
What did you use before the 1D MarkIII and how much improvement did see by going to 1D MarkIII?

[alt4852]

This would be my shaq and kobe combo but just like the old school lakers i cant afford both. So I have to make choices in a high school gym, with no more then six feet from the baseline to the wall wouldnt the 70-200 be on the long end and id be cutting off limbs??

have you seen the lakers recently? kobe doesn't need shaq. ;)

[Zivnuska]

^^^^^
What did you use before the 1D MarkIII and how much improvement did see by going to 1D MarkIII?

30D

Huge for those images that are high ISO or require low light tracking. The 30D is still a nice camera.