Help me decide on indoor sports lens

I have a t2i and my daughter is doing indoor sports (skating, tennis) and I want some nice pictures..

I don't want to spend a fortune on this but I don't want to buy the wrong lens and then regret it and not use it!

I have narrowed it down to:
1. Canon 85mm f1.8
2. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS
3. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM non-OS


Pro of the Canon 85 is the bigger aperture so it will be much better in low light.. but I am worried about the fixed focal length for sports (skating, tennis)

Pro of the Sigma is that its a zoom but I am worried about f2.8 in low light and of course it has to be MUCH better for my purposes to justify 3x the price of the Canon.


Any comments, recommendations, or personal experience using these lenses?

can you take your 50mm in to some of the locations....see what kind of shutter speeds you're able to get with f1.8, and f2.8...

2.8 will probably require pretty high ISO to get a fast enough shutter, using the non OS will mean that you're shutter speed will have to be at least 1/320 to eliminate hand shake, although that might not be that big of a deal as you'll need a fast one to stop motion as well...

another option is, the 70-200f2.8non OS, and the 85mm f1.8...still cheaper than the OS version alone

If you can get close enough 85/1.8 is ok, otherwise 70-200 and I'd suggest canon.

Right now there are bunches of the Canon 70-200 F2-8 Mark 1's floating around on the used market because many people with newer bodies have upgraded to the MarkII to get the most out of their newer sensors. There are deals to be had, and it is a great lens in either the Mark1 or MarkII for sports.

F2.8 may not be fast enough for indoor tennis, although it should be fine for skating. I used to own the Sigma 70-200 non-OS, and it just wasn't enough for indoor dog agility, which is often held in tennis facilities. The 85 will work, but it's probably short, especially for tennis.

Aren't the canon mk1 IS f2.8 still more expensive then sigma?
Also I read that sigma is rated between canon mk1 and mk2.

2.8 just wont cut it many arenas. While the 85 might be short for some uses, its a fast focusing sharp little lens. It also has an advantage in that takes up less bag space for trips.

Mayne then Canon 100mm f2? That will give me 160mm FF equivalent on my crop.

I don't think it focuses as fast though.

Lexar wrote in post #15249896
Mayne then Canon 100mm f2? That will give me 160mm FF equivalent on my crop.

I don't think it focuses as fast though.

Practically the same lens as the 85 1.8 in most respects. might be a good compromise, although if you are leaning that way, you cant beat the 135L.

Yes but the 135L is $$$ for that price I think I would rather go 70-200

Lexar wrote in post #15249981
Yes but the 135L is $$$ for that price I think I would rather go 70-200

once again, though 2.8 wont cut it in many gyms.

I have shot a lot of indoor youth sports, and it is unusual if you can get by with f/2.8. I shoot almost all of it f/2.0 with prime lenses. My most used indoor sports lens it the 135 F/2, and then the 200 f/1.8 (expensive and old) and 85 f/1.8, then used to be 50 f/1.4 when I had it. That was on a 1.3 crop body. So I think the 85 f/1.8 on your body is going to be similar. I'd get the 85 and don't look back. Its not that expensive and you will use it... guaranteed.

As others have suggested, you can use what you have to see what you need. With your 50, you can see what kind of lighting you have. You will need at least 1/400s shutter speed, better 1/500s. So set your camera to Av, set the aperture to 2.0, and then set your ISO to as high as you think is tolerable. If your shutter is going higher, then you can try aperture of 2.8. If not, then you need to stick with primes.

You can also take that zoom you have and just see what kind of reach you need. If you need to be at 200 on that 55-250 to get to your subject, then you've got some decisions to make. After the 85, I'd be sizing up the 135 f/2.... but its a more expensive lens.

Thanks everyone for your advice!

I think I have some homework to do...
I will test the lighting with the 50 and see what ISO and shutter speed I can get at what apertures.
Then I will check the best distances with my zoom.

I also will factor in that with the 85 I can always crop but if I go too long I will be more limited.

I'll let you know my findings after the weekend since I have both a tennis match and skating practice to go to

Shooting with primes is quite different from zooms, especially for sports. The thing about shooting sports, is you need to understand the sport so you can time your shots. That means you can plan where to be so that you can get the shots you need. A zoom lens can actually work against you because you may be trying to zoom to get to something that has moved by the time you zoom. If you have a prime, you have to wait for the action to get to your sweet spot. I also like very tight crops, and with primes you can get that sometime. Most sports have planes of action that you can align to. Often being at an angle to the action gives you a fan of coverage... and like you said, you can always crop some, although when your subject is to far out then its very hard to get a sharp image due to the difficulty in focusing.

It will kind of depend on your location and your daughter's location.

The 85/1.8 is great - fast AF, sharp image, good color. It should be good for a full-body shot in tennis if you are in mid-court stands on a near court. It can be easily cropped 4x, with only a small loss of detail ... a little PP sharpening and lighting contrast usually produces a fine image. So, it can be good enough for a far court shots too.

However, I'm not at all sure about the locations and distances in an ice-rink.

Instead of the 70-200/2.8, I chose Canon 200/2.8L - <review link> ($770 on Amazon) ... it's black, and shorter, lighter, and almost 1/3 the cost of the zoom.

But, some people swear by zoom lens ... do your own hands-on investigation.