Help me decide on indoor sports lens

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.

The 100 f/2 is a solid indoor performer, you can find them on these forums or on ebay from $320-$350 used. It was some of the best money I spent last year, as I have used it for about any high school sport they play here in FL. As someone mentioned, it is a good compromise between the 85 1.8 and the 135L in length and IQ.

I think you would eventually want a 85/1.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Sometimes you need more than 2.8 and sometimes you want a zoom. I would stick away from the Sigma 70-200s for sports especially with a Rebel that doesn't have more than one cross point sensor for AF. I think you need to prioritize between a 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2 or 70-200/2.8 non IS.

Take your 55-250 and one of the primes to see what focal lengths you need and what shutter speeds varying apertures give you and go off of that.

Get a 70-200 f/2.8 with no stabilization if you can't afford stabilization. Zooming for sports will land you a lot more keepers than just a single prime. I was a zoom sports shooter, and the prime shooters usually had 3 bodies on hand with 3 different lenses. I found having the 24-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens range was very convenient.

bubbygator wrote in post #15250270
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.

I tried shooting sports with primes: 85 1.8, 135L & 200 2.8L. Kept the 85 and sold the 135L & 200 2.8L. All three are really nice lenses. The 135L was too long on a crop for anything but the other end of the court, for indoor sports. 200 was useless indoors. I picked up the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM used for $750. Get the zoom, it is much more useful for moving targets.

If 2.8 is not enough, 1.8 isn't going to help much. HAVING to go from f/2.8 to f/1.8 to get the shot will only take you from "I can't shoot." to "I got a lousy, very noisy shot." The 1.3 stop difference will never turn "can't" into "WOW". Think of going from ISO 12,800 to 5,000. You just went from "unusable" to "horrible". That is not worth the loss of convenience of a prime lens in your situation. Get the zoom.

Hey! Did I mention that you can get the zoom, used, with OS for about the same price as the 200 2.8L new. Get the zoom.

I shoot a lot of tennis and to make the shot interesting you need a fast shutter speed (1000+) to freeze the racket head without being blurry. So The 85 1.8 because you are indoors and will need ALL the light you can use and it's a fast focusing lens. If your to close "tight" shots look great/best so that's ok, try to get the ball on the racket head and if your to far back and you need to crop you got the pixels.

FEChariot wrote in post #15250958
I think you would eventually want a 85/1.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Sometimes you need more than 2.8 and sometimes you want a zoom. I would stick away from the Sigma 70-200s for sports especially with a Rebel that doesn't have more than one cross point sensor for AF. I think you need to prioritize between a 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2 or 70-200/2.8 non IS.

Take your 55-250 and one of the primes to see what focal lengths you need and what shutter speeds varying apertures give you and go off of that.

Emphasis above is mine.

You can't possible be referring to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It is sharper at 2.8 & 200 than the Canon 70-200 you do recommend. It is cheaper than any of the Canon 70-200 2.8s. The AF is excellent. It has IS. It also comes with tripod collar and a hood. Yet you recommend the EF-s 55-250 OVER the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. Please justify that.

TSchrief wrote in post #15251758
I tried shooting sports with primes: 85 1.8, 135L & 200 2.8L. Kept the 85 and sold the 135L & 200 2.8L. All three are really nice lenses. The 135L was too long on a crop for anything but the other end of the court, for indoor sports. 200 was useless indoors. I picked up the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM used for $750. Get the zoom, it is much more useful for moving targets.

If 2.8 is not enough, 1.8 isn't going to help much. HAVING to go from f/2.8 to f/1.8 to get the shot will only take you from "I can't shoot." to "I got a lousy, very noisy shot." The 1.3 stop difference will never turn "can't" into "WOW". Think of going from ISO 12,800 to 5,000. You just went from "unusable" to "horrible". That is not worth the loss of convenience of a prime lens in your situation. Get the zoom.

Hey! Did I mention that you can get the zoom, used, with OS for about the same price as the 200 2.8L new. Get the zoom.

I have never seen the Sigma 70-200 OS for $750 that is a great price. Where did you get that??
I find they usually run $1100-$1400.
If I can find one for that price maybe I get the Sigma and the Canon 85 or Canon 100 for a combined ~$1000.

TSchrief wrote in post #15252058
Emphasis above is mine.

You can't possible be referring to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It is sharper at 2.8 & 200 than the Canon 70-200 you do recommend. It is cheaper than any of the Canon 70-200 2.8s. The AF is excellent. It has IS. It also comes with tripod collar and a hood. Yet you recommend the EF-s 55-250 OVER the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. Please justify that.

You misread that. He said to use the 55-250 to determine the focal lengths needed for the particular shooting situations he would encounter.

Lexar wrote in post #15252341
I have never seen the Sigma 70-200 OS for $750 that is a great price. Where did you get that??
I find they usually run $1100-$1400.

I saw it on Craigslist. Wasn't even looking for a 70-200, but that price was too good to pass up. I figured the seller would show up with the non-OS lens. Nope! It was the real deal. He let me shoot it for 1/2 an hour at the coffee-shop we met at, then look at the shots on my laptop before committing to the sale. They are going for $1200 or so new and Amazon.com has one listed used for $900. I know I got lucky.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15252904
You misread that. He said to use the 55-250 to determine the focal lengths needed for the particular shooting situations he would encounter.

Yes, after re-reading, I see that you are correct. My mistake.

TSchrief wrote in post #15252058
You can't possible be referring to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It is sharper at 2.8 & 200 than the Canon 70-200 you do recommend. It is cheaper than any of the Canon 70-200 2.8s. The AF is excellent. It has IS. It also comes with tripod collar and a hood.

I am. I didn't say anything about the sharpness comparison though, but since you mentioned it, it looks to me from TDP crops that they are even at 70mm but better with the 70-200/2.8 non IS at 135mm and 200mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

My point was concerning the AI servo AF accuracy of the Sigma 70-200 OS versus any of the Canon L's. This is not based on personal experience with the Sigma for me but from owner comments here on POTN though. Seeing as how you own it, how is the AF accuracy compared to say your 100-400 when shooting moving subjects in AI servo? I am a big fan of my Sigma glass in general, but in AI servo, they fall slightly behind my USM glass in servo accuracy.

TSchrief wrote in post #15251758
If 2.8 is not enough, 1.8 isn't going to help much. HAVING to go from f/2.8 to f/1.8 to get the shot will only take you from "I can't shoot." to "I got a lousy, very noisy shot." The 1.3 stop difference will never turn "can't" into "WOW". Think of going from ISO 12,800 to 5,000. You just went from "unusable" to "horrible". That is not worth the loss of convenience of a prime lens in your situation. Get the zoom.

Sure you probably aren't going to go from unusable 12K to SI cover quality, but for many people shooting kids sports like the OP, often in terrible shooting conditions, that 1-1/3rd stop will give a significantly better image at ISO 5000 than 12K. The IQ of the 18mp crop bodies really tanks hard at 12K ISO. I consider ISO 3200 to be the top of the line if I can help it. My 85/1.8 lets me shoot at 3200 F2.0 when my daughter is in indoor swimming lessons. If I were using a 2.8 zoom, I would have to shoot at ISO 6400. Nothing against the zoom, but I think both zooms and primes have there place when shooting indoor sports. This is less of a concern with a newer body like the 1Dx or 5D3 with the improved ISO performance, but on crop, I think it is still needed.

I have done thousands of shots of indoor sports at my high school. For me the biggest chellenge is where you are compared to the shot you want, as mentioned in a previous post.

As far as the lens, I have done some with a short FL prime such as a 50mm 1.4, long FL prime-300mm 2.8, and zooms, usually the 70-200mm 2.8. I find that the 300 provides the best shots but the 70-200 provides the most flexibility.

2.8 has provided plenty of speed in the gym at my high school but I also realize that lighting is inconsistent between various schools and settings.

I shoot basketball, volleyball and wrestling inside the gyms.

I just purchased a 24-70 2.8 II so I will likely give that a try this season. My school allows me to get right along the sidelines of each of the sports to get the shots so I have a lot of flexibility in what I can do. If you are confined to the bleachers you really might need something like a 70-200 for the reach and flexibility.

Best buy online currently has the Canon 70-200 f4L for $629.
You won't find better glass for that price!

Thanks but f4 is way too slow for my indoor sports needs.

I am debating that even f2.8 is too slow but I will do some testing this weekend to find out.

First off, your body won't do any of these 70-200 lenses justice as it only has one cross af point and the center af point isn't even f2.8 sensitive if I'm correct.....I would not get a 70-200 with that body as my xsi has the same af system as yours and I find only the center af point to be close to 100% accurate every time, the other points are very hit or miss......

I'd suggest an 85 1.8 for indoor sports and eventually saving up and getting either, A. The 135L, or B. A Canon 70-200 F4 IS II.....the f2.8 version is better but considering it's $1,000 more I don't think the very slight increase in speed and bokeh is worth the $1,000 unless you're already a pro and you have the money to blow on it.

Of course I'd suggest getting a body that does that lens or the 135L justice eventually too such as a T4i with all cross af points or a 60D. Also the t4i and 60D both are capable of higher isos with less noise than your current body. From what I've read the 60D/7D can be used up to 6,400 iso and can still be cleaned up nicely and be excellent for large viewing on the internet and decent sized prints.

TSchrief wrote in post #15251758
If 2.8 is not enough, 1.8 isn't going to help much. HAVING to go from f/2.8 to f/1.8 to get the shot will only take you from "I can't shoot." to "I got a lousy, very noisy shot." The 1.3 stop difference will never turn "can't" into "WOW". Think of going from ISO 12,800 to 5,000. You just went from "unusable" to "horrible". That is not worth the loss of convenience of a prime lens in your situation. Get the zoom.

This is just completely wrong. I am sorry, but there is no other way to put it. I've been shooting indoor sports in horrible lighting for years, and will tell you that being able to shoot at f/2 instead of f/2.8 is the difference between night and day, no pun intended. I have always had a 70-200 f/2.8 IS in the bag, and rarely used it shooting with bodies that could only safely get to ISO1600 or ISO3200 even. Shooting at f/2 very much IS the difference between having a keeper, and having your choice of either a really noisy image, or motion blur from too low of a shutter speed. If it weren't true, why would I drag around a bag with a 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2, and 200 f/1.8, when I had a single lens - 70-200 f/2.8 IS that would be just as good?

The body does have an impact on this. I just bought a 5D3 with the intention of trying to shoot with f/2.8 zooms. Time will tell if I am willing to give up the 1 stop advantage with glass, because the images would be cleaner with the extra stop. It also is irrelevant if you are able to shoot in well lit facilities. If you are shooting in a venue that is lit for TV cameras, then your f/2.8 zooms are fine. But in most high school gyms, it ain't going to happen.

Sorry if I came across harshly... but I've seen too many people try to get by with f/2.8 zooms and not be happy with the output.