Replace 85 1.8 with Sigma 50-100 1.8 for sports (volleyball mainly)

Has anyone shot indoor sports - volleyball ideally - with both a Canon 85 1.8 and Sigma 50-100? Is it worth the price difference form an indoor sports perspective?

We've been to some REALLY dark gyms for vball tournaments and while the 70-200 is fantastic, the 1.8 was a very welcome addition to get the ISO lower.
My keeper rate isn't as high with the 85 compared to the 70-200, but I'm usually shooting at 1.8 or 2 with it. Overall I've been VERY impressed with it.
I'm intrigued by the added range of the 50-100 over the 85.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

For me, a good part of sports photography is the speed of the AF. Frustrates me when the lens/camera can not capture focus. I am not familiar with the Sigma lens but I would bet that it is not as good a focusing lens as your 70-200

I tried a 50-100 on my 7d mkll once at a camera show........had no problem with the focus but it is a very heavy lens.

duckster wrote in post #18820069
For me, a good part of sports photography is the speed of the AF. Frustrates me when the lens/camera can not capture focus.

Truer words were never spoken!

If you were using a FF camera, I would recommend the 135mm f/2.0 With a 1.6 FOVCF it would be too long for many venues.


Phil

I may try out my M50 with my EF lenses on the Viltrox booster to see how my 70-200 2.8 lens acts like an 77-220 f2 lens on my crop, when my daughter plays her next basketball game. It should reduce my ISO needs by one stop.

Based on my experiences with the 18-35 1.8, I wouldn't hesitate to migrate to the 50-100 for this sort of thing. I would, however, be curious how you feel the 85 affects your framing and shot opportunities vs the 70-200; do you have to shoot too "loosely" and crop later or are you able to easily get framing that you're with at 85?

Thanks for the replies!
I can often get the framing I want with minimal cropping.
We are often in small gyms and I can get very close - but sometimes a bit too close, so I could see having value in a 50 1.8 as well.
These were with the 85 in a very poorly lit gym:

Some of these were cropped slightly just along the sides to eliminate an aberrantly placed head or foot.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ey7​HEc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ey7​Nec

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2etw​wxq

Seems like that the 85mm is giving you pretty darn good shots, given the environment of many high school gyms

You should be able to run the 7D2 at 6400 with good results after NR.

The advantage of the 85 of course is it has SUPER fast AF. Hard to imagine the SIGMA zoom being as capable in that regard, but I've never tried it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18820481
The advantage of the 85 of course is it has SUPER fast AF. Hard to imagine the SIGMA zoom being as capable in that regard, but I've never tried it.

Exactly my thoughts - I've been very impressed with the AF speed of the 85 - still a noticeable difference compared to the 70/200, but I can live with that given the extra few stops of light.
If the 50-100 can match the 85 - it would be a great alternative. As it stands, not sure it's worth the extra $500-600 on top of the 85/1.8...

I've read a few threads of some folks who do use it for sports and like it. I would only buy one used anyway, so I may just keep my eyes open and if one comes up at the right price I may grab it...

TeamSpeed - thanks for the note about ISO 6400 - I have been pleased with the 7D2 at 6400. I was testing out the waters with the 85 to see how it would do at an even lower ISO. Next tournament I'll be going back to 6400 so I can freeze the ball better - 1/640 for teenage boys isn't fast enough.

Might try renting one for a week/weekend, when you know you'll be shooting? I don't know, with any confidence, that the A series would keep up with the AF speed you're used to. That line isn't particularly geared to action.

I too have the 85 and have used it for years to shoot volleyball and wrestling. That said, while it is a super value, very quick, and pretty sharp, it is also starting to show its age. In the beginning Sigma's ART lenses were short and very accurate focusing lenses, all be it not exactly quick. Some of that has changed with its new 70-200 ART S being extremely quick, you would have a hard time saying it is slower than the Canon native. The new 120-300 S is also pretty quick. I too would be interested in knowing how exactly fast the 50-100 is. Is it older and therefor focuses more thoughtfully, or does it have the newer dual motor focus mechanism like what is in the 70-200? Or somewhere in between.

Snydremark wrote in post #18820534
Might try renting one for a week/weekend, when you know you'll be shooting? I don't know, with any confidence, that the A series would keep up with the AF speed you're used to. That line isn't particularly geared to action.

Just following up on this a little bit; I just did a quick comparison between AF on the 18-35 Art vs the 70-200, in low light on the 7DII. The Sigma is at least half as fast, if not slower, than the 70-200; would be frustrating to try and capture action with. Assuming the AF on the 500-100 isn't a whole lot faster, I would not be anxious to try and use it for that.