for basketball is it better to upgrade to FF or changes lenses for basketball

Okay, to try to actually answer your question:

Option 1: if you work on your technique and you are definitely in focus but lens is not tracking fast enough, or hunts for focus and you feel you are getting good exposure with shutter speeds above 640 and not too grainy, perhaps try for the Canon 2.8 lens (get the II - will be cheaper and only missing the new L colour and coated lens).

Option 2: You work on your technique, and it was you and not the lens but are pushing ISO above 6400 regularly and are finding images too grainy, upgrade to the 5D4. The current sale on the 5D4 is pretty amazing right now - if you get lucky you get some good $$ for your 7D2 and offset the upgrade and MAYBE find a way to pick up a used Canon 70-200 2.8 II as well.

Option 3: You work on technique, find it WAS you and not the lens and you are happy with exposure etc - save some $$ and stay status quo (and get the 85 1.8 - I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the results!).

I was also thinking about the 50-100 1.8 I had the wide angle zoom 1.8 and loved it - but I heard focusing was okay, but not too fast. Besides, with the 85 1.8, you won't have to dump it like the Sigma 50-100 when you eventually go to a FF camera.

DrMitch wrote in post #18976173
Okay, to try to actually answer your question:

Option 1: if you work on your technique and you are definitely in focus but lens is not tracking fast enough, or hunts for focus and you feel you are getting good exposure with shutter speeds above 640 and not too grainy, perhaps try for the Canon 2.8 lens (get the II - will be cheaper and only missing the new L colour and coated lens).

Option 2: You work on your technique, and it was you and not the lens but are pushing ISO above 6400 regularly and are finding images too grainy, upgrade to the 5D4. The current sale on the 5D4 is pretty amazing right now - if you get lucky you get some good $$ for your 7D2 and offset the upgrade and MAYBE find a way to pick up a used Canon 70-200 2.8 II as well.

Option 3: You work on technique, find it WAS you and not the lens and you are happy with exposure etc - save some $$ and stay status quo (and get the 85 1.8 - I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the results!).

I was also thinking about the 50-100 1.8 I had the wide angle zoom 1.8 and loved it - but I heard focusing was okay, but not too fast. Besides, with the 85 1.8, you won't have to dump it like the Sigma 50-100 when you eventually go to a FF camera.

yea I guess part of the problem is I'm not quite sure. I DO admit that many of the shots are out of focus because of me not landing the focus point on the subject, that is clear from some of the shots... however clearly I cannot really go above 1/640 as they become very high ISO and very grainy... I think I've ruled out the 50-100 for now as I'm not sure I want to invest in another non canon lens... although I'm not sure either as 1.8 is tempting with a better focal range.. this is all so complicated LOL... I don't want a fixed 85 as I really appreciate having the zoom range as every gym is different and having a fixed lens really will limit me. I think I'm going to start with the canon 70-200 II, they have them on sale now at canon refurb and it must be better than the current lens. I'll sell the sigma and see what I can get for it, and experiment to see if results are acceptable and/or better. if not,it can always be used on a 5dIII or IV later.. I do believe that the FF 5dIV would help tremendously given the poor lighting... maybe I'll try to get both done somehow. there are a lot of features I love about the 7dII.

Canon refurbs are almost always new items, and not used. Somebody might have opened a box tried it out then returned it. Think of them as more of an "opened box" often. They also come with a new warranty.

I would take something looked over by Canon and given a year warranty than a used item personally, if the prices were close.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18976196
Canon refurbs are almost always new items, and not used. Somebody might have opened a box tried it out then returned it. Think of them as more of an "opened box" often. They also come with a new warranty.

I would take something looked over by Canon and given a year warranty than a used item personally, if the prices were close.

got my canon 70-200!!! excited for the next game... could use some help on another topic real quickly... just realized how badly I messed up the team pictures lol. check out the attached pic.

here is my question/questions:
I have just figured out why the people on the sides are not sharp or in focus. I pretty much have my settings down pat for Manual mode in action during the games( at least in our terribly lit gym), always f2.8, 1/640 or 1/800, and auto ISO is how I've been shooting... but I just realized that when taking a picture of a group of people not at the same distance or far apart from each other, that 2.8 should not be used??

now i understand since they were at different distances, the depth of field at 2.8 is NO good... i think I get that..., so:

What should the aperture be set at for a picture like this and how do you get there? In other words, how do I know what aperture is needed for an entire group to be sharp? 3.5, 4.0, 5.6 etc? And the second part to this, if it's in the middle of a game say of a group of fans in the bleachers, or a shooter at the line with 6 players lined up with him and the 24-70 lens on, what do you do (assuming people are at different distances)? Do you still need to up the aperture? how do you know? Do you stay in M mode and just scroll the aperture up and the SS down? if so, how do you know how much to go up on A and down on SS?

or is it better and quicker to just set a different mode for still shots like this, i.e. AV and just go up on Aperture and let camera select SS? Or just go full auto mode with flash off? I've notice in full auto it still wants to shoot at the largest the lens can go, 2.8. also in TV mode same issue so I'm guessing either M mode and change these myself or AV mode?

How do you even know when the depth of field/aperture needs to be adjusted in the first place, for a picture to be correct?

thanks,

Congratulations on the new acquisition.

I don't have an example available, but I will go M with aperture set to 5.6-8, shutter speed 1/160 (I have shakier hands), and Auto ISO.

Definitely 5.6 or smaller... A wider shot will then help add more DOF in addition to the aperture.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18981119
Definitely 5.6 or smaller... A wider shot will then help add more DOF in addition to the aperture.

So as example the shot above should have been in say, f5.6 to have all in focus? And what mode would I use ? AV? In order to allow the camera to select the correct ss?

heat00 wrote in post #18981296
So as example the shot above should have been in say, f5.6 to have all in focus? And what mode would I use ? AV? In order to allow the camera to select the correct ss?

The mode that you use is irrelevant.

In AV you would select your desired aperture and then adjust ISO to give you a usable shutter speed.
In TV you would select a usable shutter speed and then adjust ISO to give you your desired aperture.
And in Manual you would set your desired aperture and then select a usable shutter speed and then adjust ISO to give a well exposed image.

In reality all three would give you the exact same result.

You really want to use this calculator until you get a feel for this on your own.

Just punch in your sensor type/body, your focal length, distance and aperture to see how much is in focus. Aperture is only part of the equation to how you are framing the players and thus is only part of how much DOF you have.

https://www.dofmaster.​com/dofjs.html

For example, I would have personally shot in M mode on my M50 and had things dialed in, with my standing back pretty far at 40mm maybe with f7, giving me about 10-15' of DOF. Doesn't matter what mode though like John stated, you just have to pick your priorities.

I shoot basketball with my ancient 1d3 and use the 70-200 2.8 exclusively. Shooting in manual at ISO 3200 (as high as my body goes without going into H category) gives me 1/500 at f2.8. It's not ideal, but it works and the shots look great for my newspaper job.

It would seem that the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 would be excellent for indoor sports but the articles that I have read mention AF inconsistency. I have not used any Sigma lenses in the past but have been happy enough with the Tamron 70-200

I have been happy with the upgrade of the sigma 70-200 to the canon 70-200 II. I also have been using the canon 17-55 2.8 to which I enjoy as well, compared to the tamron 24-70 (which I still have sitting here lol). 55 to 70 doesn't really make much difference however I find that 17 to 24 is big difference and really gets some nice Wide angle shots sometimes. I also find the focus slightly better on both compared to the sigma and tamron especially or really mostly, in the gyms that are not as well lit, like our home gym.

I have used a EF-S 17-55 f2.8 for a few basketball shots, if I can be on the floor along the baseline.