Too many choices!! Need help with lens choices..please

Okay, here is my dilema...I have realized that I need a faster lens when taking indoor low-light shots. Currently, I want to take some decent shots of my son playing his first season of basketball (and on his first team for school as seen HERE), but the fastes lens I have now is the kit lens.

Anyhow,
I've narrowed down some choices after reading review after review and looking at some of the suggestions on the board. My forum searches did not include answers/experiences with indoor low-light shooting (ie, basketball games)...or when the question was asked...it went unanswered .

I like the 85mm F/1.8...but for $319, right now is not a good time to break the $300 limit unless I really, really have to. I have read that it is good both indoors and out and is probably what i really need

BUT, will the following choices work?

1) 135mm F/2.8 Soft Focus -- I like the ability for portraits and would prefer the reach it would have on my Digital Rebel (1.6 crop), but I have yet to find if this lens would work good with indoor sports. At $279 its getting close to the $300 limit I set for myself (for now at least).

2) 50mm F/1.8 II AF -- cheap ($69), good IQ from the reviews...but is it possible to use a TC on it to get the reach indoors at a gym? I read the TC sticky, but could not find the 50mm on there...so would it mean that it is not compatible with TC's? If there is a TC compatible with it, I was looking a 1.4x from Kenko, Tamron or Sigma...maybe even the 1.5x Kenko.

Now if the TC route is suggested, I would like to know if the TC would be usable with my Sigma 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 DL Macro Super as I have not found this lens listed in the TC sticky either.

If anyone has any other suggestions on a fast lens that I have not mentioned yet, please mention it here...but keep in mind that I cannot spend too much at the moment $300 or less....building a house right now.

Thank you in advanced for some much needed help.

For that money, you really have too few choices - the 85 1.8 is just about the only thing. I'm pretty sure the 50mm won't work with a TC.

What kind of indoor shots are you talking about? Kids running around the house? Basketball games?

85 1.8 will take care of portraits and sports indoors, nothing better for it's price

edit: don't even think of adding a tc to a 50mm 1.8, it's got slow enough AF without a tc, a 80mm 2.5 is just going to be horrible for your camera...

I agree the 85 1.8 is a great lens, and it's only $19 over your budget.

Thanks for the replies. I guess no one can comment on the 135mm...

Tony-S wrote in post #2377165
What kind of indoor shots are you talking about? Kids running around the house? Basketball games?

For basketball games, gym with only 8 lights .

get the best lens you can. spend the $319 and get the 85mm if you can afford it. i've got a tc and never use it cause its a pain. very slow af if i can use af at all..
beth

Senior moment on my part - I just re-read your original post...

Do you recall the meter reading and ISO for a proper exposure in the gym? If f/2.8 will get you 1/250 shutter spead, then the 135 or 85 would work. The problem with the EF 135mm f/2.8 SF is that it does not have USM focusing, which you really need for sports events. Both the EF 85mm f/1.8 ($320) and EF 100mm f/2 ($370) have USM focusing. These seem to be your only choices, but you're getting over budget. With a 1.4x TC, the 100 would become a 160mm f/2.8.

Tony, the readings i was getting in the gym was something like F4 and anywhere from 1/15 to 1/60 with the flash I was using. The 1/60 shutter speed caused the motion blur in my shots after the flash fired.

The more and more I think about it, I may have to just pony up and get the 85mm 1.8....but the 135mm 2.8 looks very interesting.

guess I can just skip the 50mm and a TC.

3Turner wrote in post #2377470
Tony, the readings i was getting in the gym was something like F4 and anywhere from 1/15 to 1/60 with the flash I was using. The 1/60 shutter speed caused the motion blur in my shots after the flash fired.

The more and more I think about it, I may have to just pony up and get the 85mm 1.8....but the 135mm 2.8 looks very interesting.

guess I can just skip the 50mm and a TC.

So if you want 1/250 second (a must for sports, even little tikes), you're going to need f/2.0 aperture. The 85 should do you well, but you'll have very shallow depth of field. The USM should keep up quite easily, but it'll take you some practice to keep your focus point on target using AI servo focusing.

I don't think the 135 f/2.8 will cut it for you in that particular gym, unless you can bump your ISO up one more notch (e.g., 800 to 1600). Even still, that lens does not have a USM, so it will have real trouble keeping up with the focus - and as your son gets older it will only get worse.

3Turner wrote in post #2377339
Thanks for the replies. I guess no one can comment on the 135mm...
.

Not a low light lens. 85 1.8 would cover that better. 135 is also long on anything that isn't full frame.

And generally with low light, you would need to shoot a little more open than f/2.8 anyway.

from all of the reviews, 135SF just lacks in anything that other lenses have. no USM focus, lacking in quality, contrast problems, fairly low build quality (85 1.8 is built like a brick, almost at the level of an L in terms of build)

3Turner wrote in post #2377339
Thanks for the replies. I guess no one can comment on the 135mm...


For basketball games, gym with only 8 lights .

I can. I shoot basketball throughout the season. The 135mm f/2.8 SF is inadequate for the fast paced action of basketball. I use the 50mm f/1.8 for under the basket shots (literally) only. The 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are the ones I use most for the games I cover

I can second that the 135 will not cut it for fast action like basketball-- the USM in my 70-200 is just fast enough, and the AFD of the 135, while decent, isn't close.

TC is useless for any lowlight sports action shots. 85 f/1.8 is your best option. Considering how good the lens is, it's really a bargain.

TC's are really not recommended for lenses less than 90mm....you get into some distortion issues and serious image degradation. The 85 is really your best bet. I think in the long run...you will consider it to be money well spent.