Is f/5.6 on the 17-85mm IS too slow for indoor sports?

Seriously the 17-85mm is nowhere near fast enough for indoor sports use.

edit... unless you're talking about chess

cheers

Aside from focal length, be aware of focusing speed.

You say that your 100/2 is too long and therefore the 85/1.8 will also be too long for your gyms. But it you just look for fast wider lenses, they may not focus fast enough for volleyball and basketball, 2 of the most difficult indoor sports to shot. For example, your 50/1.4 is fast enough as far as aperture is concerned, but is fairly slow focusing. The 85/1.8 and 100/2 are very fast focusing.

I've used the 85/1.8 in HS gyms and didn't think it was not wide enough.

jseivert wrote in post #5491744
Do you find the 85mm long enough for shooting the person serving and short enough for players at the net? I can normally sit mid-court (volleyball) front row. Do you end up changing lenses or do you use just the 85?

Actually, no. I have to work them separately. I get my back row shots just inside the pole. On my net work, I will move about 10 rows up and about half way back off the net. My angles tend to be very similar from shoot to shoot, but the variety of gyms I shoot alleviate some of that monotony.

I don't do indoor bb but I don't understand why you say 85mm is too long. Most guys shooting basketaball use one. f2.8 is slow for high school gyms unless you using trsobes. On top of that you need a lens which can focus faster for use in sports.

anything less than 2.8 and iso3200 may get you some major blur issues unless it's a really freaking well lit gym. for everything else, get a 85 1.8. that thing lived on my xt during basketball season. only reason i don't use it now is because my 70-200 on my mkiii with 3200iso looks better and gets me more shots i can use.

basroil wrote in post #5493011
only reason i don't use it now is because my 70-200 on my mkiii with 3200iso looks better and gets me more shots i can use.

I challenge the to a posting!!!

Really? Please share a photo.