Best Indoor Sports lens / lenses

I had pretty much settled on a 70-200 f/4 IS when another thread raised a good point. If you're shooting sports, you likely want fast shutter speeds which pretty much negates the advantage of IS. For not much more money I could have a 70-200 /f4 IS and a 135 f/2.0 as opposed to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I want to shoot a lot of minor hockey where the light is TERRIBLE. I'm shooting an XTi body.

Any thoughts ?

JVBAKER0 wrote in post #5938210
I had pretty much settled on a 70-200 f/4 IS when another thread raised a good point. If you're shooting sports, you likely want fast shutter speeds which pretty much negates the advantage of IS. For not much more money I could have a 70-200 /f4 IS and a 135 f/2.0 as opposed to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I want to shoot a lot of minor hockey where the light is TERRIBLE. I'm shooting an XTi body.

Any thoughts ?

a couple of ways to go

70-200 2.8 non is and the 135 L

or


70-200 2.8 non is and the 85mm 1.8

or

85mm 1.8 and the 135 L

you should eventually own all 3 and upgrade the 70-200 to the IS version.

I would go 85 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 non-IS. The 85 1.8 is much more versatile for indoor sports on a crop body and less expensive too!

85 1.8 and/or 135L are a must-have combo in indoor sports photography.

Well, as luck would have it I already own the 85/f1.8 so maybe I'll have to start looking for a 135 f/2.0. I've changed my mind a few hundred times already so what's a few more.

Indoor sports? Don't waste your money on a F4 lens unless your camera does ISO3200 or above.

135L!!!!!!
'nuff said.

200mm 2.0L IS

The best indoor sports lenses are:

28/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2 and 200/2.

85 1.8 or 100 2

Can anyone comment on the performance of the 135L wwith extenders ? The reputation of the 135 is outstanding but the vertisility of the 70-200 is hard to ignore.

JVBAKER0 wrote in post #5939195
Can anyone comment on the performance of the 135L wwith extenders ? The reputation of the 135 is outstanding but the vertisility of the 70-200 is hard to ignore.

135L with a 1.4X TC is as good at the 70-200/2.8 for IQ.

It is a hell of a lot less convenient though and lacks IS.

It depends on your needs. If you are just taking photos of the kids and can't move around then I'd probably go with the 70-200 2.8. I used it for three years for indoor and outdoor sports, and you can get usable results indoors with good post-processing unless the lights are terrible. The 70-200 F4 is useless for indoor sports.

However, if IQ is what you're after the 135 L is infinitely better than the 70-200 2.8. I just received my 135 L two days ago and the results aren't even close. It is much, much sharper and you can shoot at ISO 800 indoors with decent lights. It is a bit long on a crop camera though, but I'm making it work so I can have a bit extra reach at night outdoors.

Here's what I did. I sold my 70-200 2.8 (just wasn't happy with IQ at 2.8, not good enough for publications) and with the money was able to buy the 135 L and the Sigma 100-300 F4. I use the 135 indoors and will couple it with a 1.4 TC for a 190 2.8 which I can use outdoors at night. (Buy the way, the 135 L coupled with the 1.4 TC still gives better results than a 70-200 at 2.8.) The Sigma 100-300 is a terrific daytime outdoor sports lens on a crop camera and has given me great results so far.

Just a suggestion, there are a lot of good lenses out there and certainly more than one way to go.