Lens or Flash

Hello

I am planning on shooting my uni's sports teams next year and am in need of a bit of advice. I recently bought a 70-200 f4 lens and am very happy with it. It ought to be fantastic for soccer.

But the real question comes for indoor sports, basketball and volleyball. Our gym got new lighting (previously was terrible, had to shoot at f 1.8 ISO 1600 to get 1/320), but I am not sure if it will be enough. Do you think I should get an 85mm 1.8 in addition to my nifty-fifty or should I get a vivitar flash (or other cheaper brand) and use my 70-200mm?

Thanks for your time.

I have tried both (lens or flash) and have had better results with the 85/1.8. Depending on the body you are using, you may find the 85 a bit long which will force you to shoot pretty tight.

I'm using a 300D, so there would be the crop factor involved. Plus, my 70-200 has USM whereas my 50mm doesn't. That is one point in favour of the flash. Also, that solution would be cheaper.

Points well taken.
With flash your shutter speed would be limited to 200 or 250 which is not enough to freeze motion. However, you can time your shots such that you are shooting at the top of the action where motion is at its minimum, or you can learn about using the flash to freeze motion. I am not the expert on this but there is a lot of discussion on this subject. A bit of searching will give you lots of threads to read.

85mm for sure, dont use on camera flash shooting sports!

Sorry, but this isn't accurate (no disrespect intended). When artificial light is used properly, the duration of the flash/strobe is what freezes the action, NOT the shutter speed. All the shutter speed does is control the exposure for ambient light. Lots and lots of information on this and other forums about using flash for indoor sports (including the third episode of the podcast in my signature).

Having said that, if the gym in which you are shooting is anything like the hundred or so I've worked (even with new lighting), an f/4.0 lens of any kind isn't going to be good enough to get much more than 1/200s -1/320s with your 300D's limit of ISO 1600. So, you're left with the option you are considering: flash or lower aperture.

I am a big fan of artificial light when working indoor sports, however I am not a big fan of on-camera flash. Again, take a look at the podcast mentioned above.

The 85 f/1.8 is a cool lens for many things, not the least of which is basketball. I personally think it's a little short, and that shooting it at f/1.8 yields a really, really tiny depth of field. Every once in a while I'll drag mine out and use it for hoops, but inevitably I put it back in the bag and replace it with the 70-200 f/2.8 for the reach and quicker AF. YMMV, though.

Hope this helps.

dmwierz wrote in post #7703174
The 85 f/1.8 is a cool lens for many things, not the least of which is basketball. I personally think it's a little short, and that shooting it at f/1.8 yields a really, really tiny depth of field. Every once in a while I'll drag mine out and use it for hoops, but inevitably I put it back in the bag and replace it with the 70-200 f/2.8 for the reach and quicker AF. YMMV, though.

Hope this helps.

Ditto. Most of my basketball is done with the 70-200 f/2.8---without flash.

LennartW wrote in post #7703110
dont use on camera flash shooting sports!

Definitely do not use a flash for shooting indoor sports if you do not want to get kicked out.

Whoa, hold on thar, Bobalouie: this very broad statement is far from accurate. I have covered hundreds of indoor events, and most of which I've used artificial light, and I've never seen anyone "kicked out" for using flash.

Poppycock, I say.

I prefer strobes or flashes off camera but once in a blue moon I'll use the camera on flash (when I have no other choice - ambient is just too dark) and see it done by other photographers all the time.

And please let's not get into the "strobes and flashes are distracting to the players" opinion that has been countered here many, many times.

I just really don't like the look you get from on-camera flash, and if you're ever (not that I have ever seen this, mind you) going to distract players, on-camera is the configuration that will maximize your chances of doing so. That's why I've experimented with all manner of bounce flash while employing on-camera flash: this minimizes impact on the players and reduces the harsh "flash look" I (and many others) don't like.

However, at the end of the day, and as a last resort, give me an on-camera flash over a terribly underexposed shot any day of the week.

1 more vote for the 85mm.

I don't shoot BB but don't know why folks say 85mm is too long. Watching recent NCAA games on TV, I saw bunch of 300mm f2.8 in there. Mostly it seemed 70-200mm f2.8 like Dennis already mentioned.

bobbyz wrote in post #7705360
I don't shoot BB but don't know why folks say 85mm is too long. Watching recent NCAA games on TV, I saw bunch of 300mm f2.8 in there. Mostly it seemed 70-200mm f2.8 like Dennis already mentioned.

OK, now we've officially hijacked this thread, but oh well...Bobby, the 300 is for downcourt action, like dunks, rebounds and battles for the ball. Also used to get tight shots of players on the bench and especially coaches.

However, I also think the 85 is way too short. Sure, I shoot some images with my 70-200 at 70 (like this one)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

When I say 85 is too long, I mean for my 1.6 crop 40D for close to basket action. The 85 might be just fine for 1.3 crop or full frame cameras.

Sibil wrote in post #7705965
When I say 85 is too long, I mean for my 1.6 crop 40D for close to basket action. The 85 might be just fine for 1.3 crop or full frame cameras.

I agree. But that is why having 2 bodies is so nice.

Dennis - Nice shots.