Sports Lens / Basketball Shots

[swampler]

I'm looking for any advice for a general purpose sports lens for the Canon 30D? Seems most pros use a 70-200 f/2.8L, but $1700 is a little (OK, a lot) out of my price range. I have a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens, which is good for outdoors, daytime shooting and I've been using a 60 f/2.8 Macro USM lens for basketball. The down side is having to crop heavily and can't reach across the court with it.

I guess an f/1.8 would be ideal, but what focal length?

Here are some shots I took Saturday night with the 60mm lens. Comments and critiques welcome.

30D, 60mm, f/2.8, 1/400, ISO3200








Thanks,
Steve

[cyclohexane]

85mm f/1.8 USM is a great indoor performer for around $300. A little long if you're sitting on the baseline, but you said you wanted more reach.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

85mm f/1.8 USM is a great indoor performer for around $300. A little long if you're sitting on the baseline, but you said you wanted more reach.

Thanks for the reply. Would the 85 be enough reach for night time outdoor sports? Probably short for football, but what about baseball, track, etc?

[cyclohexane]

Probably short for football, but what about baseball, track, etc?

Actually, for plays close to the sideline, 85mm is usable for night football. You could also experiment with wider shots using the 85mm behind the end zone.

Track, it'd be doable if you had to, though I'd like to have a longer lens to be able to get more of a front-view of the runners.

Baseball, if you're on top of the dug-out, you could easily cover the area around the closest base. If you're on the sideline, you could probably get the batter if you cropped some. I used a 105mm once from around third base and got an okay view of the batter (if they were right-handed).

Seems most pros use a 70-200 f/2.8L, but $1700 is a little (OK, a lot) out of my price range.

I just remembered that the non-IS version is closer to $1200 or even less. Check B&H Photo and some other reputable online retailers to see what they're selling it for.

By the way, when I get a chance, I'll try to find time to critque your photos. Sorry that I haven't looked at them closely yet. =)

[Freezframe_2]

I'm using a Sigma 70-200 2.8 with my 30D .I'm getting great results in all aspects....I paid 900.00 CDN for the non macro version...... I liked it so much I bought the 28 -70 2.8 version and, cost was 500.00CDN. Great lens....

Freezframe_2

[KABeach]

First I want to say, great job with the BBall images. Great timing, great exposure... overall, very nice images.

As far as a lens goes, if I could only have two lenses in my bag for sports, one would be the 85/1.8 and the other would be an 80-200/2.8... Here in Illinois, HS Basketball has wound down and we are moving to the outdoor spring sports... If you can swing it, I would consider getting the Sigma 70-200/2.8 now for the upcoming spring, summer and fall sports and save up for an 85/1.8 for the winter sports...

Cheers!
Ken

[swampler]

Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma 70 - 200. I only found a couple of stores carrying the non-macro version and haven't had a chance to check them on reseller ratings yet.

[drkranger]

I've been using the 50mm 1.8 and have seen great results. I'm right on the baseline, so I can get good views at that length. I typically have the camera set at 1/400, f/1.8, 800-1600ISO. Seeing all these shots at 1600-3200ISO must mean I get better light that I thought as the histogram is typically right in the middle. Another photog I was shooting with was using the 85mm f/1.8 and he said he HAD to shoot at 1600ISO to get good speeds. Either he had his shutter much higher than I did or his levels were at the upper end.

I just purchased the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. I'll be trying that lens out this weekend with basketball shots. I can then "replace" my 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 for outdoor shots with the 2x teleconverter attached. At the lower ends I'll lose some aperture range since with the 2x, the lens goes to 100-300mm f/5.6, but I shoot at the lowest aperture outside anyway. Tokina, or Tamron, has a 50-135 I think at f/2.8, but I wanted the addtional 15mm range.

The 50-150, to my knowledge, is fairly new. I bought it through Amazon from 47th Street Photo. The price was around $40 cheaper than Adorama and B&H.

[Maddogmd11]

Steve,

I can't comment on the lens because I don't shoot Canon. I can comment on the pictures and they were outstanding. Particularly considering the short lens. I'ld love so see your shots if you get the sigma!!

Maddog

[drkranger]

Originally Posted by Maddogmd11

Steve,

I can't comment on the lens because I don't shoot Canon. I can comment on the pictures and they were outstanding. Particularly considering the short lens. I'ld love so see your shots if you get the sigma!!

Maddog

Not to hijack this thread, but here are some samples using the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D50.

150mm, 1/320, f/2.8, ISO1600, +3EV:

[KABeach]

Drkranger,

The problem is, the gym you are shooting is a full stop faster than most of the high school gyms I shoot... And my gyms are much better lit than the gyms on the western edge of DuPage County or the Dark Dingy gyms typical in Chicago.

Very few people can get away with shooting High School or Middle School sports with an f/2.8 lens (without strobes)...

For outdoor sports, I think the 50-150 is a bit short for most of the sports I shoot. The 70-200 is quite a bit better. I've found the 200 range great for softball and little league baseball (the younger kids). Once they get to full sized diamonds, I go with a 300 and still wish for more glass... The 70-200 is usable for football, for plays on your side of field, too short if the play is on the far hash mark... For soccer, I like reach, and generally shoot with a 300 (paired with an 80-200)...

That extra 50mm doesn't sound like much, but it makes a big difference in field sports.

Cheers,
Ken

[swampler]

Thanks for all the advice and comments thus far. I'm now thinking of the 85 f/1.8 for indoor sports this fall. I'll have to make do with my 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 for outdoors sports for now and hope I don't need to shoot any night games.

[drkranger]

Originally Posted by KABeach

Drkranger,

The problem is, the gym you are shooting is a full stop faster than most of the high school gyms I shoot... And my gyms are much better lit than the gyms on the western edge of DuPage County or the Dark Dingy gyms typical in Chicago.

Very few people can get away with shooting High School or Middle School sports with an f/2.8 lens (without strobes)...

For outdoor sports, I think the 50-150 is a bit short for most of the sports I shoot. The 70-200 is quite a bit better. I've found the 200 range great for softball and little league baseball (the younger kids). Once they get to full sized diamonds, I go with a 300 and still wish for more glass... The 70-200 is usable for football, for plays on your side of field, too short if the play is on the far hash mark... For soccer, I like reach, and generally shoot with a 300 (paired with an 80-200)...

That extra 50mm doesn't sound like much, but it makes a big difference in field sports.

Cheers,
Ken

Then I'll certainly count myself lucky. I did use the 70-300 f/4-5.6 last year for outdoor stuff, but will almost certainly switch to the Sigma with the 2x teleconverter to get 100-300 f/5.6. The glass is much better than the 70-300.

And, Swampler, you can't go wrong with the 85mm f/1.8.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by drkranger

Then I'll certainly count myself lucky. I did use the 70-300 f/4-5.6 last year for outdoor stuff, but will almost certainly switch to the Sigma with the 2x teleconverter to get 100-300 f/5.6. The glass is much better than the 70-300.

And, Swampler, you can't go wrong with the 85mm f/1.8.

The Sigma with teleconvertor is better glass than the 70-300? In which regards, if I may ask? I've always heard the 70-300 has L quality IQ. (The 75-300 was really soft, though, from what I've read.)

[drkranger]

Originally Posted by swampler

The Sigma with teleconvertor is better glass than the 70-300? In which regards, if I may ask? I've always heard the 70-300 has L quality IQ. (The 75-300 was really soft, though, from what I've read.)

Sorry, I have the cheap 70-300 f/4-5.6. It's around $150 or less. There are much better lenses.
You might be thinking about this lens: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF Lens. It's $1600 from Adorama
or this one: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor Lens ($320 Adorama)
or this one: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom Nikkor Lens ($500 Adorama)

I can't comment on any of those since I don't have them.

[KABeach]

Originally Posted by drkranger

Sorry, I have the cheap 70-300 f/4-5.6. It'