Indoor Sports Lens

[spootz01]

Hi All,

Just looking for a little bit of advice on lens choice.

I am looking at shooting some volleyball in the winter. My main issue is lenses; specifically fixed aperture. I am looking at a 70-200 but cant decide on whether to splash out and get a 2.8 or save my pennies (and my arms) and settle for the F4.

bit of background:
The gym's they play in are relatively well lit with halogen lights (doesn't mean much I know)
I am shooting on canon (600D)

Cheers

S.

[Glenda]

The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is an excellent lens

[Cage]

I second Lplates thoughts.

I have one and can highly recommend it. It will give you 112-320mm at a fixed f2.8 on your camera.

I'm referring to the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD and not the earlier 'Macro' version that is still floating around.

[spootz01]

Yeah I'm looking at that lens. My big dilemma is whether to get that to add to my sports kit (my bread and butter), or save $500ish and pick up the Sigma 24-105 f4 to replace my current sigma and also give me a bit more versatility for shooting other things.

And before anyone says it, I know the 70-200 is a fantastic all around lens but I've got a couple of shoots lined up that are in close quarters and 70 at the short end I fear will by too tight.

[Shav Bird Photography]

Yeah I'm looking at that lens. My big dilemma is whether to get that to add to my sports kit (my bread and butter), or save $500ish and pick up the Sigma 24-105 f4 to replace my current sigma and also give me a bit more versatility for shooting other things.

And before anyone says it, I know the 70-200 is a fantastic all around lens but I've got a couple of shoots lined up that are in close quarters and 70 at the short end I fear will by too tight.

I have the Tamron 70-200 that Lplates is referring to. Top lens for indoor sports. Only marginly slower than the Nikon F2.8 which retails for over 3k. But quality wise I prefer the Tamron. As for close quarter shots with a crop body, it's not that bad. Sure you have to do a bit more work to maneuverer yourself back into the right position but it's not a massive hassle. I recommend getting a monopod for the Tamron if you decide to go in that direction. The weight of the lens is enough to make your arms tired especially during a long game. I also have a Sigma 18-50mm F1.8 lens I used for everyday and landscape shots too which I can easily swap over if the Tamron doesnt fit the bill.

[spootz01]

18-50 would be perfect as I do plan on getting the 70-200 later... But it appears its no longer made

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

[I @ M]

Hi All,

Just looking for a little bit of advice on lens choice.

I am looking at a 70-200 but cant decide on whether to splash out and get a 2.8 or save my pennies (and my arms) and settle for the F4.

.


Yeah I'm looking at that lens. My big dilemma is whether to get that to add to my sports kit (my bread and butter), or save $500ish and pick up the Sigma 24-105 f4 to replace my current sigma and also give me a bit more versatility for shooting other things.



Excuse me if I am wrong but from the generalised thoughts above I would suggest that you ---

#a Do some exercise to handle a larger lens if you feel that you can't manage the gear as you are. That part is an essential part of photography.
#b Forget the measly $500.00 saving and buy the best gear possible seeing as sports photography is your "bread and butter" as the expenditure versus return will negate that issue pretty quickly.

[yummymummy]

I would get the 70-200 and definitely splurge to get the 2.8. I've shot at a lot of sports grounds, and you will need the 2.8 even if you think it's well lit. I've shot at suncorp stadium, and even with all those lights, you STILL have to bump up the ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed..

[Shav Bird Photography]

18-50 would be perfect as I do plan on getting the 70-200 later... But it appears its no longer made

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

I have the ART series 18-50mm Sigma and I do believe it is still available if you are willing to part with the coin. But it also depends what brand body you have too. I did hear there was a short supply of Nikon mounted Tamron's recently but that should have been sorted now.

[MattNQ]

Agree with above comments - Definitely spend the extra $$ to get f2.8.

I've been shooting indoor netball during the day with extra light from open roller doors and I have still been at f2.8 and ISO 3200-6400

I wouldn't bother with a monopod. Small court games like netball & volleyball you'll often have to move quickly to follow the ball/play - a monopod will just get in the way.

[MissionMan]

I would definitely get the f/2.8, if you are doing sports you can cut out the VR but the f/2.8 is critical for low light. The VR component only helps with stationary objects which won't be much help for sports

I would also get the Tamron 70-200. I have the Nikon and I don't believe it's worth twice as much as the Nikon.

[basketballfreak6]

sigma has just announced a 50-100mm f/1.8 zoom...will be amazing lens for indoor sports on crop body me thinks