# Which Lense for Capturing Indoor Sporting Events?



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm about to purchase either a Nikon D90 or CanonT1 and my head is telling me to go with the body only and then buy the lenses separate. Here's where I'd like your input so that I don't overspend just for the sake of doing so.

One of my main interests is capturing pictures of my kids INDOOR swim meets and Indoor Hockey games. My question is can I get away with something in the range of 70-300MM with F4.5/F5.6 and still capture decent action shots in the low light setting at the longer focal length? I understand I can bumpt the ISO up, but I don't know if 1600 on either of the above camera's is really going to compsensate for the lack of light without being too noisy.  

Or, I be disappointed and really need something more like a 200M F2 through the entire length?  (will this even do it in a low light setting at longer focal length for action)

This is a hobby and not a living, so I don't want to spend more just for the sake of doing so. At the same time, I don't want to make a sizeable investment and not be able to do what I'd like to do with the unit.

Appreciate any perils of wisdom.

Thanks


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

swimming and hockey are pretty poorly lit sports from what I've seen, unfortunately.  I guess the decision comes down to 2 things... #1, what is the quality of the photo you are going for.  #2, what is your budget.  If you want really nice looking photos, get a wide aperture lens.  Also, from what I've heard, the D90 is really good at higher ISO settings.  I've never used the D90 or the T1, so I can't speak from personal experience on the body, but a wider aperture lens will always give you a faster shutter speed.


----------



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

Perhaps, I should spell lens properly before buying one.  Sorry, early here and the sinus infection isn't helping the ol' brain.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

lol yeah you'd be surprised at the number of people who spell lens incorrectly.


----------



## SushiWarrior (Sep 29, 2009)

Your hockey arena is dark? Where I play it's almost enough to hurt my eyes! Have you tried taking pictures with a different camera and seeing how they turn out? It will give an indication of how bright or dark it is.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm sure in Canada, things are different when it comes to hockey.  plus, I was thinking mostly of swimming.  I might also be wrong there...


----------



## Craig J (Sep 29, 2009)

You can pick up a used Sigma 70-300mm lens on craigslist and if you do not like it you can turn around and sell it again. I have one and it is an OK lens that picks up some CA in bright light.

Craig


----------



## KmH (Sep 29, 2009)

Quality indoor sports photography can require some of the more expensive cameras and lenses available.

Because of reflection from the ice there is usually more available light at a hockey venue than an indoor swimming venue.

300mm will be just enough and most images will still require a crop to get sufficent subject size in the final image.

Indoors a maximum, constant aperture of f/2.8 will be needed to get high enough shutter speeds to stop motion, even with the ISO capabilities of the D90. (Nikon AF-S 300 mm f/2.8 VR ED = $5300)

Many hobby sports shooters go with a 70-200mm f/2.8 focal length to keep the lens cost down. (Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VRII $2300) To get good subject size in the final image you'll have to crop much deeper if you use a 200mm. 

Consider the non-VR, Nikon AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D ED, $1100.

Nikon's 70-300 mm lens is just to slow for use indoors. It works fine outdoors.


----------



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks for input thus far.  I haven't been able to tinker or try anything because all I've got at the moment is a Canon point and shoot.  All I know is that with any zoom, I can't capture anything in either indoor environment (hockey/swimming) that is bearable quality.  My last SLR is an old Nikon film camera and I don't have any telephoto lenses.

I just want to avoid buying a kit or tele lens that doesn't do what I need it to.  I guess I could get the body and then go rent a lens or two to give it a shot.

Thanks


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2009)

SushiWarrior said:


> Your hockey arena is dark? Where I play it's almost enough to hurt my eyes! Have you tried taking pictures with a different camera and seeing how they turn out? It will give an indication of how bright or dark it is.


 
Generally they all are in terms of trying to capture a good exposure with a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion and an ISO that won't just kill on noise. What looks bright to you can end up looking like complete and utter crap without having a good enough camera or a fast enough lens.



Craig J said:


> You can pick up a used Sigma 70-300mm lens on craigslist and if you do not like it you can turn around and sell it again. I have one and it is an OK lens that picks up some CA in bright light.
> 
> Craig


 
Crap lens for badly lit indoor sporting venues. I wouldn't recommend anything less than a 70-200 f/2.8. IS or VR won't matter for sports, but might be something worth checking out for other things.

Swimming is no sweat in the focal length deparment, what's going to suck is hockey. 200mm isn't exactly very long, not like most would think.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2009)

KmH said:


> Quality indoor sports photography can require some of the more expensive cameras and lenses available.
> 
> Because of reflection from the ice there is usually more available light at a hockey venue than an indoor swimming venue.
> 
> ...


 
Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L IS can be found for as little as $1375 new at some places.


----------



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

Ken, I was actually thinking that 70-200mm  2.8 would be a necessity if I'm looking for a decent image.  I wasn't sure if that was overkill for my needs, but doesnt sound like it.  My daughter is also in theater and it drives me insane that I can't get decent shots from 50-60 feet in low light.  Probably can't go wrong with the 2.8.  

Asides from more light from the 2.8, is it possible also get some DOF at the longer focal length?  I'd also use outdoors for kids baseball, etc. in the spring/summer but don't need 2.8 at 200mm for this (I wouldn't think).  Though, it would be a nice bonus to actually get some DOF at the longer focal length. (again, not sure if this is attainable at longer focal length...though I understand it would depend upon proximity of subject to other elements, etc)

The 300MM 2.8 is definitely NOT an option for me right now.  My wife would have me sleeping in the car with it ;-)

Thanks again all for your comments and suggestions.


----------



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

Village Idiot, I thought I had my mind made up on the D90 and was trying to bury the fact that Canon's lenses appear to be more cost effective--particularily the telephoto units. Though, I haven't seen any prices that cheap for the canon 2.8 70-2000 new -($1375!?) Ugghhhhh decisions, decisions...


----------



## fstop (Sep 29, 2009)

Sorry to pile on, one other question for you guys.  If I get a 2.8 200 (either canon or Nikon), can I use an extender to bump it to 300 or do I lose the 2.8 light?  Whats the trade off?  Thanks


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2009)

Current price for the 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilizer lens is $1,949 from Adorama, with I think it's a 3 year warranty. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Vibration Reduction lens is $1,929 from Adorama, with Nikon's 5 year warranty. One wants to compare like with like,and the addition of VR or IS is actually quite helpful under many conditions. When using the newer, high-megapixel cameras like the Nikon D3x, expert photographers have noted that camera support becomes critical,and that degraded results can be noticed at shutter speeds like 1/200 second using a tele-zoom, but that VR can overcome the effects of camera shake.

VR or IS is helpful at getting better panning images,and is helpful in the wind, or when you are slightly out of breath, or when shooting pictures when you happen to be excited, with heart pounding,etc. VR makes for sharper images across a whole spectrum of shooting scenarios,and can accomplish what a tripod cannot do, or when a tripod cannot be used.

Comparing the 70-200 L-IS versus the 70-200VR has already been done at dPreview,and it has been done by me. I own both lenses,and the Nikon is the clear handling and ergonomics winner--more slender barrel, smoother zoom and focusing action, an auto-switching model 1 and mode 2 VR detection system,and AF lock buttons on the 70-200VR all make it the better-handling 70-200mm zoom. But then of course, it's also a newer optical and mechanical design than Canon's,and Nikon had ample time to look at Canon's design in order to better it in several key areas. The Nikon is also clearly the better APS-C lens, the Canon is the better lens on Full Frame.Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review: 6. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review

 The "new" Nikkor, re-computed for Full Frame, is not even on the market yet, but as with the other "new" Nikkor zooms like 14-24 and 24-70,will probably be the leader among all maker's 70-200's, as shown by the MTF graphs Nikon has up at their website....the new lens will have superb bokeh,and amazing contrast, resolution, and stop-to-stop consistency.

It's always easy to create a bogus value comparison by looking at the price of the non-IS Canon lens at $1249, but that lens has no stabilizer system. One could also look at the 80-200 ED Nikkor zoom at $1,099 from Adorama for comparable optics, but no VR. VR and IS are simply incredible benefits in a lens,and that is why the stabilized Canon and Nikon models are within $20 of one another at reputable USA dealers like Adorama.com. As MP counts go up past the 20MP mark, stabilizing the camera becomes more and more critical to getting truly sharp images,and a lens like the above has a 10-15 year lifespan.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Current price for the 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilizer lens is $1,949 from Adorama, with I think it's a 3 year warranty. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Vibration Reduction lens is $1,929 from Adorama, with Nikon's 5 year warranty. One wants to compare like with like,and the addition of VR or IS is actually quite helpful under many conditions. When using the newer, high-megapixel cameras like the Nikon D3x, expert photographers have noted that camera support becomes critical,and that degraded results can be noticed at shutter speeds like 1/200 second using a tele-zoom, but that VR can overcome the effects of camera shake.
> 
> VR or IS is helpful at getting better panning images,and is helpful in the wind, or when you are slightly out of breath, or when shooting pictures when you happen to be excited, with heart pounding,etc. VR makes for sharper images across a whole spectrum of shooting scenarios,and can accomplish what a tripod cannot do, or when a tripod cannot be used.
> 
> ...


 
Lens prices went up. With certain Canon rebates, which they were doing on a regular basis, you could get a new 70-200 f/2.8L IS for about $1400-$1500, iirc. New was selling for $around $1600. I bought a new one for a little over $1500 and a used one for about $1300.


----------



## davisreed (Sep 30, 2009)

The 85 1.8 is a fantastic _lens_, however, for _sports_ I want a zoom. *...* Now for _indoor sports_, the 85 might be ideal. I have that _lens_ and use it for BB games, *...* Weddings and Other Family _Events_, Discuss Wedding and Other Family _Event........_


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 30, 2009)

70-200 2.8!!!!! I dont need the IS.  However, some people swear by it.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 30, 2009)

shortpballer said:


> 70-200 2.8!!!!! I dont need the IS.  However, some people swear by it.



The IS version is weather-sealed too.


----------



## rlcphotos (Sep 30, 2009)

I use the Sigma 70/200 2.8 HSM lens can be bought for the neighborhood of $850.00 to $1200.00 excellent lens for football and other sports


----------



## rwphotography (Sep 30, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Current price for the 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilizer lens is $1,949 from Adorama, with I think it's a 3 year warranty. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Vibration Reduction lens is $1,929 from Adorama, with Nikon's 5 year warranty. One wants to compare like with like,and the addition of VR or IS is actually quite helpful under many conditions. When using the newer, high-megapixel cameras like the Nikon D3x, expert photographers have noted that camera support becomes critical,and that degraded results can be noticed at shutter speeds like 1/200 second using a tele-zoom, but that VR can overcome the effects of camera shake.
> ...



Where is it for that price?  I just bought the non IS for $1349. The IS was $1899 which I couldnt stomach paying for. I'm still learning to use it but so far, havent gotten into a situation (even in low-light at a dance recital) where I was like "man I wish I had gotten the IS."


----------



## fstop (Oct 3, 2009)

Thanks to all for the input.  I ended up ordering a Nikon D90 without any glass and then ordered the 35mm 1.8 prime just to have something immediately.  

First order of business will be to impress the wife with some indoor natural light shots over the POS (point and shoot...piece of Sh$*) and work on the green light for the 70-200mm 2.8.  May rent one without VR to see if I can save ~$1000 bucks.  My main use will be kids action stuff so I may not need the VR with the quick shutter.   Though if it has the potential as a 10 year staple, maybe its worth springing for it.

I was reading that the VR II doesn't have the focus lock that the exising 70-200mm 2.8 has.  For indoor swimming, if I'm picking a point on a lane would the focus lock be worthwhile or is this thing fast enough?

Thanks again to all for your guidance.  Saved myself a few bills on the kit lens that would have ended up sitting in a bag.


----------



## Big (Oct 3, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> lol yeah you'd be surprised at the number of people who spell lens incorrectly.


I think a lot of it has to do with origin. People from Europe spell it "lense" such as they spell shoppe, colour, etc. (I think anyway)


----------



## Dao (Oct 4, 2009)

Big said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > lol yeah you'd be surprised at the number of people who spell lens incorrectly.
> ...




Are you sure about that on the word lense?  AskOxford.com has lens, but not lense. (search the compact Oxford dictionary)


----------



## KmH (Oct 4, 2009)

fstop said:


> .......I was reading that the VR II doesn't have the focus lock that the exising 70-200mm 2.8 has. For indoor swimming, if I'm picking a point on a lane would the focus lock be worthwhile or is this thing fast enough?


I believe the lock you are talking about only comes with the VRII and it's not a focus lock but a mechanical lens creep lock that has to be disabled to zoom out from 70mm. Focus is controlled by the microprocessor in the camera.

Again, for your purposes, I would recommend a long look at the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D, $1100 new (and a little less for a good used example) and it will serve you well for 10 years. It has both the sharpness and speed you need at 1/2 the price of a 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR.

Using an extender will result in an apparent decrease in your max aperture. A 1.4x will result in a loss of 1.4 stops and a 2x will cost 2 stops.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 4, 2009)

Depending on where you live, you can also rent lenses.

So instead of spending $1800 on a 70-200, spend $25 per weekend for a 300mm f/4 or something.


----------



## fstop (Oct 7, 2009)

> Again, for your purposes, I would recommend a long look at the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D, $1100 new (and a little less for a good used example) and it will serve you well for 10 years. It has both the sharpness and speed you need at 1/2 the price of a 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR.


 
Keith, Is the difference between the 80-200mm and the 70-200mm VR 2.8's basically the Vibration Reduction?  (I definitely don't think the 70mm vs. 80mm will matter to me).  At what shutter speed does VR add any value?  I think your right for sports, I'd be burning another thousand bucks that isn't necessary for my main interest.  If I got into anything that required slower shutter speeds, I could toss the thing on a pod --which I'd probably end up doing anyway and turning VR Off!

My natural impulse is to go big if it's going to be a 10 year piece, but to blow cash on something I don't need is pointless. 

I suppose I could try to rent one and see how it works out.  The light is REALLY crappy at the indoor swim (definitely not the birds nest!).  If the 2.8 didn't cut it, is there any advantage of the 2.8 vs. the variable 4. to 5. in the 80-200mm for the outdoor shots at the longer focal lengths from a crispness and bokeh perspective?  Getting a little ahead of myself here, but at even $1100, makes sense to probably rent the thing and make sure I can capture images that are worth while under pretty lame indoor lighting conditions.  

Supposed to get the D90 body tomorrow...can't wait to start shooting.

Thanks again.


----------



## hankejp (Oct 8, 2009)

Definately go with the large Aperature.  I used a Sigma 70/300 4 -5.6 for shooting gymnastics last year and it sucked.  I got a few good shots, but the majority had blurriness in them.  

I think you'd be MUCH happier with the 2.8.  I keep checking craigslist for a zoom 2.8 and to offload mi Sigma.

Good luck.


----------



## bhphotography (Oct 9, 2009)

I shoot hockey tournaments all winter long. I shoot at f2.8 100% of the time. I use the 70-200 f2.8 and end up with iso ranges from iso 400 to iso 1600 depending on the arena. The arenas that have the foil roofs are the best as they tend to be brighter. The d90 can go as high as iso 1600 but I would keep it to iso 1250 or lower when possible.

The 200mm f2 lens is a good option, however if there is any up close action, it will be useless. Most of the time you would have to shoot from the bench, due to all the safety netting that has been put into arenas lately.


----------



## fstop (Oct 9, 2009)

BH, Thanks for the input.  I'm resigned to the 2.8, not decided if it will be the 80-200mm without the VR or 70-200MM VR.  Dumb question, but at the hockey tournaments, where do you recommend hanging out if you can't get by the players bench/press type situation?  is it better to be up above the glass/boards or can you shoot through the glass with proper filter?   Went to a pro game the other night and was jealous of the media pro that had remoted strobes all over the place.


----------

