Indoor Sports Lens/Photojournalist Lens

[benstewart]

Hi all,

I posted a threat requesting advice on shooting indoor hockey.

I shot the game but had a little bit of blur in some pictures. I don't like blur. The images also needed much brightening, given my Tamron 28-300 3.5-5.6.

The pro I was with has a Nikon 70-200 2.8 constant. He used the lens on an indoor closeup and the hockey game. I would like a lens like his!

I shoot with a Canon Digital Rebel XT. However, simply recommending lenses won't help much, as I have an outside influence. My dad is willing to let me sell the Tamron (his lens) in favor of a new lens, but I have to convince him that I actually need it first. He refuses to believe that the flash won't go quite that far or that it won't reflect off the glass and produce bad images.

I will also generally be shooting inside. I live in Minnesota where no one WANTS to be outside unless they are playing sports.

That said, if you could explain in just a little detail - what yoi think I need, WHY I need it, and where I can get it, I will be forever grateful!

 

[Peanuts]

If I were you - to discount his believe in the flash, I would go talk to the arena manager and ask if flash photography is allowed. I am betting that you will not be allowed to use flash during a game.

Regarding lenses, the equivalent lens to teh Nikon 70-200 is of course the Canon 70-200 - but there are three options. F/4L, F/2.8L, and F/2.8L IS. Obviously the last would be the best, but of course it comes with a matching price tag. Another option is to look into getting perhaps a shorter zoom, for instance a Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 in addition to a fixed longer prime. I am not a sport shooter, so I am certain another member will help you much better with this

 

[benstewart]

I'd love to get the Canon lenses, but I'm a college student with a part time job, though I could easily afford financing for something I'll use for a good, long time.

Does anyone here shoot hockey with a fixed lens? I'd go for it.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Flash photography usually isn't allowed and on the basketball court, it can produce horrible reflections off the floor. Shooting at f/5.6 also makes the flash do more work (if you're using it) and as a result, increases recycle times.

I've heard Sigma makes an ok 70-200 f/2.8 for the EF mount. If I was in your shoes, i'd bite the bullet and buy the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS, but i should tell you, f/2.8 telephoto's might be difficult to hold comfortably on the Rebel without a vertical grip. Either lens is definatly long-term investment material. My Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 will most likely be the last lens i replace (if at all) in the future.

 

[JIP]

Well one thing you can bet on is that if you were to purchase any long 2.8 is longevity you will have this lens and use it for many years to come but the most importan thing is what it will do for you and I think I follw what I said in your original thread get advice from the pro you will be following if he uses a long 2.8 askhim why see if he can help you convince your father. As far as my opinion, as I said before if you plan on getting into any level of photojournalisim as a profession a long 2.8 lens is essential.

 

[dese]

I shoot my son's team with my Sigma 18-125 f3.5. I've gotten some fairly good ones. Personally I like the blur around the subject. I know it's not the best lens but I can't afford a good one just yet.

 

[benstewart]

Dese: Any way for me to see those images?

 

[mrcoons]

I finally swallowed hard and found the cash for the Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8L (couldn't find the money for the IS though ) and man is it great.

I shoot school bands and choirs which traditionally perform on some horribly lit stages and this weekend was no different. Shot a junior high jazz contest in a dark room using this lens and got a lot of great shots.

Check them out if you are interested: http://MusicMan5.smugmug.com/gallery/2358610/1/124337114

Previously I would have used either my Canon 28-135mm IS or my Canon 70-300mm IS lens and had to do some serious editing. (I did take the 70-300 and took a couple shots and deleted them immediately.)

I also own the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 lens and it has gotten me some great shots but it is just not long enough.

 

[salsero]

Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 lens that goes for about $80 that should help with the sports photograph.

In addition they make a 85mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.4 usm which go for about $350 each.

I use both of these for basketball, indoor soccer & field hockey with success. Photos come out with no blur and sharp.

 

[JerryPH]

This kinda entices me to want to go to the local indoor ice rink and try on some sport photography for a test and a little fun. I've not had much opportunity to use my Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 since I bought it this Christmas.

Flashes are NOT very useful at sporting events unless you get into multiple flash scenarios, since you cannot light an area big enough at a sporting event.

As mentioned, at most sporting events, they are not even allowed. There are other places where flashes will not be allowed but are not well lit. Weddings in chrches come to mind rather fast. Inside almost any office or home as well. Most museums do not permit flash. No concert event that I went to permitted flash. These are all places where a fast telephoto shines... but if you do notgo to these kinds of places, tht expensive glass is going to sit and not be used very often.

In general, fast glass is useable in a broader variety of situations over a slower lens and a flash (I am at the point where I roll my eyes when I have to even use on camera flashes anymore... lol. First choice for me is off camera flash or if on due to limitations, at least it is bounced... or not used at all).

On a lens that size... a good monopod is suggested and if you have a tripod, make sure it is STURDY, so don't forget to budget for those things into the equation.