Indoor sports lens

[Ptyler22]

I desperately want a 70-200mm F2.8 for sports like soccer and football but I was just thinking, would that lens work for games such as basketball and Ice hockey? would it be too much lens? and would it have enough light? I'm not shooting professional so I can go ISO 1600 but would it be better if I got an 85 1.8 or a 100 F2?

 

[Timbo1961]

I shoot a lot of hockey. The 85 and 100 wouldn't be long enough for hockey ... they would be ok for B Ball however, as you can get a lot closer.
My son plays so I am frequently on the bench or in the penalty box. This way there is no glass in between. I use a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.7x TC and it works fine at ISO1600.
I just got a 200 - 400 and want to try this out, but with the 85 or 100 you won't be close enough. Shooting through glass you would but .... not the best.
Hey, it gives you an excuse to get that lens.

 

[rubbertree]

I desperately want a 70-200mm F2.8 for sports like soccer and football but I was just thinking, would that lens work for games such as basketball and Ice hockey? would it be too much lens? and would it have enough light? I'm not shooting professional so I can go ISO 1600 but would it be better if I got an 85 1.8 or a 100 F2?

That lens would be great for hockey and basketball. Not too much lens at all. Yes, light enough. I got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and shot indoor hockey events for our provincial winter games and it performed wonderfully.
Look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

 

[Ptyler22]

OK, thanks guys, looks like my dream lens is still in the question!

 

[JerryPH]

I desperately want a 70-200mm F2.8 for sports like soccer and football but I was just thinking, would that lens work for games such as basketball and Ice hockey? would it be too much lens? and would it have enough light? I'm not shooting professional so I can go ISO 1600 but would it be better if I got an 85 1.8 or a 100 F2?

Sports are dynamic events. If all you want is to to get shots of one side of your venue, get a prime and run around. If you want to get shots of both sides and don't want to run from end to end, but just place yourself at the top of the stands in the middle somewhere... that 70-200 is perfect, though you may find it has a little too "zoom" on cropped sensors.

I loved taking my large aperture primes to an event, but I enjoyed having the 70-200 more. People sure looked at you more than if it was a small lens... lol

Because of not just the lower lighting of a sports venue, but the kind of lighting they use spend a little extra time getting the white balance correct. Of course one could shoot raw and adjust later, but it makes it a touch faster if you get it right in camera beforehand. Shoot RAW anyway in case it needs to be touched up a little.

I did not have the 85mm F/1.4 last year, and I am dying to try that out, both on the D200 and on the coming D700 once I order it. It's done me incredible on portrait shots, but I just want to see the results in a more dynamic environment... I have big expectations of that Nikkor.

 

[Ptyler22]

OK, thanks Jerry, I think I would like being able to get most of the rink from one place, so the 70-200mm, sounds like the better choice.

 

[table1349]

Jerry has some good advise there. Keep in mind though that you may have to push the ISO to 3200 with a 70-200 f2.8 indoors and keep a minimum shutter speed of 1/320th to freeze the action. It is all going to depend on the venue.

I shoot a lot of sports and my indoor choices are almost always primes due to lighting and that is at the college level. To compensate for the lack of range and/or too much lens I shoot two bodies. Usually one with a 35mm f1.4 or 28mm f1.8 and the other with something in the 100mm f.2 to 200mm f2.8 range. Multiple bodies obviously is not a choice for everyone. In the main college venue I shoot I can keep 1/320th shutter speed at ISO 1250 all night long with primes that are stopped down a bit.

I can get away with the 200 f2.8 and keep up my shutter speeds as the construction of a prime allows for for more light wide open that a zoom. Don't ask me to explain it, I can't. I can tell you however from experience that with the same camera body in the same venue in the same spot on the baseline I can put on my 70-200 f2.8 at 1600 ISO and only get a shutter speed of 1/250th. With the 200 f2.8 prime at 1600 ISO I am getting 1/320th.

I guess what I am saying in a long winded way is don't be afraid to push you ISO to 3200 if needed. A sports photo that is sharp with frozen action and some noise is better than a less than sharp image with out noise. You can't fix sharpness. You can post process to reduce noise.

The 70-200 f2.8L is a great piece of glass. When shooting outdoor stuff it is always on my second body and gets used probably 1/3 of the time for football and soccer. The 400 f2.8 does the majority of the field duty. You would have to work hard to go wrong with a 70-200 2.8 at some point.

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

70-200 2.8 is perfect

 

[JerryPH]

I think ISO 3200 is perhaps pushing it a little, because I was mostly between ISO 800-1200 and the odd ISO 1600 to play at 1/512th shutter speeds at the ice rink where I practice (known crappy lighting... lol), however, a single ice rink is FAR from knowing what ISO is needed in other places.

Gyms may just as easily have lower intensity lighting than a rink, necessitating higher ISO.

A little chimping goes a long way in these cases.

 

[table1349]

I think ISO 3200 is perhaps pushing it a little, because I was mostly between ISO 800-1200 and the odd ISO 1600 to play at 1/512th shutter speeds at the ice rink where I practice (known crappy lighting... lol), however, a single ice rink is FAR from knowing what ISO is needed in other places.

Gyms may just as easily have lower intensity lighting than a rink, necessitating higher ISO.

A little chimping goes a long way in these cases.

A white basketball court would be ugly as H#$$ but the reflected lighting would be better.

My point was not to be afraid to push if needed. We have no college hockey teams in my area so hockey is not a sport I shoot very much.