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.

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.

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.