Sport lenses for keeping in memory my daughter's games

[Warisc]

I see a lot of posts talking about the longer lenses, but what do people use as a short sports lens?

Context: I'm the team (parent) photographer for my daughter's volleyball team, and usually have the freedom to walk the perimeter of the court during games. For the net play, I've had success using my 100mm f/2 but, for back row play, my kit struggles.

I'm currently using a 50mm f1.8 and, as everyone can assume, AF speed is lacking. Is there a short lens that is popular with the sports shooters?

I found some recommendations here: Want The Best Lenses for Sports Photography Nikon? Here's the list!, but I'm still unsure what lenses for Nikon to buy because reviews from magazines and users are different sometimes.

Also, I found this on YouTube:

.

Do you like Sigma? What can you say about these lenses?

So, I'm here to listen to opinions.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Raw photographer]

I would 100% recommend the sigma, i was actually considering this lens for quite awhile, but i just could not swallow the price so i do not own nor have i ever used this lens. But what i did find in my price range is this Canon
70-300mm USM II lens which is way cheaper, you do loose 100mm of reach but for me that was not a problem as i have a crop sensor camera, so that means i have the reach of a 480mm lens. Here is some links for a video on this lens. As well as the link to amazon for the lens.

I hope i have been of some help.

Amazon:
https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens/dp/B01LXTX4WY/ref=sr_1_3?
keywords=Canon+70-300mm&qid=1559576677&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Youtube video for lens:

 

[ac12]

What camera are you shooting, DX or FX format?

The lens selection depends on: your camera format (FX or DX), the sport, your shooting position and the lighting level.
IMHO, the most difficult are indoor gym fast sports (volleyball and basketball) and outdoor night games under lights. The reason is the fast action and low light level.

I shoot high school volleyball, with a DX/APS-C D7200, and use the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 primes.
These two lenses were chosen specifically for speed, to let me shoot at ISO 3200, 1/800 sec, f/2.

I shoot manual because the dark end walls, the lighted sign at the scorekeepers desk, and the lighted scoreboard confuses the meter.
I determine/confirm the correct exposure during pre-game warm-up.​

The AF speed of the 35 and 50 could be faster, but are generally fine. I found that on a quick subject shift and shoot, the 1st frame is usually out of focus, but the 2nd frame is in focus. To put this in perspective, this is similar to the 70-200/4 lens when I shoot soccer, where many times on a quick subject shift and shoot, the 1st frame is sometimes out of focus. The difference is that I don't shift subjects and shoot soccer as fast as I do volleyball, so the lens has more time to focus on the subject.

Because I shoot for the Athletic Director and the Yearbook, my pics are usually not the tight shots that a parent may be interested in. I saw one parent on the bottom row of the bleachers with a 70-200 in the gym. Volleyball that close, with a 70-200 But, I think he was shooting tight shots of just HIS daughter, whereas I shoot plays of usually more than one player. So I was shooting wider than he was.
The other thing that I learned was, it is much easier to track fast action when I am not tightly cropping in the camera. I do my cropping in the computer.

OK, why would you even consider a LONG lens like a 100-400 for volleyball ?
Or are you thinking about it for other sports?

As for locations

• I usually shoot from about the net, with the 35.
  Sometimes going up the bleachers, with the 50, so that I am level with the top of the net. This lets me get a clear shot of the player on the far side spiking the ball. But the 50 is a bit short for the other side of the court, when I am half way up the bleachers.
  
• Sometimes I go to the back of the court (with the 50) and shoot towards the net. But when shooting through the net, the odds are good that the AF will lock onto the net and put the players out of focus.

There is no perfect lens. Each has pros and cons.

• For any shot, a prime is either the correct FL, too long or too short. IOW it will be the wrong FL 2/3 of the time.
  
• Subject close to me, I use the 35/1.8. But the spiker right in front of me is tough, as the 35 is not wide enough for that close distance.
  
• Farther from me I use the 50/1.8. But it isn't long enough to get the far corner of the court. And when the action comes close, the 50 is too tight.
• Zooms are slow. Even the fast f/2.8 pro zooms are slower than the f/1.8 primes. Sigma finally broke that barrier with a couple f/1.8 DX zooms.
  
• The 17-50/2.8 has a nice focal range, but I loose 1 stop of light, compared to the primes.
  
• A 24-70/2.8 on a DX camera would be a great lens, but heavy and expensive. And 1 stop slower than the primes.
• A 24-120/4 on a FX camera would be great for close to far coverage, but 2 stops slower than the primes.

I tried using the Sigma 17-50/2.8 (on the Canon T7i), but the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction from a Nikon zoom. This was causing me to constantly turn the zoom ring the wrong way, to the point that I was totally frustrated. So after about 20 minutes, I put the Canon and Sigma in the bag, and just shot with my Nikon. When shooting fast sports, muscle memory of which way the zoom ring turns is important. The zoom ring of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 turns in the same direction as the Nikon zooms.

 

[RVT1K]

You really can't beat extra reach for sports.

I bought a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 + a 1.7x tele-converter and use it a lot for motorsports and nature. Being able to zoom in and out gives a lot of flexibility with where you can observe from and framing shots.

I don't have any Sigma lenses but I do have three third-party lenses and have had excellent experiences with them.

 

[ac12]

You really can't beat extra reach for sports.

I bought a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 + a 1.7x tele-converter and use it a lot for motorsports and nature. Being able to zoom in and out gives a lot of flexibility with where you can observe from and framing shots.

There is such a thing as "too long."
In volleyball on the court floor, when a 35 is too tight for the close shots, a 70-200 is way too long. But it would be OK for the farther/tighter shots to mid and far court or shooting from the bleachers.

It all depends on the sport, where you are vs. where the subject is (distance), and how tight or loose you frame.

I agree a zoom is sooooo much nicer than a prime, for FL flexibility. But when I am shooting in a dim gym, the fast prime wins. That is until Nikon matches/beats Sigma and makes a FAST short zoom with a 3:1 range.

I do not like Sigma for sports, because the zoom ring turn in the opposite direction than my Nikon zooms. That is too confusing when shooting sports where muscle memory drives the zoom ring.​

 

[RVT1K]

Unfortunately the unwashed masses are rarely given the luxury of observing spots up-close and personal. I'm afraid that I've never encountered "too close" yet.

 

[ac12]

Unfortunately the unwashed masses are rarely given the luxury of observing spots up-close and personal. I'm afraid that I've never encountered "too close" yet.

If you are on the first couple row of the high school bleachers, you are CLOSE.
Because I cannot get up quickly from a kneeling position, on the sidelines I usually sit on the first row of the bleachers.

But I understand where you are coming from. For most of the high school sports that I shoot, the general public is not allowed to go where I go. Although as I get older, being on the field/court is getting tougher. I don't move as fast as I used to, so the issue is keeping out of trouble, and not getting hurt. So I may be joining you in the bleachers.
College and pro level games, I agree, us non-pros will be in the bleachers. And us with affordable price tickets will be way up in the rafters.

 

[RVT1K]

The only sports I've photographed were motorsports and was strictly for fun. The pro photographers are always on the other side of the fence. Often between the spectators and the action.

 

[ac12]

The only sports I've photographed were motorsports and was strictly for fun. The pro photographers are always on the other side of the fence. Often between the spectators and the action.

That is one sport where I would rather be farther from the action.
Being near FAST moving cars is on the other side of the DANGER line for me.

 

[shadowlands]

I use either my 80mm 1.8D or my 180mm 2.8D depending on distance of subject. Love 'em both!
Sold my former 70-200 F2.8 for the 180mm and never looked back. So much easier to travel with. I hike/travel often, so that played a roll.

 

[Strodav]

Highly recommend the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 along with a 1.4x or even a 1.7x teleconverter for more reach. I also keep the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 in my bag for those wider team shots before and after a game. The last lens in the Trinity is a 14-24mm f/2.8, which I also keep in my bag for shots of the field. Those three lenses will work for 99% of all shots you will ever take unless you are into wildlife / birding, then I'd add the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6.

 

[BillM]

I'm the sports shooter for my local high school and also freelance for the local papers. For indoor sports I use my 70-200 f/2.8 95% of the time, I also carry a 24-70, on a spare body, for group photos when needed, the other 5%. That covers everything from basketball to volleyball. For Wrestling sometimes I'd use a 120-300, but I recently sold that and will just use the 70-200 for that too in DX mode on a full frame. A 300 f/4 is a nice lighter lens to carry for outdoor sports like softball during the day. For small town high school Friday night football a long f/2.8 makes life easier but you can use f/4 to keep the cost down. But that's just my opinion, hope it helps.

 

[ac12]

I'm the sports shooter for my local high school and also freelance for the local papers. For indoor sports I use my 70-200 f/2.8 95% of the time, I also carry a 24-70, on a spare body, for group photos when needed, the other 5%. That covers everything from basketball to volleyball. For Wrestling sometimes I'd use a 120-300, but I recently sold that and will just use the 70-200 for that too in DX mode on a full frame. A 300 f/4 is a nice lighter lens to carry for outdoor sports like softball during the day. For small town high school Friday night football a long f/2.8 makes life easier but you can use f/4 to keep the cost down. But that's just my opinion, hope it helps.

Bill
Would you please enlighten me, HOW do you use a 70-200 in a gym?
Are you shooting tight shots of individual players?
Unless I am shooting the far court or the other side of the court, I can't figure using a 70-200 in the gym.
A 16-80 or 24-70 on a DX body seems about right for how I shoot.
I currently shoot with a 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 (to deal with the low light in the gym), but I might get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or one of the 24-70/2.8.

 

[tirediron]

For small court sports, I would go with the 24-70 and 70-200; the former for action, wide shots, and the latter for close-ups, the server concentrating, the winning spike, etc.

 

[BillM]

Bill
Would you please enlighten me, HOW do you use a 70-200 in a gym?
Are you shooting tight shots of individual players?
Unless I am shooting the far court or the other side of the court, I can't figure using a 70-200 in the gym.
A 16-80 or 24-70 on a DX body seems about right for how I shoot.
I currently shoot with a 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 (to deal with the low light in the gym), but I might get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or one of the 24-70/2.8.

Hi
Well I shoot full frame but even then I typically shoot at 160-200 MM. And while I do get a lot of action shots not everything has to be action shots. You want to capture the emotion, the fact that they are kids and they are out there having fun. A couple of examples.

And a lot more here if you want to poke around, not all the shots are "keepers" but I try to get shots of everybody Hope that helps.