Sports Lens

KevinIsGlad · Oct 21, 2011

What is a good lens for indoor sports photography. Something with sufficient focal length and a low enough aperture to let more light in. I am shooting with a D7000 right now and have an 18-200mm nikkor f3.5-5.6 V2

sierramister · Oct 21, 2011

Which indoor sports? Basketball be done with a 50 or 85mm f/1.8. But you might want to consider a 70-200 f/2.8, depending on which sport your shooting.

Patrice · Oct 21, 2011

You can surmise from Sierramister's post that the sport you want to photograph will have a large impact on the lens you would need. The angle of view (magnification) you prefer will also have an impact.

Indoor sports are not the brightest of events so the faster lenses give you an advantage. F/2.8 is considered by many to be the slowest you would want.

Wide views of a high school basketball game could be done with 50 mm but detailed images of the pain on a tackled players face in a pro football game would best be achieved with a 400 to 600 mm lens, especially if photographing from the nose bleed seats.

A vr lens is not a necessity here. Vr does not stop action, only mitigates camera shake. Money would be better spent on a really good monopod and a strong camera mount for it.

Big Mike · Oct 21, 2011

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR Autofocus Lens 2171 B&H

MLeeK · Oct 21, 2011

I use a 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sigma lens for most sports. The only sport I have trouble with it being too tight is sometimes volleyball. On a crop sensor it'd a bit tighter, but not enough to keep me from using it on my 7d. Because I shoot with 2 cameras I keep a 28-75 f/2.8 on the 7d in a gym and it works well for Volleyball. Volleyball is the hardest sport for me. I find that I am able to her better results when I can use an aperture of 4 or better. You have to prepare for the shot before it happens and missed focus is very easy to get.
With football I wish I had a 400mm of any sort, but money is an issue there, so I do not. My 70-200 does beautifully. I do have problems with MAJOR details on the far side of the field whenever they are anywhere but directly across from me. The images are clear and crisp, but I won't see faces or eyes in them.
I went with the Sigma after using the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. The Tamron is a great lens, but it is macro capable making it a bit slow on the focus. Normally you probably wouldn't notice it, but if you are really serious about sports you may well feel it. The sigma also has the OS which is NICE to have for everything else. Both lenses are sharp, but the sigma is noticeably sharper to me. I wish it were the canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, but my kids have stripped the money tree bare.
If the Sigma 70-200 OS is out of your budget, sigma does make a non OS version that I would choose over the Tamron. It too ia macro capable, but its focus is supposed to be faster according to reviews. If it is anywhere near as sharpas my sigma you will love it.