Choosing a 70-200 f2.8 for indoor sports.

[dkhillerud]

I bought the older version Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for use with my Nikon D5100 a few months ago. Using it indoors for sports, color guard, fast action, lots of movement.

After using it for a few months it is just not adequate for indoor use. Works great for action outdoors, but indoors the focus hunts and does not lock. All my photos are slightly out of focus.

I am trying to decide what my best option is. The camera store I bought it from suggests trading it back in for the newer Tamron version that they say focuses much faster. Cost $1400.

For about the same cost, maybe less, I could get a used Nikon 70-200 VR. I am thinking this would be the better option. I know there is a 70-200 VR ii, but since I don't shoot full frame my understanding is the VR would be fine.

I want a lens that doesn't hunt focus in low light, ie high school gymnasiums.

Thanks for any advice!

 

[nvtsallo]

I shoot canon but can say if it were me and a third party lens was not cutting it then I wouldjust get the best snd be done. Vote goes for the 70-200 2.8 vr ii. It should alleviate your focus hunting issues or look for a 200mm prime f2 i know the current one is expensive but they may have a older model. It would allow you to shoot at f2. But really a nikon d600 should be what your considering for higher iso low light work.

 

[hakepb]

I thought the D5100 had the D7000 sensor which is very highly regarded for High ISO. RAW ISO 3200 should still be very good.

Now the D5200 adds the 47 point AF tracking system from the D7000 so it may do a better job locking focus... But AF tracking performance is one of hose things that improves greatly wih more expensive cameras.

 

[photo_chick]

I bought the older version Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for use with my Nikon D5100 a few months ago. Using it indoors for sports, color guard, fast action, lots of movement.

After using it for a few months it is just not adequate for indoor use. Works great for action outdoors, but indoors the focus hunts and does not lock. All my photos are slightly out of focus.

I am trying to decide what my best option is. The camera store I bought it from suggests trading it back in for the newer Tamron version that they say focuses much faster. Cost $1400.

For about the same cost, maybe less, I could get a used Nikon 70-200 VR. I am thinking this would be the better option. I know there is a 70-200 VR ii, but since I don't shoot full frame my understanding is the VR would be fine.

I want a lens that doesn't hunt focus in low light, ie high school gymnasiums.

Thanks for any advice!

Rent. It's a lot of money to spend and not know for sure that a particular lens will solve your issue. Try the different options out and make sure the next one you buy is exactly what you want.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Thats great advice for what could be a $2k + lens!

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Because my manufacturer does not make a 70-200 f2.8, I chose the Sigma for just the reason you are having problems with the older Tamron. It has the faster internal focusing motor (HSM=Hyper Sonic Motor). If the expense is no issue then by all means go for the latest and greatest OEM. If its an issue, the latest third party lenses are a viable option. I know many buy used lenses with success, I'm not one who jumps on that bandwagon. At the time of purchase, I prefer the latest iteration. IMHO there is a reason new lenses of the same focal length are introduced. They are improved. Just my $.02.

 

[dkhillerud]

I am very pleased with the ISO performance of the 5100, use ISO 3200 and am happy with the results. I also use the Nikon 35 mm f1.8 and have no problems with that lens hunting for focus, even in low light.

I don't think I did enough research prior to buying the tamron. Have been looking for tips regarding focusing in low light sports and am now finding this lens just doesn't perform well in this area.

So that's why I'm looking for another option. I would prefer to stay around $1500 that's why I was wondering about the difference between the Nikon lenses.

I will check out the sigma, hadn't looked at that one.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

You have the same sensor in your 5100 that is in my K5. I don't have very many indoor sports, but I do shoot with the Sigma outdoors at night. Here are a couple. Of course, there is always some PP.


MVMCP 10 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr


TDD4 4566 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

I consider the lens to be very capable.

 

[mabas9395]

You say that all of your photos are slightly out of focus. Since I'm not familiar with your photography background/experience, I'm forced to ask if even with the f/2.8 if you are able to get fast enough shutter speeds? In other words, are you confident that all of your out of focus shots are due to slow focusing by the lens and not due to motion blur due to slow shutter speeds?

Indoor sports are famous for being the worst conditions for photography. Often times, you don't have any control over the lighting in a gym and there might not be enough light to get a shutter speed that will freeze the action.

If you post some samples with the settings you used (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) the people on the board can probably help you figure it out if you are unsure.

That being said, while I love the one Sigma lens I have, it does not focus anywhere near as fast as my Canon lenses. So maybe the Nikon could be the better choice for you.

 

[AndrewWG]

I am guessing here that the focus issue is that the lens is not image stabilized and you are more than likely taking photos with too slow a shutter speed. You can get away with too slow a shutter speed if it is image stabilized but being at 100-200mm, you need a pretty fast shutter speed to keep that focus sharp. Jack up the ISO to get to 1/500 or so. This doesn't mean the lens is bad, but the focus hunting is annoying I'm sure. Better pictures outdoors makes me think the shutter speed is considerably faster there too (which it should be).

 

[dkhillerud]

I had the ISO at 3200 which gave me a shutter speed of 1/320 or 1/400 for most shots. The green light indicating focus lock would just flicker, like the lens was trying to lock in focus but wouldn't. Here are a few pictures.


Winter Guard by hillekm, on Flickr


Winter Guard by hillekm, on Flickr


_DSC0197 by hillekm, on Flickr

Thoughts on what I could do different appreciated!

 

[AndrewWG]

Those don't look bad to me at all really. Pretty typical of indoor sports/action photos. Maybe a little more post processing could make them a bit better but overall I think they look good.

The shutter speed should be fast enough for hand held (so that you aren't getting blurriness from camera shake) but I have found that the faster you can go the better it will be. Eventually you get diminished returns where the ISO is SO high that the noise you have to remove from the photo blurs it a bit more than a smaller ISO setting and shorter shutter speed would.

I am not good at explaining this stuff. Others on here are. Still, I think that the shots look to be pretty good to me. There is a little blur from the action but overall pretty decent!

 

[photo_chick]

I had the ISO at 3200 which gave me a shutter speed of 1/320 or 1/400 for most shots. The green light indicating focus lock would just flicker, like the lens was trying to lock in focus but wouldn't. Here are a few pictures.


Thoughts on what I could do different appreciated!

There is some missed focus going on, but there is also some motion blur. You need a faster shutter speed.

 

[havoc315]

I had the ISO at 3200 which gave me a shutter speed of 1/320 or 1/400 for most shots. The green light indicating focus lock would just flicker, like the lens was trying to lock in focus but wouldn't. Here are a few pictures.


Winter Guard by hillekm, on Flickr


Winter Guard by hillekm, on Flickr


_DSC0197 by hillekm, on Flickr

Thoughts on what I could do different appreciated!

I thought the focus was pretty good in the first and third shots. Some motion blur of the hands and such, but that's to be expected. Her face is in pretty good focus.

In the center shot, the AF system got distracted by the board that entered the shot in front of your daughter. (looks to me, like what's what happened).

I don't know Canon well, but what are your auto-focus settings?

Sports action, is the main time when I *don't* use spot-auto focus, I'll use "wide" or whatever the corresponding mode is. I'll use AF-C mode, to maintain continuous auto-focus. And I'll often shoot in a burst mode... Getting 5-10 bursts of the action, and then keeping the 1 or 2 best of the bunch.

 

[hakepb]

Have you tried other AF modes? AF-C seems to be a preferred mode in sports.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5100/af-settings.htm

 

[dkhillerud]

I have a Nikon D5100. I have been setting the focus mode to AF-C with single point focus, then I set the focus point right on her face. Would you suggest something else?

 

[havoc315]

I have a Nikon D5100. I have been setting the focus mode to AF-C with single point focus, then I set the focus point right on her face. Would you suggest something else?

Personally, with fast moving action -- it's the one time I really don't use single point focus. At least for me, there is too much movement to focus and then re-compose the shot. I want to be able to just click away.... and the point that I want focused is not usually the dead center of the picture.

On the Nikon, based on the manual, you can try the 3-d tracking mode, or the auto-area AF.

Using auto-area AF, would give you the most freedom to just click as fast as possible. Camera will pick the focus point entirely on its own. Sometimes it will pick the right point, sometimes it won't. But to me, it's easier and faster than trying to nail the focus with spot-focus, when dealing with people in motion.

 

[dkhillerud]

Personally, with fast moving action -- it's the one time I really don't use single point focus. At least for me, there is too much movement to focus and then re-compose the shot. I want to be able to just click away.... and the point that I want focused is not usually the dead center of the picture.

On the Nikon, based on the manual, you can try the 3-d tracking mode, or the auto-area AF.

Using auto-area AF, would give you the most freedom to just click as fast as possible. Camera will pick the focus point entirely on its own. Sometimes it will pick the right point, sometimes it won't. But to me, it's easier and faster than trying to nail the focus with spot-focus, when dealing with people in motion.

Yes, moving the focus point around is a pain, and hard to do with her moving so fast. I tried the auto area AF and found that it would pick the wrong focus point too often. Looking back through my pictures though, I could have easily zoomed in closer and that would probably help the camera to know what to focus on.

Maybe I've been going about this the wrong way? I've been shooting at about 150-180 mm thinking that I can just crop in later. I would probably be better off shooting at 200 mm and trying to get the shot right from the start.

 

[havoc315]

I know when I'm shooting my kids sports... My key is to always take a ton of photos.
I may walk away from 5 minutes of Tae Kwon Do sparring with 50 pictures.
Knowing that even if I missed the focus on 90% of the shots.. I'll still walk away with 5 really good shots.
If I tried to individually nail the spot focus on each shot and re-compose... I'd end up with far fewer shots, and doubt I'd be any more successful in getting the focus.

 

[ejcraft]

Kathy, have you considered using a prime either an 85mm or a 100mm? I also shoot colorguard and found that as much as I would like a zoom, I could never get the speed, because as they say you need to keep it at least at 1/500. So I started shooting with my 85mm which is a 1.8 ( I shoot canon) You might consider renting both of the above lenses, and see if they work for you? by the way what guard and level are you shooting? My daughter competes from NY we just won the WGI Eastern Scholastic A Championship,and then the local MAC Scholastic national A championship, what a whirl wind season it was.