Indoor sports lens suggestions

[threecrazykids]

I've mentioned my desire to own the coveted Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for my kids indoor sports shots (volleyball and wrestling), but I just about barf every time I think about spending that much on a lens since I'm just a mom with a love for photography.

I have been doing a little searching around and am wondering if (for MY needs) it would/could suffice to purchase either the Tamron or Sigma version.

I know, I know...there is probably no comparison but since I've never actually SHOT a Nikon, will I, as an amateur ever even know the difference?

Here are the two I'm considering...


http://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_70-200_2p8_vc

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200m...id=1410532934&sr=1-2&keywords=sigma+f2.8+zoom

I only have a Nikon D40, and considered upgrading but everyone says for my needs this camera is just fine - spend the $ on the glass.

So - to be able to get those low light/fast moving shots which would YOU pick if you didn't have an organ to sacrifice to have the Nikon?

 

[havoc315]

Both those lenses are exceptional based on the reviews. You likely will not notice a significant difference versus the Nikon.

You can also save even more money if you consider buying a slightly older model used, again without much noticeable difference in quality.

A review of the Tamron:

http://www.lenstip.com/375.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html

A review of the Sigma:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/763-sigmaex7020028os?start=2

If your Nikon body has a screw motor, I'd also consider an older used prime lens like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikko...94136061?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4ada8b34fd

I shoot with a Minolta 200/2.8 prime as my indoor sports lens. Yes, it misses the convenience of a zoom, but I zoom to the maximum for most indoor sports anyway. The lens is much smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a 70-200/2.8, and the image quality is actually higher because it is a prime lens.

Indoor "sports" sample with the 200/2.8:

blackbelt-150.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

dance-110.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[mom2rtk]

Depending on the focal length you want, Sigma also makes a 50-150 f/2.8 OS lens that gets good reviews. I have one for Canon and am very happy with it.

If you don't need OS, they made a version without stabilization that is now out of production but that you might be able to find used. It's a nice sharp lens in a much lighter smaller package than the one with OS.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I have used the Sigma II MACRO version of the 70-200 for many years. It is my go to lens. It's always on one of my cameras. There are many purists who will only use OEM lenses, but I am not one of them. To the normal eye, there will be very little difference. The professional and pixel peepers may see the difference.

 

[photo_chick]

I have used the Sigma II MACRO version of the 70-200 for many years. It is my go to lens. It's always on one of my cameras. There are many purists who will only use OEM lenses, but I am not one of them. To the normal eye, there will be very little difference. The professional and pixel peepers may see the difference.

That right there is the key. If it will suffice depends entirely on your personal point of view. For some it does just fine, for others it doesn't.

OP.. I'm going to bring up one point... while the D40 might meet most of your needs, it's old. It's ISO performance is pretty pathetic compared to the current DSLR lineup as is it's auto focus system. Among other things. IF you intend to shoot a lot of indoor sports a body upgrade MIGHT benefit you. There are a lot of factors to consider though.

 

[mom2rtk]

That right there is the key. If it will suffice depends entirely on your personal point of view. For some it does just fine, for others it doesn't.

OP.. I'm going to bring up one point... while the D40 might meet most of your needs, it's old. It's ISO performance is pretty pathetic compared to the current DSLR lineup as is it's auto focus system. Among other things. IF you intend to shoot a lot of indoor sports a body upgrade MIGHT benefit you. There are a lot of factors to consider though.

That's pretty important. Depending on the sport, you will likely need to be comfortable going to at least 3200 ISO. I do OK at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 but sometimes find myself wanting a higher ISO, which I don't like to do on my camera. If it's daytime and there are windows, it might not be an issue.

 

[threecrazykids]

Thank you to everyone for the replies! I know I probably should upgrade my camera...I have been considering it for quite some time. It's more a matter of deciding where to spend my $...do I spend it on a new body, or spending it on new glass?

I will look into the prime options, but without an internal motor I don't have many.

I may have to just suck it up and spend the money on an upgraded body - I just don't want to overspend for features/options I likely won't use.

Maybe finding a used body would be a better option for me.

 

[SkaGoat]

Thank you to everyone for the replies! I know I probably should upgrade my camera...I have been considering it for quite some time. It's more a matter of deciding where to spend my $...do I spend it on a new body, or spending it on new glass?

I will look into the prime options, but without an internal motor I don't have many.

I may have to just suck it up and spend the money on an upgraded body - I just don't want to overspend for features/options I likely won't use.

Maybe finding a used body would be a better option for me.

I think the money is better spent on better, faster glass, both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 are great options, they also make great portrait lenses. I would buy a f/2.8 zoom now, and save up to upgrade your body down the road. Maybe look for used versions.

 

[fritodenny]

I think the money is better spent on better, faster glass, both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 are great options, they also make great portrait lenses. I would buy a f/2.8 zoom now, and save up to upgrade your body down the road. Maybe look for used versions.

I also think this is your best option. Last spring I got a used Tameron 70-200 f2.8 for $500 on Ebay. It doesn't have VC, but it was all I could spend on it at the time. I used it to photograph track and I'm planning on using it for indoor competion cheer.

 

[threecrazykids]

I think the money is better spent on better, faster glass, both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 are great options, they also make great portrait lenses. I would buy a f/2.8 zoom now, and save up to upgrade your body down the road. Maybe look for used versions.

I also think this is your best option. Last spring I got a used Tameron 70-200 f2.8 for $500 on Ebay. It doesn't have VC, but it was all I could spend on it at the time. I used it to photograph track and I'm planning on using it for indoor competion cheer.

I think this is the route I'm going to likely take...getting a used 70-200 f/2.8.
Do you find have a lot of blur on your pictures without VC? I have been using my 50mm 1.8 for indoor volleyball as I sit as close as I can to the floor...I don't get any blur, but again...it's super fast. The blur is what about puts me over the edge because I can deal with editing the lighting in post processing - can't take away the blur.

 

[havoc315]

I think this is the route I'm going to likely take...getting a used 70-200 f/2.8.
Do you find have a lot of blur on your pictures without VC? I have been using my 50mm 1.8 for indoor volleyball as I sit as close as I can to the floor...I don't get any blur, but again...it's super fast. The blur is what about puts me over the edge because I can deal with editing the lighting in post processing - can't take away the blur.

If you are zoomed in at 200mm on your APS-C camera, you should be able to avoid blur with very very good technique (knowing how to old the camera to minimize shake) and by keeping your shutter speed up -- 1/300-1/500+

Problem becomes getting a high enough ISO and enough exposure to get away with such a fast shutter speed indoors. You can also try a monopod to help you balance the camera, which may help you shoot around 1/150-1/200 range.

 

[SkaGoat]

If you are zoomed in at 200mm on your APS-C camera, you should be able to avoid blur with very very good technique (knowing how to old the camera to minimize shake) and by keeping your shutter speed up -- 1/300-1/500+

Problem becomes getting a high enough ISO and enough exposure to get away with such a fast shutter speed indoors. You can also try a monopod to help you balance the camera, which may help you shoot around 1/150-1/200 range.

Personally, I take a little noise, over motion blur any day. I'd set my camera to M, set the Aperture to f/2.8, then set the shutter speed to 1/1000th, then adjust the ISO until you get a good exposure.

Inside a gym, you don't need to worry about changing light, so once you've set it, it should be good for the whole event.

 

[mom2rtk]

I think this is the route I'm going to likely take...getting a used 70-200 f/2.8.
Do you find have a lot of blur on your pictures without VC? I have been using my 50mm 1.8 for indoor volleyball as I sit as close as I can to the floor...I don't get any blur, but again...it's super fast. The blur is what about puts me over the edge because I can deal with editing the lighting in post processing - can't take away the blur.

I really prefer my 2.8 zoom that has OS. However, those lenses are much heavier and bulkier so I find myself using the one without OS a lot more. It's certainly a lot easier to carry around.

Ideally, if you are shooting sports, you're going to need a shutter speed fast enough to avoid motion blur anyway.

 

[Geoff_M]

OP.. I'm going to bring up one point... while the D40 might meet most of your needs, it's old. It's ISO performance is pretty pathetic compared to the current DSLR lineup as is it's auto focus system. Among other things. IF you intend to shoot a lot of indoor sports a body upgrade MIGHT benefit you. There are a lot of factors to consider though.

Agreed. The D40 is an 8-year-old camera. You can get a refurb'ed D5300 via NikonUSA.com now for $650. DxOMark's benchmark low-light ISO score is 1,284 for that body versus 561 for the D40. That's over a 1-stop advantage in noise performance, plus you jump from 6 MP to 24. This would allow you to get the same noise/shutter speed "bang" at f4 on the D5300 that you would with the D40 at f2.8.

The 70-200 f2.8 is my "bread-n-butter" lens for sports photography. I'd recommend you look at a used Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens. The VR isn't as pricey as the VR-II.

 

[xlxo]

I've mentioned my desire to own the coveted Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for my kids indoor sports shots (volleyball and wrestling), but I just about barf every time I think about spending that much on a lens since I'm just a mom with a love for photography.

I have been doing a little searching around and am wondering if (for MY needs) it would/could suffice to purchase either the Tamron or Sigma version.

I know, I know...there is probably no comparison but since I've never actually SHOT a Nikon, will I, as an amateur ever even know the difference?

Here are the two I'm considering...


http://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_70-200_2p8_vc

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200m...id=1410532934&sr=1-2&keywords=sigma+f2.8+zoom

I only have a Nikon D40, and considered upgrading but everyone says for my needs this camera is just fine - spend the $ on the glass.

So - to be able to get those low light/fast moving shots which would YOU pick if you didn't have an organ to sacrifice to have the Nikon?

Some thoughts...

• The only Tammy lens I purchased as the 28-300mm. The lens was great, but would not autofocus in low light properly when zoomed out to 300mm. I lost a lot of good pics. When Nikon announced their 28-300mm.... I sold my Tammy so quickly and got the Nikon version for the auto-focus. Before putting money down on a Tammy, go to the store and test the auto-focus first
• Tammy's VC was better for hand-held at stationary subjects, but I found Nikon's VR was better for moving objects like in sports
• for something smaller and cheaper.... have you considered an 85mm f/1.8 and just crop your images?
• The D40 has the older CCD sensor (love CCD images) and lacks lower noise found in the newer CMOS models like the D3300.
• if you find packing the lens heavy and considering a tripod. Look at a gimbal mount or a wimberely sidekick. This makes my lens float while I track my moving subjects.

 

[havoc315]

Personally, I take a little noise, over motion blur any day. I'd set my camera to M, set the Aperture to f/2.8, then set the shutter speed to 1/1000th, then adjust the ISO until you get a good exposure.

Inside a gym, you don't need to worry about changing light, so once you've set it, it should be good for the whole event.

You really don't need 1/1000 to avoid motion blur unless it is very very fast action.
And if OP is shooting with the d40... There I'd only so high you can push the ISO.

I agree with shooting M -- open your aperture to it's widest. Then set your ISO to the highest "good" level. If you can get good enough shutter speed, you're set. If your shutter is too slow, then start bumping ISO into the more borderline area.
I agree -- motion blur is worse than noise.

 

[Geoff_M]

You really don't need 1/1000 to avoid motion blur unless it is very very fast action.
And if OP is shooting with the d40... There I'd only so high you can push the ISO.

Agreed... I generally shoot ice hockey at 1/500 sec (1/400 in a pinch) and except for fast puck shots I usually see no motion blur in my subjects.

The OP should be fine for wrestling at less than 1/1000, but I can see that for volleyball at less than that ball and arm motion might be an issue for certain things like serves and spikes.

 

[threecrazykids]

Some thoughts...

• The only Tammy lens I purchased as the 28-300mm. The lens was great, but would not autofocus in low light properly when zoomed out to 300mm. I lost a lot of good pics. When Nikon announced their 28-300mm.... I sold my Tammy so quickly and got the Nikon version for the auto-focus. Before putting money down on a Tammy, go to the store and test the auto-focus first
• Tammy's VC was better for hand-held at stationary subjects, but I found Nikon's VR was better for moving objects like in sports
• for something smaller and cheaper.... have you considered an 85mm f/1.8 and just crop your images?
• The D40 has the older CCD sensor (love CCD images) and lacks lower noise found in the newer CMOS models like the D3300.
• if you find packing the lens heavy and considering a tripod. Look at a gimbal mount or a wimberely sidekick. This makes my lens float while I track my moving subjects.

Thank you for these considerations - I just feel like my head is reeling right now.
I am such an amateur - but I LOVE doing sports photography and family pics alike - it's finding just a couple lenses to do well in both areas.
I hadn't considered an 85mm and then crop...but that is a great idea! I don't know why I didn't consider it since I have been using my 50mm and cropping those...and they turn out much better than my zoom lens due to the higher aperture. That motion blur is non-existent with my 50mm. I just have to sit right next to the floor to get those closer shots.

Thanks again for the ideas! I am going to see if I can find someone who has an 85mm to try out and see how I like it!

 

[threecrazykids]

Agreed... I generally shoot ice hockey at 1/500 sec (1/400 in a pinch) and except for fast puck shots I usually see no motion blur in my subjects.

The OP should be fine for wrestling at less than 1/1000, but I can see that for volleyball at less than that ball and arm motion might be an issue for certain things like serves and spikes.

That's exactly the issue...I just want to scream every time I get a great shot and then look at it only to see that arm blur.

URGH!!

I just wish I could take everyone's knowledge and download it into my brain - there are so many technical aspects to consider and composition formulas my brain just says "whoa there Nelly...slow it down - too much info".

 

[threecrazykids]

Been doing a little searching - what about doing a smaller upgrade of the body without spending a huge amount of $$ in that area...say, looking into a D90? I'd be able to get the internal focus motor, and the higher ISO (6400) capabilities which seem to be the biggest limitations of my D40.

Here's where I found a comparison for all you smarty pants who know all the photog garb...lol:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D40-vs-Nikon_D90