Need lens advice

[threecrazykids]

I am in need of some advice please I'm trying to find a somewhat reasonable lens for indoor sports (volleyball, wrestling) so I purchased a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR in the hopes it would allow me some great action shots. Didnt seem to help. Still getting lots of blur. I did get SOME shots that were good, but not as many as I'd like.

I am not as worried about the 300 zoom as I am being able to capture the action shots. I have a week to return it, but I know it will be an excellent lens for outdoor sports (softball, football) so I may end up keeping it.
I feel like I get better quality shots indoor with my 50mm 1.4 indoors but I can't get as close as I'd like for those up close action shots.

Any suggestions? I am willing to take back the 70-300 if there is a lens you all think would satisfy both indoor and outdoor in a similar price range. I shoot on a Nikon D40 so I know at some point I have to bite the bullet and upgrade, but at this point I'd rather spend my $$ on the glass if there is anything that you all think would do better indoors (and NOT cost me my two children and left arm). Any suggestions??

 

[SplashMo]

You could try the 85/1.8G. You might eventually decide to get a Nikon D5200 for not so much if you shop around. Then you can increase the ISO. You might try that with your current camera. Though the 70-300 is not ideal for indoor.

 

[havoc315]

It's about the aperture and shutter speed. Are you simply shooting in auto mode?
Of course you're 50/1.4 is getting better pictures because:
- at 300 mm you need a faster shutter speed just to avoid motion blur than you need at 50.
-1.4 aperture allows in a lot more light than 5.6, allowing for faster shutter speeds.

The ideal lens for indoor sports is a 70-200 2.8. That will safely allow you to double or even quadruple your shutter speeds. But such lenses are much more expensive and much heavier.

You can probably get better shots with your 70-300 by just using better settings. Bump up the ISO and shutter speed. You'll get more graininess in the shots due to high ISO, but you'll get less blur.

Another affordable solution is a prime lens. For Nikon, look for a used 180/2.8. Can't zoom in and out, but gives you a nice telephoto length with a fast aperture, without spending massively and without carrying a tank.

 

[My2Girls66]

I've gotten some decent shots of indoor cheer competitions with my 35 and 50mm 1.8 lenses. Which one would depend on how close to the floor I could sit. Usually I used the 35 because I was able to sit near the floor. A little cropping helped too!

 

[threecrazykids]

I am new to this and yes, I finally just said screw it and put it on "sports" mode on my camera when the pictures kept turning out either super dark or a blurry mess when I tried to be all cool and shoot in manual.

Patience is a virtue, right?

I tried upping the shutter speed manually, but of course didn't change the ISO. I am going to try to up the ISO as well and see if that helps this weekend.

And I mayyyyy just consider selling my oldest for that 70-200. He's gotta be worth a couple grand, right?

 

[wiigirl]

You could try the 85/1.8G. You might eventually decide to get a Nikon D5200 for not so much if you shop around. Then you can increase the ISO. You might try that with your current camera. Though the 70-300 is not ideal for indoor.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Fast primes and zooms will both work. You have ventured into an area that is one of the more difficult to shoot. Poor photography lighting and action. Whether a prime will work for you will depend on your ability to foot zoom. I have seen 85mm primes work and I have seen longer primes work. It all depends on the focal length that is required for each sport. Rather than carry several primes (like we did in the old days because the image quality was better) most sports photographers prefer a zoom lens today. They will also have the primes in their bag, if needed. Zoom lens image quality has greatly improved from the old days. If what you are going to shoot will require more than one prime, I would then recommend a fast zoom. The 70-200mm f2.8 is the most recommended zoom for what you are shooting. Depending on your budget and preference, third party providers, Tamron and Sigma, make a 70-200 f2.8 that is cheaper than the OEM. The image quality from the third party lens makers are getting better and are coming close to matching the OEM's. That would be your choice as to the direction you want to go. Havoc is correct that the fast zooms will be heavier, so that should be figured into your decision. I use them all the time, so I don't notice the extra weight. In fact, I have just the opposite problem, I feel uncomfortable with equipment that is too light!

 

[havoc315]

I am new to this and yes, I finally just said screw it and put it on "sports" mode on my camera when the pictures kept turning out either super dark or a blurry mess when I tried to be all cool and shoot in manual.

Patience is a virtue, right?

I tried upping the shutter speed manually, but of course didn't change the ISO. I am going to try to up the ISO as well and see if that helps this weekend.

And I mayyyyy just consider selling my oldest for that 70-200. He's gotta be worth a couple grand, right?

The 2 big factors with the 70-200 are the price AND the weight. It's a big heavy lens.

It's what you see the professional sports photographers using.

I've gotten some good action with a 70-300 4-5.6 and also a 135/2.8 prime.


untitled-86-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

(If you look too carefully, you see lots of noise. But in a normal size, it looks good)


untitled-155-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

(weak corners in this shot, but pretty nice in the center of the frame)


untitled-100.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


untitled-17.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Fast primes and zooms will both work. You have ventured into an area that is one of the more difficult to shoot. Poor photography lighting and action. Whether a prime will work for you will depend on your ability to foot zoom. I have seen 85mm primes work and I have seen longer primes work. It all depends on the focal length that is required for each sport. Rather than carry several primes (like we did in the old days because the image quality was better) most sports photographers prefer a zoom lens today. They will also have the primes in their bag, if needed. Zoom lens image quality has greatly improved from the old days. If what you are going to shoot will require more than one prime, I would then recommend a fast zoom. The 70-200mm f2.8 is the most recommended zoom for what you are shooting. Depending on your budget and preference, third party providers, Tamron and Sigma, make a 70-200 f2.8 that is cheaper than the OEM. The image quality from the third party lens makers are getting better and are coming close to matching the OEM's. That would be your choice as to the direction you want to go. Havoc is correct that the fast zooms will be heavier, so that should be figured into your decision. I use them all the time, so I don't notice the extra weight. In fact, I have just the opposite problem, I feel uncomfortable with equipment that is too light!

LOL. So the marketing trends aren't for you.

I go back and forth.... there are times I get fed up with heavy gear and want something nimble (and use my RX100)... and then there are times when, whether true or not, I feel like I get better quality out of a big system.

 

[threecrazykids]

The 2 big factors with the 70-200 are the price AND the weight. It's a big heavy lens.

It's what you see the professional sports photographers using.

I've gotten some good action with a 70-300 4-5.6 and also a 135/2.8 prime.


untitled-86-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

(If you look too carefully, you see lots of noise. But in a normal size, it looks good)


untitled-155-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

(weak corners in this shot, but pretty nice in the center of the frame)


untitled-100.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


untitled-17.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Those are GREAT shots! I'm obviously not looking for magazine quality shots - I'm just trying to get some of my daughter playing volleyball at this time, so this is exactly what I'm trying to achieve! I think I may just keep this lens and make do for now.

So, if I am going to try to shoot in manual, what would you guys suggest starting at for settings, and if it's too dark do I only up the ISO? And if I have good light, but blurry will just upping the shutter work, or will I have to up the ISO too do you think?

 

[havoc315]

Those are GREAT shots! I'm obviously not looking for magazine quality shots - I'm just trying to get some of my daughter playing volleyball at this time, so this is exactly what I'm trying to achieve! I think I may just keep this lens and make do for now.

So, if I am going to try to shoot in manual, what would you guys suggest starting at for settings, and if it's too dark do I only up the ISO? And if I have good light, but blurry will just upping the shutter work, or will I have to up the ISO too do you think?

Three settings are all connected (think of it as a triangle): Shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. They control light, to give you the correct exposure. Indoor light is almost always horrible. Even where you perceive decent light, it's only because your eyes have adjusted.

So to get a good shot of indoor sports, there are a few things you need:

1-- Enough light. Which you can get by increasing your ISO, decreasing your shutter speed (yes, decreasing it but see below), and increasing your aperture (a small number.. yes, it's reversed).

2-- A fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. With non stabilized lenses, as a rule of thumb... on your APS-C camera, if you are shooting at 300mm.. it is effectively 450mm, and you need to shoot at 1/450 for else the tiniest tremors of the camera will cause blurry pictures. With vibration reduction/stablization, you can get away with shooting slower. And remember, slower shooting lets in more light.... So perhaps you can shoot as low as 1/100 at 450mm... or 1/25 at 100mm.. for example... BUT...

3-- You also need a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. For slow moving action, that may be as slow as 1/100. But for example, when I take little league pictures of my son, I need about 1/1000 to freeze a baseball in might flight. The gymnastics pic of the girl in mid-air was at 1/400.

So let's put it all together now.
You're going to go to the maximum aperture. At 70mm, that's 4.5 on your lens. It's 5.6 at 300mm.
You then want the slowest possible shutter speed (to let in the most light), that will be fast enough to avoid motion blur and to freeze the action. The more you zoom in, the faster the shutter speed you need.

Now let's say you set a shutter speed of 1/250, with aperture of 5.6 at ISO of 100 --- Your pictures will probably be pitch black... so you start increasing the ISO, until your exposure is right. But be careful.... the higher the ISO, the more "noise" you get --- basically graininess in the picture. If you enlarge my pictures, you will see lots of "noise" in the high ISO pictures.

Newer cameras can deal with high ISO better than older cameras. Your camera has a maximum ISO of 1600, and quality starts to really degrade over about 600 (according to lab testing by dxomark). The newer D5200 has ISO up to 6400, and starts to degrade around 1200. I shoot with a full frame Sony A99-- My maximum ISO is 25600, and I keep solid quality until about 2000. (And I can get half-decent shots as high as 12800).

So largest possible aperture (smallest number) --- Then fiddle with your shutter speed and ISO. You will probably need the highest ISO your camera can offer, 1600. So set ISO at 1600, then play with the shutter speed.

 

[threecrazykids]

Three settings are all connected (think of it as a triangle): Shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. They control light, to give you the correct exposure. Indoor light is almost always horrible. Even where you perceive decent light, it's only because your eyes have adjusted.

So to get a good shot of indoor sports, there are a few things you need:

1-- Enough light. Which you can get by increasing your ISO, decreasing your shutter speed (yes, decreasing it but see below), and increasing your aperture (a small number.. yes, it's reversed).

2-- A fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. With non stabilized lenses, as a rule of thumb... on your APS-C camera, if you are shooting at 300mm.. it is effectively 450mm, and you need to shoot at 1/450 for else the tiniest tremors of the camera will cause blurry pictures. With vibration reduction/stablization, you can get away with shooting slower. And remember, slower shooting lets in more light.... So perhaps you can shoot as low as 1/100 at 450mm... or 1/25 at 100mm.. for example... BUT...

3-- You also need a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. For slow moving action, that may be as slow as 1/100. But for example, when I take little league pictures of my son, I need about 1/1000 to freeze a baseball in might flight. The gymnastics pic of the girl in mid-air was at 1/400.

So let's put it all together now.
You're going to go to the maximum aperture. At 70mm, that's 4.5 on your lens. It's 5.6 at 300mm.
You then want the slowest possible shutter speed (to let in the most light), that will be fast enough to avoid motion blur and to freeze the action. The more you zoom in, the faster the shutter speed you need.

Now let's say you set a shutter speed of 1/250, with aperture of 5.6 at ISO of 100 --- Your pictures will probably be pitch black... so you start increasing the ISO, until your exposure is right. But be careful.... the higher the ISO, the more "noise" you get --- basically graininess in the picture. If you enlarge my pictures, you will see lots of "noise" in the high ISO pictures.

Newer cameras can deal with high ISO better than older cameras. Your camera has a maximum ISO of 1600, and quality starts to really degrade over about 600 (according to lab testing by dxomark). The newer D5200 has ISO up to 6400, and starts to degrade around 1200. I shoot with a full frame Sony A99-- My maximum ISO is 25600, and I keep solid quality until about 2000. (And I can get half-decent shots as high as 12800).

So largest possible aperture (smallest number) --- Then fiddle with your shutter speed and ISO. You will probably need the highest ISO your camera can offer, 1600. So set ISO at 1600, then play with the shutter speed.

Just kidding... I think I am getting it! Excellent explanation that I can actually understand - I'm going to print this off for future reference.

I will try out the suggestions this weekend and see what happens.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

LOL. So the marketing trends aren't for you.

I go back and forth.... there are times I get fed up with heavy gear and want something nimble (and use my RX100)... and then there are times when, whether true or not, I feel like I get better quality out of a big system.

This is what I normally carry, one hanging off each shoulder. When I take off the flashes, I think I'm going light! The smaller of the lenses is the 70-200!


Cameras 4514 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

This is what I normally carry, one hanging off each shoulder. When I take off the flashes, I think I'm going light! The smaller of the lenses is the 70-200!


Cameras 4514 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

Egads!
I'm not a small camera person but I couldn't walk around on vacation with a setup like that. My last trip, my only telephoto was a 135 prime. The downside since I recently switched to full frame is that the 135 won't give me much reach anymore. I -might- need to consider bringing a 70-200 or 70-300 on my next vacation. Though I'm more likely just to take a pass on long telephoto shots. (Disney Caribbean cruise... I'm picturing wide angle being much more important).

 

[photo_chick]

I am in need of some advice please I'm trying to find a somewhat reasonable lens for indoor sports (volleyball, wrestling) so I purchased a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR in the hopes it would allow me some great action shots. Didnt seem to help. Still getting lots of blur. I did get SOME shots that were good, but not as many as I'd like.

I am not as worried about the 300 zoom as I am being able to capture the action shots. I have a week to return it, but I know it will be an excellent lens for outdoor sports (softball, football) so I may end up keeping it.
I feel like I get better quality shots indoor with my 50mm 1.4 indoors but I can't get as close as I'd like for those up close action shots.

Any suggestions? I am willing to take back the 70-300 if there is a lens you all think would satisfy both indoor and outdoor in a similar price range. I shoot on a Nikon D40 so I know at some point I have to bite the bullet and upgrade, but at this point I'd rather spend my $$ on the glass if there is anything that you all think would do better indoors (and NOT cost me my two children and left arm). Any suggestions??

90% of getting good action shots is on the photographer.


It isn't ideal but the 70-300 you bought is capable of getting indoor sports action shots although you may have to push the exposure with your D40 sometimes. That means intentionally underexposing so that you can get sufficient shutter speed then bumping the exposure up in post. This will lead to more noise though so you need good processing skills and the shots have to be well focused for it to really work.

If you feel like you want to return the 70-300 by all means do it within the return window. But I wouldn't jump onto a new lens until you really understand what you need.

I personally use a 70-200 f/4 (non IS version) to shoot dance. Part of the reason for this is because I have a 6D and can get away with using much higher ISO settings before noise becomes an issue. Also I don't think the weight of the f/2.8 lenses is worth the gain in aperture for me. But that's my personal preference and you have to figure out what works for you.

This was shot with my older 70-210 f/4 (an old, non "L" Canon lens) on a Canon 50D. I don't know if there is a Nikon equivalent, or how well it would function on your 40D with it's limitations, but this old out of production lens sells for less than $200 used.

Toe Stand

 

[threecrazykids]

90% of getting good action shots is on the photographer.


It isn't ideal but the 70-300 you bought is capable of getting indoor sports action shots although you may have to push the exposure with your D40 sometimes. That means intentionally underexposing so that you can get sufficient shutter speed then bumping the exposure up in post. This will lead to more noise though so you need good processing skills and the shots have to be well focused for it to really work.

If you feel like you want to return the 70-300 by all means do it within the return window. But I wouldn't jump onto a new lens until you really understand what you need.

I personally use a 70-200 f/4 (non IS version) to shoot dance. Part of the reason for this is because I have a 6D and can get away with using much higher ISO settings before noise becomes an issue. Also I don't think the weight of the f/2.8 lenses is worth the gain in aperture for me. But that's my personal preference and you have to figure out what works for you.

This was shot with my older 70-210 f/4 (an old, non "L" Canon lens) on a Canon 50D. I don't know if there is a Nikon equivalent, or how well it would function on your 40D with it's limitations, but this old out of production lens sells for less than $200 used.

Toe Stand

Thank you for the info - that too is a great action shot and the exposure is great! I am far from a professional so learning HOW to use my camera and lenses is still my main focus right now. I think I will likely end up keeping my lens because I have taken several outdoor photos where the natural light is ample and the shots are great. I got some of my dog racing around the yard in the snow with no blur, so I can see that the indoor lighting is interfering with those volleyball shots I'm trying to achieve.

I will try underexposing too to see if that helps.

Thanks again for all your help everyone - I will take your tips and apply them this weekend and hopefully report back with some better pics!

 

[havoc315]

Thank you for the info - that too is a great action shot and the exposure is great! I am far from a professional so learning HOW to use my camera and lenses is still my main focus right now. I think I will likely end up keeping my lens because I have taken several outdoor photos where the natural light is ample and the shots are great. I got some of my dog racing around the yard in the snow with no blur, so I can see that the indoor lighting is interfering with those volleyball shots I'm trying to achieve.

I will try underexposing too to see if that helps.

Thanks again for all your help everyone - I will take your tips and apply them this weekend and hopefully report back with some better pics!

Good luck. For now, try to use the highest ISO your camera has. It may be 1600 or it may be listed as "hi" or something else.

 

[threecrazykids]

Well...I'm back, and sadly the pictures didn't turn out as well as I'd like. I at least got some action shots without blur, but after seeing them, my white balance or something was off because all of the pictures have a horrible blue hue. I am not sure how to correct that with my settings?



Some of the pics are a bit grainy - but I can deal with that since I won't be printing any big prints.

If it's not one problem it's another...

 

[havoc315]

Well...I'm back, and sadly the pictures didn't turn out as well as I'd like. I at least got some action shots without blur, but after seeing them, my white balance or something was off because all of the pictures have a horrible blue hue. I am not sure how to correct that with my settings?



Some of the pics are a bit grainy - but I can deal with that since I won't be printing any big prints.

If it's not one problem it's another...

Post full size pics. I can probably fix them. Post processing can work wonders. In the future, shooting RAW gives you even more post production latitude.

 

[mom2rtk]

Post full size pics. I can probably fix them. Post processing can work wonders. In the future, shooting RAW gives you even more post production latitude.

I totally agree. One of the areas with the greatest benefit of shooting RAW is in white balance. If you shoot in RAW you can go back and readjust completely.

I used to think shooting RAW was only for the pros. Then I realized the pros know how to get it right in the camera and don't NEED to shoot RAW! That's when I learned to love shooting RAW.