Photographing Gymnastics

[Meshell2002]

Hi all! My DD5 recently started competitive gymnastics. I have a Sony Rx100 (v2) and a nikon d5100 with a kit zoom lense (f4 70-200) or a 35 prime sigma. I would love to get in closer with the nikon but the sony performs better in low light. This next meet is gonna need zoom due to the building configuration (the stands are on the short end of a rectangular gymnasium) , as a parent I can't go beyond the barriers and no flash allowed. Should I try the prime lens and still take the sony? I may eventually rent a smaller f lens telephoto. I'm not sure if I could maybe get a cheaper prime with a longer reach....anyone photograph gym, dance, theatre, or other indoor sports? If she continues with the sport (and she loves it) I will probably upgrade glass first, then the camera body in a year or two.

 

[mom2rtk]

Not sure of the Nikon lineup, but I'd look for a faster prime. Maybe a 1.8 lens.

 

[Meshell2002]

oh I double checked my sigma its a 30mm f/1.4, not sure how "long" primes come, but the distance from meet to meet is so variable, I may have to save up for the telephoto (less to carry in the long haul and I hate carrying a lot of unused lens around)

The Sony Rx100 P&S has a max f/1.8 with zoom 28-100mm

 

[mom2rtk]

That Sigma lens is a very good one, but probably not long enough to use unless you can get very close to the action. Depending on how your camera does at high ISO you might be able to get by with a 2.8 lens.

 

[fractal]

I've photographed plenty of indoor sports and dance.

You may want to consider a 85mm 1.8. The 35 is too wide and a 50 still won't give you enough reach unless you're really close. Maybe rent one for her next competition and see if it works well.

 

[havoc315]

oh I double checked my sigma its a 30mm f/1.4, not sure how "long" primes come, but the distance from meet to meet is so variable, I may have to save up for the telephoto (less to carry in the long haul and I hate carrying a lot of unused lens around)

If you have $11,000 to spend and want to carry a 9 pound lens, Nikon has a 600mm F/4 prime lens.

But realistically for long and fast, there is the Sigma 135/1.8 for Nikon. There is the 200mm/F2 from Nikon but you'd probably want to rent it -- over $5,000.
When I was shooting Nikon, I loved the 300mm F/4. At $2000, it's not cheap but it's actually a fair price -- the lens is very low weight for the quality.
Best value is Nikon's 85/1.8 -- nice and fast. May give you enough reach on a crop body.

 

[Meshell2002]

That Sigma lens is a very good one, but probably not long enough to use unless you can get very close to the action. Depending on how your camera does at high ISO you might be able to get by with a 2.8 lens.

I love the sigma for portraits and snapping pics around the house (especially when my kids were little and I was down on the floor with them, but I don't think it has enough reach for this), it is my only non kit lens and by far my favorite.

I've photographed plenty of indoor sports and dance.

You may want to consider a 85mm 1.8. The 35 is too wide and a 50 still won't give you enough reach unless you're really close. Maybe rent one for her next competition and see if it works well.

I may try that since I'm on a cropped sensor, it may given slightly more reach than 85, forget the math formula but somewhere around 105 ish?

If you have $11,000 to spend and want to carry a 9 pound lens, Nikon has a 600mm F/4 prime lens.

But realistically for long and fast, there is the Sigma 135/1.8 for Nikon. There is the 200mm/F2 from Nikon but you'd probably want to rent it -- over $5,000.
When I was shooting Nikon, I loved the 300mm F/4. At $2000, it's not cheap but it's actually a fair price -- the lens is very low weight for the quality.
Best value is Nikon's 85/1.8 -- nice and fast. May give you enough reach on a crop body.

yes I was considering renting or a used 70-200 2.8 (tamron, sigma, and nikon) lens which seem to be ranging 500-600 on ebay

 

[fractal]

I love the sigma for portraits and snapping pics around the house (especially when my kids were little and I was down on the floor with them, but I don't think it has enough reach for this), it is my only non kit lens and by far my favorite.



I may try that since I'm on a cropped sensor, it may given slightly more reach than 85, forget the math formula but somewhere around 105 ish?



yes I was considering renting or a used 70-200 2.8 (tamron, sigma, and nikon) lens which seem to be ranging 500-600 on ebay

85 on a crop is around 125-130mm. Should be a good enough length.

 

[havoc315]

I love the sigma for portraits and snapping pics around the house (especially when my kids were little and I was down on the floor with them, but I don't think it has enough reach for this), it is my only non kit lens and by far my favorite.



I may try that since I'm on a cropped sensor, it may given slightly more reach than 85, forget the math formula but somewhere around 105 ish?



yes I was considering renting or a used 70-200 2.8 (tamron, sigma, and nikon) lens which seem to be ranging 500-600 on ebay

Just remember, the 70-200/2.8 is only a 1-stop advantage over your 70-200 /4. That might be all your need, if you just need slightly better than your current lens.

 

[winnieofpooh]

I'd recommend the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8. I shoot 95% of my sports photography with the 70-200 2.8 and have rarely run into an issue with lighting or distance.

 

[Meshell2002]

I'd recommend the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8. I shoot 95% of my sports photography with the 70-200 2.8 and have rarely run into an issue with lighting or distance.

so for mainly gymnastics/ indoor sports, and parents can't go past the barrier and no flash, I'm going to start looking at ebay for a used lens, since a rental is $120 for most of the 2.8 telephotos I may find a used for 400-500. If I was only shooting softball I'd go with the prime, indoors have brought on a whole other challenge (or obsession!). We have 6 more competitions before Dec 1st.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'd recommend the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8. I shoot 95% of my sports photography with the 70-200 2.8 and have rarely run into an issue with lighting or distance.

Just out of curiosity, are you shooting indoor sports?

so for mainly gymnastics/ indoor sports, and parents can't go past the barrier and no flash, I'm going to start looking at ebay for a used lens, since a rental is $120 for most of the 2.8 telephotos I may find a used for 400-500. If I was only shooting softball I'd go with the prime, indoors have brought on a whole other challenge (or obsession!). We have 6 more competitions before Dec 1st.

Before you pull the trigger, visit a local store and pick up and try out a 2.8 zoom. I rented one for my sons' 2 graduations and after carrying it those couple of times, I decided it was too big and heavy for me to want to carry around routinely. Granted, I'm kind of a wimp about lugging camera gear, but it is a consideration. Of course, if you find one cheap enough you can buy it for your competitions now and sell it again for what you have in it if you don't like it.

 

[winnieofpooh]

Just out of curiosity, are you shooting indoor sports?

I shoot a wide range of everything. I'd say 50/50 indoor and outdoor sports, so the 2.8 gives me the versatility I need for both

 

[mom2rtk]

I shoot a wide range of everything. I'd say 50/50 indoor and outdoor sports, so the 2.8 gives me the versatility I need for both

I struggled with Volleyball with a 2.8. The lighting in those middle school gyms was terrible. My daughter quit after one year so I never got to perfect my approach. She moved on to tennis which is thankfully outdoors. Now the fence is my greatest challenge.

 

[winnieofpooh]

I struggled with Volleyball with a 2.8. The lighting in those middle school gyms was terrible. My daughter quit after one year so I never got to perfect my approach. She moved on to tennis which is thankfully outdoors. Now the fence is my greatest challenge.

Yeah what is it about school gyms? They're awful! Luckily my two main sports are football (outdoor) and basketball (indoor), and our college basketball gym is actually quite well lit. The volleyball court, however, is terrible, but I could manage with a 2.8, though it was infinitely more difficult. But I really appreciate the extra zoom so I don't know if I'd pass up buying the 70-200 for the 85mm just to get to 1.8

 

[havoc315]

Just remember, the 70-200/2.8 is a VERY heavy lens. For some people, they don't mind at all. But many others, myself included, really don't like the weight of it.

For me, a lens is too heavy if I have to think twice about carrying it. For example, I brought a very heavy 100-400 on my last vacation (about the same weight as a typical 70-200/2.8). Unless I was absolutely positive I wanted to shoot with it, I left it behind in my room. So for me, too heavy.

I recently shot with the Sony 70-200/2.8, a really awesome lens. But not buying one.... besides the crazy price, I just have no desire to lug around the weight.

 

[Meshell2002]

competition tomorrow, since I haven't made up my mind I'm going to take the sony for the lower f stop, undecided about the kit zoom on the nikon. I just know this gym, it is darker than our practice gym. I did try my kit zoom(lowest f 4) at our practice gym and it was not good, that was a few years ago before I learned to change my manual settings, so I'm tempted to try again. I wish I could take it to a practice to play with it so people won't be watching the weirdo parent with 2 cameras and a phone fumbling around. Since I work I don't usually get to go to practice. Weight isn't a huge issue for me, our competitions last about 2 hrs, and I have a son and a DH that can sherpa for me for that. I would not see myself taking a heavy zoom to walk around and shoot all the time, unless I was spoiled with the results, I do like having the sony for better than phone pics that don't take up my phone memory. If I get anything worth posting I will try to resurrect photobucket and post here.

 

[havoc315]

You keep mentioning kit zoom...
The 70-200/4 isn’t a kit zoom. It’s a $1200 lens.
Do you have the 70-200/4 or something like a kit 70-200/4-6.3

With the 70-200/4, the maximum aperture at 200 is a decent f4.

With the kit 70-200/4-6.3, the maximum aperture at 200 is 6.3 (or 5.6)

 

[Meshell2002]

You keep mentioning kit zoom...
The 70-200/4 isn’t a kit zoom. It’s a $1200 lens.
Do you have the 70-200/4 or something like a kit 70-200/4-6.3

With the 70-200/4, the maximum aperture at 200 is a decent f4.

With the kit 70-200/4-6.3, the maximum aperture at 200 is 6.3 (or 5.6)

My zoom came with my camera (from costco so I was calling it kit because it came in the box sorry) and it says Nikkor AF-S 55-200 mm 1:4-5.6

I used it today at the meet, videoed with the sony on a tripod and hand held my shots. The shot on bars has been enhanced in basic photo editing. The beam shot has been cropped and lightened a little. I took about 60 shots, I had maybe 10 good shots of my child and a few of a teamate that happened to be near by. trying to focus is hard!

 

[Meshell2002]

So does anyone shoot sports on manual focus? I'm thinking I may try that next meet. Maybe focusing on the beam and then shooting in manual since usually the gymnast is moving perpendicular to me. Also in the above pictures I had to push my ISO up really far to compensate for the slower zoom lens and the noise is pretty obvious. I havn't tried editing in software yet (just windows photo editor) that has noise reduction. I've borrowed a tamron 70-200 2.8 for tomorrow, and its the old one that has no image stabilization. The person I borrowed it from said if the shutter speed is high enough the lack of VR may not matter. One thing I've noticed about the tamron in playing with it is the AF seems slow when its at 200, thinking maybe manual focus may work better in lower light. Tomorrows meet is in a high school gym.