Advice on Lens: Indoor Low Light Sports

[AMediaLuz]

I am hoping to take some indoor sports events, probably low lighting. E.g. Basketball match indoors with only nature lighting.
Was reading up on the following tele-lenses, would be grateful if you could let me have your thoughts on each of these, at their respective widest aperture and maximum distance; whether:

(1) Auto-focus is fast;
(2) Photo is sharp;
(3) Bokay is good;
(3) Lens breathing issue is not severe.

The lenses I am looking at are:
- Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di Vc Usd G2 SP
- Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR G
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II
- Nikon AF180mm f2.8 ED

Understand that it is very subjective, but I am taking the audacity to ask: Which one, in your opinion, is most worth the money?
Thanks!

 

[one eye jack]

I am hoping to take some indoor sports events, probably low lighting. E.g. Basketball match indoors with only nature lighting.
Was reading up on the following tele-lenses, would be grateful if you could let me have your thoughts on each of these, at their respective widest aperture and maximum distance; whether:

(1) Auto-focus is fast;
(2) Photo is sharp;
(3) Bokay is good;
(3) Lens breathing issue is not severe.

The lenses I am looking at are:
- Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di Vc Usd G2 SP
- Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR G
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II
- Nikon AF180mm f2.8 ED

Understand that it is very subjective, but I am taking the audacity to ask: Which one, in your opinion, is most worth the money?
Thanks!

As always it's best to use native branded lens for compatibility between camera bodies and image quality but I'm sure
budget is an issue with native brand costing much more with that said just how much difference for a 3rd. party equivalent?
It's always better to use lastest version in case of nikon VRII vs older but some savings if using older model. Autofocus speed and image quality always better than 3rd. party.

Tamron and Sigma, while sigma greatest weakness is autofus speed and softness at F2.8 compared to tamron if you are wiling to wait rumour has it sigma is going to release an art or sport version this year september.

So tamron is the one to go for although costs more, size and weight are similar but tamron is weather sealed vs sigma none. Performance wise autofocus speed and image quality is superior.Comparing bokeh actual focal at longest end tamron is longer than sigma ( this trick is used in canon being longest ) so bokeh is nicer. Do also get the usb console dock to make fine autofocus adjustments although using camera adjustments is feasable. Hope this helps.
All similar lenses are internal focusing and tamron being weather sealed has less lens breathing issue.

 

[swifty]

I am hoping to take some indoor sports events, probably low lighting. E.g. Basketball match indoors with only nature lighting.
Was reading up on the following tele-lenses, would be grateful if you could let me have your thoughts on each of these, at their respective widest aperture and maximum distance; whether:

(1) Auto-focus is fast;
(2) Photo is sharp;
(3) Bokay is good;
(3) Lens breathing issue is not severe.


- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II

I used to own the Nikon VR2 version.
1) yes, AF is very fast
2) yes, plenty sharp enough
3) generally good for a zoom, but is bokeh really that big an issue for sports?
4) focus breathing is pronounced but by definition, this occurs at close focus distances. It's mainly an issue for portrait photographers looking for a tight head shot. Not an issue for sports.

For sports you're going to be trying to nail focus, restrict motion blur which means fast shutter speeds and probably raising ISO a fair amount. All of these will be robbing acuity from your images so if you can still manage to get the maximum sharpness under these condition out of a VR2, you will get some pretty stunning photos.
In other words, the lens's sharpness will not likely be your limiting factor for indoor sports conditions.

How far away from the action are you and how good is the lighting? Have you considered something shorter but faster eg. Sigma 135mm f1.8

 

[AMediaLuz]

As always it's best to use native branded lens for compatibility between camera bodies and image quality but I'm sure
budget is an issue with native brand costing much more with that said just how much difference for a 3rd. party equivalent?
It's always better to use lastest version in case of nikon VRII vs older but some savings if using older model. Autofocus speed and image quality always better than 3rd. party.

Tamron and Sigma, while sigma greatest weakness is autofus speed and softness at F2.8 compared to tamron if you are wiling to wait rumour has it sigma is going to release an art or sport version this year september.

So tamron is the one to go for although costs more, size and weight are similar but tamron is weather sealed vs sigma none. Performance wise autofocus speed and image quality is superior.Comparing bokeh actual focal at longest end tamron is longer than sigma ( this trick is used in canon being longest ) so bokeh is nicer. Do also get the usb console dock to make fine autofocus adjustments although using camera adjustments is feasable. Hope this helps.
All similar lenses are internal focusing and tamron being weather sealed has less lens breathing issue.

Thanks, One eye jack, I'll research into Tamron more...given that the native brand one is almost double the price. =)
Just one more question - given that Tamron would be slower in terms of AF than Nikon, do you think it's something that will affect a shot (e.g. in a basket ball game trying to capture someone doing a dunk), or it would still be decent?

 

[AMediaLuz]

I used to own the Nikon VR2 version.
1) yes, AF is very fast
2) yes, plenty sharp enough
3) generally good for a zoom, but is bokeh really that big an issue for sports?
4) focus breathing is pronounced but by definition, this occurs at close focus distances. It's mainly an issue for portrait photographers looking for a tight head shot. Not an issue for sports.

For sports you're going to be trying to nail focus, restrict motion blur which means fast shutter speeds and probably raising ISO a fair amount. All of these will be robbing acuity from your images so if you can still manage to get the maximum sharpness under these condition out of a VR2, you will get some pretty stunning photos.
In other words, the lens's sharpness will not likely be your limiting factor for indoor sports conditions.

How far away from the action are you and how good is the lighting? Have you considered something shorter but faster eg. Sigma 135mm f1.8

Thanks, Swifty.
On your question of how far away, I would say maximum would be if I am at the audience seat of a basket ball court, taking shots say 30 metres?
I have the 85mm 1.4 lens, but find that it's a too wide for that purpose, which is why I am thinking of getting a telephoto lens. My concern is that 135mm will still be a bit wide. If you have a 135, what's your opinion of it?

 

[Light Machinery]

Hello AMediaLuz, for low light action / sports photography the better lenses will be

1) 70-200 f/2.8 VRI / VRII

The difference between the two is that VRI has more vignetting when used with FX cameras compared to VRII.

VRII has more lens breathing when compared to other lenses, at minimum focus distance its actual focus length is about 135mm.

VRII is faster focusing.

2) The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VD USD G2 SP is a much better lens than the G1. It performs nearly as good as the current Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRIII

3) One lens you missed, the 200mm f/2 VRI/ VRII. You can always rent it, if you need it. It is the uber lens for low light action photography. Super fast focus, razor sharp, buttery bokeh.

4) The Nikkor 85/1.4 or the Sigma 135mm will not have the focus speed for low light action / sports photography.

 

[one eye jack]

Thanks, One eye jack, I'll research into Tamron more...given that the native brand one is almost double the price. =)
Just one more question - given that Tamron would be slower in terms of AF than Nikon, do you think it's something that will affect a shot (e.g. in a basket ball game trying to capture someone doing a dunk), or it would still be decent?

Saying goes, right tool for the right job but what if you don't have a pro body and lens? Let's not be limited by that.
Knowing what settings to choose is more important so do read up in this area for sports like continous focus/tracking but do know
it will use up battery. Also let's not be limited by specifications of gear like slower autofocus, you must have positive mindset which works in my opinion because it gives you real confidence plus knowledge of the sport in question as a pro in the link said, meaning
anticipating the moment/shot rather than seeing it happen which is too late! Don't worry about quality of photo but getting the shot which means minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 sec. and high ISO (for this pro ISO 4000 and above). Anyway the tamron is sharp at the center at F2.8 and relatively sharp at corners. On tamron you can use focus limit switch so it will not focus from close to far or vice versa. Best shots are at court or ring side but if you are in the audience try getting a seat as low to ground level as possible and capture the emotions of the players. Luck plays a role here too so hope this helps and do share your adventures.

http://reedhoffmann.com/basketball-photography/

 

[AMediaLuz]

Hello AMediaLuz, for low light action / sports photography the better lenses will be

1) 70-200 f/2.8 VRI / VRII

The difference between the two is that VRI has more vignetting when used with FX cameras compared to VRII.

VRII has more lens breathing when compared to other lenses, at minimum focus distance its actual focus length is about 135mm.

VRII is faster focusing.

2) The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VD USD G2 SP is a much better lens than the G1. It performs nearly as good as the current Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRIII

3) One lens you missed, the 200mm f/2 VRI/ VRII. You can always rent it, if you need it. It is the uber lens for low light action photography. Super fast focus, razor sharp, buttery bokeh.

4) The Nikkor 85/1.4 or the Sigma 135mm will not have the focus speed for low light action / sports photography.

Thanks Light Machinery for the advice. That means if I am not too concern about vignetting, there's actually not much difference between Nikon VRI and VRII?

Ya, if it's 200mm F2...I probably can only afford to have it by rent.

 

[AMediaLuz]

Saying goes, right tool for the right job but what if you don't have a pro body and lens? Let's not be limited by that.
Knowing what settings to choose is more important so do read up in this area for sports like continous focus/tracking but do know
it will use up battery. Also let's not be limited by specifications of gear like slower autofocus, you must have positive mindset which works in my opinion because it gives you real confidence plus knowledge of the sport in question as a pro in the link said, meaning
anticipating the moment/shot rather than seeing it happen which is too late! Don't worry about quality of photo but getting the shot which means minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 sec. and high ISO (for this pro ISO 4000 and above). Anyway the tamron is sharp at the center at F2.8 and relatively sharp at corners. On tamron you can use focus limit switch so it will not focus from close to far or vice versa. Best shots are at court or ring side but if you are in the audience try getting a seat as low to ground level as possible and capture the emotions of the players. Luck plays a role here too so hope this helps and do share your adventures.

http://reedhoffmann.com/basketball-photography/

Thanks, one eye jack...seems like Tamron is a better fit for me in terms of pricing...

 

[thoongeng]

Thanks, Swifty.
On your question of how far away, I would say maximum would be if I am at the audience seat of a basket ball court, taking shots say 30 metres?

Very good points by the seniors so I won't repeat them

Another important aspect in Sports Photography is access. You can see all the official photographers are at the side of the court, with remote cameras placed at strategic locations as well. Being in the audience has many restrictions and obstructions. At 30 metres away, depending on your composition if you want the impactful tight shots, may even need a longer focal length than 200mm...

 

[AMediaLuz]

Thank you Thoongeng, I think 200mm is probably at the edge of my budget...but will check out the special passes. Not sure if they give to amateur photographers.

What about the 180mm f2.8 Nikon prime lens? Anyone has any experience with it?

 

[thoongeng]

I have not used the Nikon 180mm f2.8 before, it's an older lens and you need a camera body that can drive it's autofocus unit. Online review varies, some say it's adequate, some say it's not as fast.

I guess if your budget is tight, and you are just trying out can still consider getting it. Not sure if Nikon still produces new ones, however 2nd hand prices for it seems quite reasonable. You can still practice with it, and learn strategies to cope with situations where the autofocus is not fast enough (as sports photographers did when autofocus was not that well developed yet eg pre-focusing).

Casual basketball matches or lower level competitions probably have less restrictions on access so maybe you can try practicing with them first. And maybe get to know some of the regulars and tag along so that you can get access to higher level competitions.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[swifty]

On your question of how far away, I would say maximum would be if I am at the audience seat of a basket ball court, taking shots say 30 metres?
I have the 85mm 1.4 lens, but find that it's a too wide for that purpose, which is why I am thinking of getting a telephoto lens. My concern is that 135mm will still be a bit wide. If you have a 135, what's your opinion of it?

Yea, 30m would be a bit far for the 135 me thinks. I thought perhaps you can get court side somewhere rather than be sitting in the stands.
BTW, many venues will limit the lens you bring to 200mm. They don't stipulate format so for a narrower FOV, smaller formats will be an advantage purely in terms of filling your frame.
I've not used the 135 Sigma before but have heard good things about it. It's optically stellar with a a very robust AF motor. It's also 1 and 1/3 stops faster than the f2.8 zooms so if you're using it on DX it pretty much equals 200mm f2.8 on FX. But being a prime, you have less flexibility in how you frame of course.

 

[daredevil123]

TS, if you do not have courtside access, chances are you will be shooting from the audience stands. That said, 200mm is actually not quite long enough most of the times, and you are limited in the angle of view also. I would just say go there and enjoy the game, and get a lens that fits your budget and your other photography needs. Don't waste money to get a lens just to shoot this game. just bring whatever lens you have to take some shots. That said, some of the senior members here are right, for many games, camera equipment is restricted, especially if your lens and camera look big.. .