What lens to buy? I have a Canon 60D and getting frustrated with results of indoor action shots. Specifically, I need to take pictures in gyms or arenas of basketball or hockey. I...

jkcii63 Loc: Glen Spey, NY

I have a Canon 60D and getting frustrated with results of indoor action shots. Specifically, I need to take pictures in gyms or arenas of basketball or hockey. I don't want to continue to delete 90% of the pics just because of lowlight issues.
I have tried just about everything (or at least I think I have). The auto function is a big NO since it lengthens the shutter speed to allow for the low light. With manual, the best I can manage is action frozen but the pic is noticeably grainy.
Do I need a massive flash? I was looking at resolving with a new lens. Maybe the Canon 70-200 iS II ($2K, ugh).
I currently have a Tamron DiII 18-270.
I've included some pics of the better photos that were acceptable, but not great. They were PS'd to lighten and also had the quality reduced to save time in the upload process.
Any thoughts would be helpful or anyone that has used the Canon lens and would could twist my arm to sway me to buy it.
Thanks.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

You are trying to get your Tamron to do something it was never intended to do, nor is it capable of doing these shots. It is a "compromise" superzoom lens and may work OK in bright light, but never indoors or under night shooting situations.
The 70-200mm F2.8 (any brand) will handle the situation, as that is what it was designed for, lower light action shots.

diannarucker Loc: Iowa

You need a lens that lets in more light, like a 2.8. You don't need a name brand one. Try Tamron or Sigma

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

The main issue is this:

You need a fast lens that is long enough to get close to the action.

Fast so the ISO stays reasonable, long so that you don't have just little "dots" in the frame....

The new 70-200 2.8L IS II will fit the bill, and it the image quality is improved over the last version...it's pricey but a great lens.

PS: $2000.00 for a lens isn't bad...I've got several lenses over $1,500.00...if you want a great lens...sometimes you have to spend the cash.

ONE THING TO NOTE; one of the best weapons in your arsenal is to get closer...foot zoom before you "lens zoom"....it really makes a difference.

You get a MUCH better shot zoomed to 100 and foot zoom closer than hanging back and zooming at 200 from the stands.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

You NEED the 70-200 2.8. Flash will not do the job since it is generally not allowed and you may not be close enough where it may be allowed. I have this lens (Nikon) but Camon is equally as good. This lens will make a huge difference in all low light venues both indoor and out. Go for it- you won't be sorry you did. Hope I twisted hard enough ;)

jkcii63 Loc: Glen Spey, NY

MT Shooter wrote:

You are trying to get your Tamron to do something it was never intended to do, nor is it capable of doing these shots. It is a "compromise" superzoom lens and may work OK in bright light, but never indoors or under night shooting situations.
The 70-200mm F2.8 (any brand) will handle the situation, as that is what it was designed for, lower light action shots.

Thanks for the help. It is greatly appreciated. I assumed that the Tamron lens that I bought would work well in every situation. Even underwater. Better research will be in place for the new lens.

jkcii63 Loc: Glen Spey, NY

rpavich wrote:

The main issue is this: br br You need a fast len... (show quote)

Good stuff. Thanks a ton.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

jkcii63 wrote:

I assumed that the Tamron lens that I bought would work well in every situation. Even underwater..

Hmmm. Waterproof?

Ditto to all the advice above.
A faster lens will help your camera focus faster & more accuratlely as well.

jkcii63 Loc: Glen Spey, NY

Db7423 wrote:

You NEED the 70-200 2.8. Flash will not do the job since it is generally not allowed and you may not be close enough where it may be allowed. I have this lens (Nikon) but Camon is equally as good. This lens will make a huge difference in all low light venues both indoor and out. Go for it- you won't be sorry you did. Hope I twisted hard enough ;)

You did. I don't know what will hurt more though, my arm or shelling out the cash. But since this is how I really want to use my camera, it seems like a no brainer now. It will be nice to be able to lessen the frustration and enjoy photographing even more.
Plus, and a big plus, having a valid reason for spending the cash and not feel like I might be wasting the money.
Thanks!

jkcii63 Loc: Glen Spey, NY

diannarucker wrote:

You need a lens that lets in more light, like a 2.8. You don't need a name brand one. Try Tamron or Sigma

Thanks.
Is the cost difference noticeable in the pictures between Tamron and Canon for the same type of lens?

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

jkcii63 wrote:

diannarucker wrote:

You need a lens that lets in more light, like a 2.8. You don't need a name brand one. Try Tamron or Sigma

Thanks.
Is the cost difference noticeable in the pictures between Tamron and Canon for the same type of lens?

I have the Canon {non IS} so I can not offer comparisons to the other brands, but they have many loyal fans here.

One thing to note is these quality lenses are heavy and you may want to consider a monopod at least. you can mount to the lens itself.

I got great results for Basketball with an inxepensive {by comparison} EF 85 f1.8, but this would not work for football or any sport shot from the stands. I was only able to get the shots on one half of the court with the EF 85 f1.8 but they were great.

There may be some here that can answer the comparison question objectivly, if not there are websites to consider.

Good luck

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jkcii63 wrote:

diannarucker wrote:

You need a lens that lets in more light, like a 2.8. You don't need a name brand one. Try Tamron or Sigma

Thanks.
Is the cost difference noticeable in the pictures between Tamron and Canon for the same type of lens?

Not having actually used either its hard to say Canon has a good reputation, as does Nikon. What I CAN say is that I have been very unimpressed with the Tamron build quality. When I was looking to upgrade my aging 80-200mm F2.8 Nikon lens I looked at Nikon and Sigma and ended up buying the Sigma. Image quality is identical, but the Sigma was half the price of the Nikon. I have found the build quality of the Sigma EX series of lenses to be on par with Nikon and Canon offerings as well.

diannarucker Loc: Iowa

I have never noticed the difference. But I have a Nikon D7000 camera , not sure that makes a difference. I've never been sorry I bought my 70- 200 2.8 or the 24-70 that I use a lot too

LaughBrian Loc: Tn

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=jkcii63 quote=diannarucker You need a lens... (show quote)

thanks for another great, and money saving tip. finaly got a t4i for my b-day yesterday :-}. i value you post AND SO SHOUD ALL OF YOU!!

rhc7

I shoot for newspaper of all local HS sports. I always carry a Canon ef 85 f1.8 for my Canon 7d. Especially inside BB gyms, this lens because of crop camera performs like a 135mm at f1.8 70-200 f2.8 gets heavy and to get TV ov 350 or so have to shoot at high IS0.

Canon ef 85 f1.8 is reviewed by many as a fast-focus, good mid-length fixed lens and besides thru Canon refurbished or reputable dealer- used dept price is below $400. Also carry ef 50mm f1.4 which takes good pictures in a "dark-barn" type BB gym. tyr it and you might like it and save some money too..