Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens (Page 2): Here is more on the lens.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

MT Shooter wrote:

Anytime.

I might suggest finding someone that may be willing to loan you a 70-200mm F2.8 lens to try at a game. Or even just rent one prior to laying out the cash to buy one, just to make sure it will do the job for you.
My favorite basketball/volleyball lens is the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Sports lens, its simply amazing indoors or out. And its the worlds ONLY 300mm F2.8 zoom lens, quite a feat seeing as they have made it for over 12 years and no other manufacturer has even come close.

Here is more on the lens.

https://fstoppers.com/gear/review-you-should-want-sigmas-120-300mm-f28-sport-lens-3096

For those of us who cannot spend $3 k on a lens, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent alternative albeit having 300 would be nicer to have the 200 for sports.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

Read the reviews on the two lenses. The differences are very small with no clear winner. The only significant difference is that the Canon is weather-sealed. Do you need that?

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Japakomom wrote:

I am using a 6D, which has always been good with noise. This is the first time I am shooting basketball and I realize I do not have a camera that is designed for sports. This past week I was using my Sigma 50-200/4.5-6.3 along with an ISO of 12800 and the noise is hard to clean up. Just wondering if a 2.8 would help in this regard. I am attaching a couple of shots.

While you will pick up only one stop which is not a lot, the f/2.8 may be sharper. Unfortunately with indoor sports, shooting is pretty much a matter of luck unless you invest in a lot of expensive, professional equipment. Another problem is that our expectations of quality keep increasing. What was acceptable in 1974 with Tri-X black and white pushed from the normal 400 to 800 or 1200 is no longer acceptable. My amateur attitude is shoot the best I can and be prepared to pitch 90%.

Robin Poole Loc: Missoula, Mt

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

I shot a basketball gamewith a Sigma f2.8,24-70m lens. Most of the pics were at ISO 800, f/2.8 @ 1/125 They turned out pretty good. I was shooting from the floor. Will
you be in the stands or on the floor. Are you shooting for magazine publication or just family memories? Go with Sigma. Cannon won't produce a $1000 better series of pics, just a needless thousand dollar deficit in your bank account.
Cheers, Robin

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

The photos you posted seems to be that you are using too fast a shutter speed for the iso value. Try lowering your speed.

With your present lens, my thoughts would be around f/4.5-ish and speed around 1/400-600 ( try less), and as mentioned before an iso value of 3200 or so.

Don't forget to use manual to force your camera to use those settings.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

GENorkus wrote:

The photos you posted seems to be that you are using too fast a shutter speed for the iso value. Try lowering your speed.

With your present lens, my thoughts would be around f/4.5-ish and speed around 1/400-600 ( try less), and as mentioned before an iso value of 3200 or so.

Don't forget to use manual to force your camera to use those settings.

I am sorry but I do not understand your advice. I have shot many indoor basketball games and because of the uneven lighting, I have to use autoexposure. You do not have time to guess with manual focus and try other settings until you get it right. You can try auto-bracketing but why? Furthermore, without being there, how can you suggest any settings?

Brooklyn-Camera Loc: Brooklyn, New York City

I have the Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 and use it to shoot baseball, football and ice hockey games. I find the hockey games are the games that need a high ISO 3200 - 6400 and body is a 1100D T-3 Rebel. Just received my 7D mark II and will test how a high ISO works out with this body and the Sigma lens. Going to shoot a football game tonight (11-22-14) with stinky lighting, this should be a good test. I have no problem with the Sigma lens at all. I am not a pro and I shoot the games for the teams, so for me the Sigma does very well for me. I post the pictures on the teams web site and so far so good. These pics were shot with the Rebel T-3, ISO 6400 and the Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8.

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

puck is sitting on the goalies shoulder....

(Download)

Who's in the cage?

(Download)

Take him out dude!

(Download)

Toby

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

I have the Canon lens and it is fantastic. I have different size Sigma which is also good. I suggest you get a 24-70 f2.8 and get on or near the floor. The 70-200 is not good on the floor. You will need ISO 1600 or more to get a good speed (1/500) even with f2.8. Also try shooting in raw

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

F/2.8 is not the problem here. Your shutter speed needs to be faster, like 1/1000

Japakomom wrote:

I am using a 6D, which has always been good with noise. This is the first time I am shooting basketball and I realize I do not have a camera that is designed for sports. This past week I was using my Sigma 50-200/4.5-6.3 along with an ISO of 12800 and the noise is hard to clean up. Just wondering if a 2.8 would help in this regard. I am attaching a couple of shots.

Robin Poole Loc: Missoula, Mt

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

Here's a couple I shot and blew up using Sigma's 24-70mm lens P:ics were shot at f/2.8, 1/125, ISO800. Belielve that lens cost about $750. Yah some blur but what do you expect at 1/125? Shot in raw Good luck, Robin

original

(Download)

Cropped

(Download)

cropped

(Download)

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

abc1234 wrote:

I am sorry but I do not understand your advice. I have shot many indoor basketball games and because of the uneven lighting, I have to use autoexposure. You do not have time to guess with manual focus and try other settings until you get it right. You can try auto-bracketing but why? Furthermore, without being there, how can you suggest any settings?

I'm sorry if I assumed to much. Many post edit programs can correct for slight exposure settings. On manual, you can get the shot and correct what little difference there is later.

On any of the "auto" modes, the camera will try to get a perfect exposure every time. Meaning you need a much higher iso value to get the shot.

Been there, done that!

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Hi, You said there is a place that rents equipment near you. Why not rent a Canon 7D Mark II for a game? Set the ISO at Auto, and minimum shutter speed 1/1000 with the lens you have, and see what happens. I've not shot any sports with my 7DII yet, but I've shot some birds and gulls. The camera is amazing. With a fast lens it should really outshine the 6D. The focus system is also really fast and accurate. Get a couple full bursts (10 f/sec) and watch the action. BTW, the 7D Mark II has been touted as a sports/wildlife camera.

B

Ramled Loc: Victoria, British Columbia

Japakomom wrote:

Do you have experience with one or both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the extra $1000.00? I am shooting basketball indoors and need less noise.

I use the Canon 6D and Canon 70/200 F2.8 IS II for shooting my granddaughters volleyball in high school gyms and use ISO 6400 with good success. I also have the Sigma 120/300 Sport Lens which is an amazing lens, as MT Shooter has stated, I just find it a little heavy at times. Shooting in gyms you need the fast 2.8 lenses for best results and I find the zooms very helpful.

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

I have always favored prime lenses over zoom. Canon has recently released over the last few years a series of zooms that have me using zooms a great deal more than I used to. Canon 's 70-200 is ll is one of those lenses. It is a costly lens, but it is one of my favorites. Fast af, great color & contrast & very good resolution. When I am out of doors, I use it with the teleconvertors for extra reach without a large drop in IQ. I haven't had a Sigma in that range for many years, so I haven't used the newest ones & can't comment. In indoor sports venues & school events, I have used a 85 1.8 prime or a 135 2 prime with pleasing results. The suggestion that you borrow or rent one is a good one if this is possible. Bab

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

GENorkus wrote:

I'm sorry if I assumed to much. Many post edit programs can correct for slight exposure settings. On manual, you can get the shot and correct what little difference there is later.

On any of the "auto" modes, the camera will try to get a perfect exposure every time. Meaning you need a much higher iso value to get the shot.

Been there, done that!

I understand what you mean and work around it by using spot metering and focusing. Given the trade-off of motion blur versus noise, I would rather have the noise. Nik's dFine does a fine job of taming it and then I have less motion blur. Alternatively, you can go into PS and use its shake filter but that does not always work.

And then you have fans of back button focusing but that is another story.