Momphotos Loc: OH

Hello. New here. I have a canon T8i. I photograph my daughters HS basketball. Used 18-55mm kit lens. Photos aren’t bad but would like better quality. Just purchased Sigma 135mm f2. I did not like the challenge the lens gave me following the ball. I only shoot up to 3-point line from baseline. I move to other end of gym at HT. Now I’m considering the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 or sigma 70-200mm.

My daughter is a junior so I’d like to be able to use this lens as a multi-purpose lens when she graduates.

Any input would be very appreciated!

Most of our gyms are newer so lighting isn’t much of an issue.

Photo taken with my 18-55mm kit lens.

Thank you !!

Winslowe

If your pictures are important, I recommend a Canon L lens rather than cheaping out with some off-brand.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I would be careful with that advice, obviously you have never used a Sigma Art. I own both Canon L lenses and Sigma Arts and I can say that the Sigma line often outperforms the Canon L lenses, especially when you compare a lens designed within the last few years vs a Canon L that was designed 20 years ago. I am not familiar with the Sigma 135 f/2 but do own their 135 f/1.8 and would not consider trading it for the Canon L 135 f/2, owned both the Canon 85mm f/1.2L and the Sigma 105 f/1.4 and clearly the Sigma had better optics and able to focus much faster, the Bokeh was pretty much the same using both lenses.

Ollieboy

Sigma is NOT an off brand. They make some of the finest lenses available.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Sigma Art and Sport lenses are equal tom and in some cases better than L on Canon and Gold Ring on Nikon.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

If you like the composition of your pics with the 18 55 I would get the 24 70 f2.8. Great walk around lens. If you want a much closer composition the 70 200 f2.8. You have to make that decision. I think the 24 70 would serve as a better walk around lens later. Just my 3 cents. Inflation ya know.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...Just purchased Sigma 135mm f2. I did not like the challenge the lens gave me following the ball..."
Mom, photographic excellence is decidedly not a consumer commodity... As many vendors of photographic kit would like you to believe... In fact they spend the lion's share of their profits on propaganda espousing the aforementioned myth... As do many hobbyist here on UHH who have fallen under it's sway...

The likely reason you find your 18-55mm kit lens more comfortable to use and generates better results is you have become one with that very user friendly and forgiving optic...

Enter "Stage Left" the Sigma 135mm f2... Guess what, this is Pro-Level glass... and demands far more expertise and photographic savvy than the the 18-55mm kit lens. You are now under the delusion that it is the tool and not the user that is at fault... Mom, you might be far better served coming up the curve on the Sigma 135mm f2... But I totally realize you don't want to hear that...

Bottom Line? Shooting Sports demands professional level of compliance in order to compete in the genre... This only comes with blood, sweat and tears... You are blessed by having a family member to document on their exciting journey... A very compelling reason to drive your passion here... Seek out YouTube videos on how to shoot indoor sports effectively...

Also there are UHH members who shoot sports commercially...
Please get off the Main Photographic Discussion Forum (which is overrun with naive hobbyist who only espouse camera vendor myths and pontificate on how 'savvy" they are).
Instead I strongly recommend you subscribe to the Sports Photography Forum and diligently study the post of actual commercial shooters. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-103-1.html
I would also recommend you remain silent until you assimilated enough knowledge to make intelligent queries.
They totally understands what it takes and try to provide experienced guidance.

Mom, I'm only the messenger here... so if I've offended that's fine... just ignore and continue to bask in the warm glow of believing you can purchase excellence in Sports Photography, you are in good company for same in the Main Photographic Discussion Forum.

All the best on your epic photographic journey mom...
And please stay safe... Always wear a mask in public and practice social distancing...
Acute Respiratory Failure is a horrific way to die...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The crop factor of the EOS Rebel is probably contributing to the challenge of using the prime / fixed focal length of the 135mm lens. A 70-200 zoom will give more flexibility. The 24-70 will behave more like your 18-55, but it will give more 'longer' options while give less 'wide / close' options.

You appear to be doing fine already with your 18-55. Stepping away from the brands, what are you trying to accomplish with a new lens? Do you need longer focal length, getting closer to the action from your current position? And (or) do you need a lens to shoot in lower light at lower ISOs, and therefore to focus on f/2.8 apertures?

Think back to what drove you to purchase the 135 lens. Did you try it before you bought it? What was the source (who or where) that gave you this suggestion? If you could make that decision again, what would you change? If trying before buying is one thing to change, consider trying LensRentals.com or BorrowLenses.com and rent a candidate for a long weekend or a week and confirm the validity of the idea of the new lens / focal length.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Years ago (I think), I bought a Canon 60d with the 18-200 lens. It didn't take long for me to think my life would improve greatly with a different lens combination. I borrowed an 18-55 and 18-135, both EF-S lenses, from a friend. Both produced slightly better results than the 18-200 but not so much so that a move was necessary. I stayed with what I had until it was time to step up to a 7d2. So, if it's more range you're looking for, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 can be found used for less than $500, a used Canon 7-200 f/4L IS for about the same. Either would serve you well in combination with that 18-55. Good luck.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 and it is a great sports lens for basketball. Whatever you buy make sure it is a 2.8 image stabilized lens. I you have a second camera have the 24-70 on one and the 70-200 on the other, perfect combo for basketball.

RowdyRay Loc: MN

Years ago I picked up a Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens for a steal. Had to make a slight repair. Worked great for my grandkids outdoor sports. When the oldest sprouted like a weed and decided to play basketball.....It didn't do so well. I picked up a used Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. What a difference. A buddy of mine has the same Canon lens. A couple years ago his daughters got into gymnastics. Called me disappointed in the results. Asked for my advice. Loaned him the Tamron and, gave him some pointers. When I called to ask how it went, he said, "How much do you want for it?" Lol. My grandkids are pretty much done with sports so, I sold it to him for a good deal, with the agreement I can borrow it if needed.

My point is this: The 70-200mm is a favorite indoor sporting lens. Brand is up to you. All of them work well. Research and read the reviews. f2.8 is crucial. It allows you to shoot in diminished light and keep the ISO down. Image stabilization isn't a deal breaker for me but, it sure is nice to have. I would highly recommend finding a nice used copy. Kids grow up and/or decide they don't want to play anymore. You can easily sell it, or trade it, with little loss to you. Just my two cents.

Winslowe

Buying a Sigma Art is not exactly cheaping out!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Honestly, if this image is an example of what you are getting, don't waste your money, sell your Sigma lens and take the team out for soda's after the game.
Lighting looks good, shoot at least at 1/000 sec. or higher if you can, action under the bucket is the best.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
If you must get a lens, get a CANON. Again, don't waste your time or money on Sigma. The 24-70 is expensive, but good used ones are available.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311&_nkw=canon+24-70+2.8&_sacat=0

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Canon 70-200 f2.8 would be my choice. I use it all the time for my Grandsons baseball and football games. I also have the 2x extender.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Welcome aboard!
In between the barbs you have received some very good advice.
Like someone else mentioned, YouTube is a very good way to learn.
From the pic that you posted, you are off to a GREAT Start!
Smile,
JimmyT Sends