Lens for indoor sports (Page 7): Basketball and flag football are coming up next week.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

fstoprookie wrote:

Thank You Jules - I am always impressed by your photo skills - Keep shooting and posting

Basketball and flag football are coming up next week.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

TriX wrote:

Exactly correct. No arguing or name calling, just a civil discussion of differing opinions. It is truly amazing how low the light in HS gyms can be. At night, I’m typically at ISO 6400 - 12,800, f2.8 and 1/500.

Here in Las Vegas the gyms for volleyball and basketball are terrible. One private school's lighting permits me to shoot at about 1/800 at 2.8 iso 3500 on my D500, compared to other schools. Shooting there is like a vacation. lol

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

A budget of $1000 is going to be hard to locate the right equipment at this level. Good luck with your shopping for glass and let us know how you make out. Good shooting my friend!

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

I have had few issues related to the 24-120 f4 max in dimely-lit venues. i attribute it to the D500 body and some post processing.
The major advantage relates to the focal range. i have fewer composition issues and therefor fewer times when a lens change is called for. That is a significant advantage in fast moving sports. The 80-200 adequately handles the baseline/end line shots particularly when up in the stands shooting down.
I do have a set of f2.8 lenses ranging from 17mm-200mm + a 300 f4mm. i have used them all in combination to assess what works best to capture that shot that I just missed.

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

The Nikon 24-120 works well for me under the same venue descriptions. Its major advantage for me is that its range reduces the number of times that i may have to change lenses. Adorama sells it for just under $1,100, so it is above your limit.

Wags Loc: Mequon, WI

mostsports wrote:

The Nikon 24-120 works well for me under the same venue descriptions. Its major advantage for me is that its range reduces the number of times that i may have to change lenses. Adorama sells it for just under $1,100, so it is above your limit.

I've watched a number of YouTube videos on this lens, and it is very appealing. Just a matter of whether I want to spend that kind of money. There are also used/renewed lenses available, but I doubt that I would go that route.

Thanks for all your ideas and suggestions.

RobertP

Have used Nikon kit lens 22-300mm, Canon 70-200 2.8. You should have a camera that u can shoot at high ISO. Should not use any flash while in playing time inside the court. You will need to position yourself accordingly if you are shooting a family member or just shooting for photography's sake. Speak with the refs ahead of time and tell them what you are going to and where you are going to be. You will shoot sitting on the end of the court, across the court and you should review other pictures you have in your mind as to the players' movements, etc. You will shoot at high speeds many times. Pay attention to dark backgrounds especially with black players. Try a few shots when they are practicing. It's a lot of fun and you will learn a lot as you go to more games. Have fun!

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

Several years ago, i tested the D750 in a moderately dark gym hosting a basketball game. to my surprise, the 750 handled the game very well. It was a winner in low light. Even more pleasing, was its ability to properly expose black, brown,Asian and white faces. At the time, the D700 was my go-to camera.

s

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

mostsports wrote:

Several years ago, i tested the D750 in a moderately dark gym hosting a basketball game. to my surprise, the 750 handled the game very well. It was a winner in low light. Even more pleasing, was its ability to properly expose black, brown,Asian and white faces. At the time, the D700 was my go-to camera.

The D750 is a very good high ISO body. If I already had a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8 and had $1,000 to improve my indoor sports photography and was a Nikon user, I’d be looking for a good used D750 to up my game, but that’s just my opinion.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

TriX wrote:

The D750 is a very good high ISO body. If I already had a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8 and had $1,000 to improve my indoor sports photography and was a Nikon user, I’d be looking for a good used D750 to up my game, but that’s just my opinion.

He already has one of the best sports camera's. It will shot at 10FPS, strap on a f2.8 lens and what do you have - A darn good setup

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

fstoprookie wrote:

He already has one of the best sports camera's. It will shot at 10FPS, strap on a f2.8 lens and what do you have - A darn good setup

It is a great camera! BUT no camera is the right tool for everything and the right FF will outperform it in lowlight/high ISO - it’s just a function of sensor size, and it doesn’t matter what the frame rate is if you don’t have the high ISO performance required in dimly lit HS gyms as I keep explaining. I’ve learned this the hard way after many years of shooting indoor sports in HS gyms. He already has the right lenses for the job, hence my suggestion that he’ll get the most bang for his buck by adding a FF body for those occasions.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A high FPS camera has the potential for getting shots IMPOSSIBLE to get with a slower FPS. Serious sports/fast action/wildlife/bird shooters lust for this....... -IF- you can get "THE" shot with high FPS, I can assure you noise/technical image quality becomes quite secondary in the real world. IOW, subject/content trumps everything else !
.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

A high FPS camera has the potential for getting shots IMPOSSIBLE to get with a slower FPS. Serious sports/fast action/wildlife/bird shooters lust for this....... -IF- you can get "THE" shot with high FPS, I can assure you noise/technical image quality becomes quite secondary in the real world. IOW, subject/content trumps everything else !
.

So you say, but didn’t I see you post earlier that you don’t shoot indoor sports, instead comparing it to BIF shooting?. No argument about content, BUT if you know the sport and anticipate, I’ve found that 6-7 fps is quite adequate, and what’s also and even more important is having adequate shutter speed to freeze the action, and THAT extra stop at high ISOs which translates to 2x the shutter speed is what FF buys you. With respect, I think you need to shoot a lot of indoor HS sports and then come back and tell us which body you prefer because it’s easy to underestimate how dark some HS gyms are until you’ve actually seen them.

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

From the dungeons of the HS BB court: All of the above comments have photographic merit. The bottom-line criteria are - did i get the shot? Is it usable/publishable? Is it relevant to the story that I am creating?
FF is relevant re usability/quality; sports camera is relevant to getting the shot.
My D750 is a little slow on autofocus lock-on, but otherwise awards me with quality.The D500 emphasizes getting the shot.
The bottom line is being in the right position at the right time and with the right camera mounting the right lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

TriX wrote:

So you say, but didn’t I see you post earlier that... (show quote)

I shoot 7 FPS and do pretty good BUT, I see what people get with 20FPS - It is NO CONTEST ! So, do I think that 7 FPS is "adequate" - for serious saleable work - On a LUCKY day - maybe (10-15% of the time) Otherwise NO - and this has nothing to do with how dark or light it is !

An f2 lens also gives you 2X the shutter speed and better AF - and that is also what a faster lens buys you.
.