cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I am a pro sports shooter and I would be happy to give you my opinion in this forum. The two lenses I used the most last year were my 400/2.8 and my 70-200/2.8. I think the 400 is not realistic for most indoor sports, although my specific recommendations would require the sport, level and location. I can safely state there are not many sports shooters who don't use a 70-200 at some point and I would highly recommend you consider one. For me personally, the Nikon 70-200/2.8E FL VR would be my recommendation as it is a fantastic lens. Others are available but not as good as the Nikon version. You truly get what you pay for. When shooting indoor sports, I use a variety of lenses, sport and venue dependent. Best of luck.

Wags Loc: Mequon, WI

Frank, I went through the same process a few months ago. I shoot with a D500, and do a ton of indoor bball games. I ended up purchasing the Tamron 35-150, F2.8-4. I’m sorry I don’t recall the price. It has turned out to be a very good lens for me. The 20-70, and 70-200, which I have, didn’t work for me. I will typically stand at my grandsons’ offensive end of the court-and then switch at halftime. With the 35, I can get wide enough, and the 135 allows me to zoom in anywhere on the court. The team has a Facebook page, and I will post up to 50 shots after each game. The players and families really enjoy it, as do I.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I have a d500 and a Tamron G1 70-200f2.8. It performs very well. I don't really think for the price the G2 is that much better in reality. Of course that's a personal choice. I bought it from a fellow hogger about a year ago. Nice lens and inexpensive.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You simply want lenses with the largest aperture possible.

70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are common, but relatively large, heavy and somewhat pricey.

And f/2.8 may not be enough for indoor sports. Mostly this would mean primes instead of zooms.

However, Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ($1000) may be a versatile zoom option... 1.3 stops faster than f/2.8. And it has fast "HSM" (ultrasonic) autofocus drive, which is also important when shooting sports. 100mm telephoto on an APS-C camera may be sufficient for basketball.

85mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4 are available from several manufacturers. The latter offer two full stops better than f/2.8 (4X as much light), but tend to be rather large and expensive. Currently Nikkors are probably your best bet, if you want to buy new. Yongnuo and Rokinon are offering less expensive, but I haven't used them, don't know what type of autofocus drive they use or how quick it is. If you consider them, do research about their AF performance (and buy from someone who accepts returns if you are dissatisfied). I believe previously both Sigma and Tamron have offered some fast 85mm with ultrasonic AF drive (AF-S in Nikkors, USD in Tamron, HSM in Sigma). They no longer appear to be offering these new, but they might be found used.

There also have been various 100mm f/2, 105mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2, 135mm f/1.8, 135mm f/1.4 and even 200mm f/2 offered by various manufacturers. Some are available new... many can be found used.

Honestly, so long as you can get reasonably close to the sidelines of a basketball court (or anything similar) you will probably never need longer than 135mm and might even be happy with less. That's good because a 200mm f/2 is very expensive, as well as big and heavy. Shop around for any of the 100mm to 135mm, if interested... Just be sure to look for fast-focusing lenses (ultrasonic... such as AF-S Nikkors, HSM Sigmas and USD Tamrons). Larger apertures also generally make for better AF performance. But even using fast ultrasonic some ultra large aperture lenses have deliberately slower AF... "long throw" designs that emphasize accuracy over speed (because of the shallow depth of field potential of the big aperture). For football and baseball fields 200mm, 300mm and sometimes even longer can be useful. But so long as you are able to get to the sidelines to shoot, except for hockey those longer focal lengths aren't necessary for most types of indoor sports. BTW, it's better to get on the sidelines shooting from the same level as the players, anyway. Shooting down from above sitting up in the bleachers makes for lousy shots. Shoot from the same level as the players... or even lower for really dramatic shots!

Whatever you settle on, get the largest aperture you can.... as much as you can afford and are willing to haul around. Bigger apertures will allow you to use reasonable ISOs and shutter speeds fast enough to stop the action under gym lighting. One thing you have to watch for, especially when the action comes close, is too-shallow depth of field. However, the benefits of the larger aperture outweigh any concerns.

EDIT:

By the way, in case you don't know, your D500 has an "Anti Flicker" feature that will be a big help shooting under gym lighting. Often gyms and arenas use types of lighting that cycle on and off rapidly, 60 hertz in the US and some other countries, 50 hz in still other countries. This causes a lot of problems with under-exposure. In the past the only way to deal with it was to use a slow shutter speed... but that doesn't work for sports where you need a faster shutter speed. That left us simply taking lots and lots of extra shots, because we knew many would have under-exposure problems, a lot of which would be too far gone to correct in post-processing (especially if shooting JPEGs instead of RAW, which has more latitude for adjustments).

Anti-Flicker solves this problem by detecting the light cycling on and off and timing each shutter release to the light's peak output. I use a similar feature on my Canon cameras and can tell you it works very well. Where I used to see half or more of my images shot "under the lights" have some under-exposure issues... I now see almost none when shooting in the exact same venue.

When I first got cameras with this feature I was concerned that it would cause timing issues when shooting sports... unwanted shutter lag causing me to miss the peak moments I was trying to capture. However in practice I barely notice this feature doing its job. Every once in a great while I might notice a slight pause and sometimes that makes me miss a shot. But those problems are quite rare and the benefits of this feature are so great I ALWAYS use it when shooting "under the lights". Highly recommended! I wouldn't shoot indoor sports without it anymore. (I have two cameras with it, and two without... indoors under gym/arena lightign I don't use the cameras that don't have it).

John Matthews Loc: Wasilla, Alaska

I Used to shoot a lot of indoor soccer and basketball. Your D500 and a 2.8 70-200 eith other your lens are ideal for these situations. If you don’t have to PP for noise now you will not have with the telephoto 2.8.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Paul has got it right.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

When I shot some of my families indoor sports I found focus was a big factor as many auto focus grab the closest thing. I try one spot focus but with moving he kids they don't stand still for long. Practice and shoot a lot

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

People recommend using Nikon lenses, but (I've heard on podcasts) that Tamron makes OEM Nikon lenses under the Nikon label. Please note that they are lenses which Nikon sends out as their own. I use Tamron lenses and they are excellent.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

So, if it's on a podcast it's true?

Bill_de Loc: US

There was an article recently that showed the Nikon & Tamron lenses. Externally they looked very similar but internally not so much. If I can find the article I'll post a link.

---

Nickaroo

I use my D850, D5, D500 and just added the Z9. I have 3 lotions as I shoot for the University of Michigan Athletic Dept. and my shots are good. If a Photographer wants to be successful, then he/dhe had better bring 2 setups, or don't show up. You can't walk into a Game without sewing prepared. I;am not trying to be a know it all. But, I have had to shoot in some crazy Arenas.

hrblaine

Fine if you can handle the weight. If not, you might think of the somewhat slower (and lighter) 70-300. Harry PS I shoot with both lens on a Canon, both will give you an OK image with the 70-200 somewhat better. It's a beast to carry though, so maybe rent both and see which you like the best overall. I'm 90 mydamnself and on a long shoot would probably go with the 300 unless I felt that I just had to have that 2.8! Since you're already shooting an f4, the 300 just might do you. What do you think Paul? Harry

Nickaroo

Sorry for all of my typos. I’m usually very good at my replies, but tonight I posted my post very late. Any questions please let me know.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I've seen second hand 50-150mm f/2.8 lenses for less than £300.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

.