Do you really need f2.8??? - DPChallenge Forums

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

01/23/2006 07:40:51 AM · #1

Do you really need f2.8 for indoor sports shooting?

I'm planning on buying a sigma 70-200 f2.8, but probably I will have to sell my nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6D ED. And I think I will miss very much the 300mm end because of reach. I saw that the sigma 100-300mm f4 has very fine reviews, and it's only half the stop more. And when I got the money for the tleconverter I will have the reach for some sports like surf and kitesurf.

I'm so divided right know. Or should I lay still and buy the sigma 170-500 for the extra reach?

Any advice or experienced with the aove lenses are more than wellcome.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/23/2006 07:56:48 AM · #2

I wouldn't want to try anything smaller for indoor shots than f2.8. My Christmas present to myself was the 70-200 f2.8 VR and I haven't used the 70-300 f4-5.6D ED since, not once!

One of the first set of shots with the f2.8, concidentially, happened to be of kitesurfers at dusk. I was very happy with the results but I also am considering the various teleconverters available. I'm leaning towards the TC17e for the 1.7 times magnification without too much compromise in aperture.

BTW, where do you go to shoot kitesurfing?

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/23/2006 07:59:15 AM · #3

get the 70-200...it's worth it (or the 80-200)...

80-400 VR would be my second choice...but preferably I'd have the 80-200 and a 300 f/4 w/ 1.4 TC

DiamondPete

Nikon D5100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/23/2006 08:02:31 AM · #4

I absolutely recommend a 2.8 (or better) if you can afford it, for any sports work, especially indoors. I shoot most of my sports with a 180mm 2.8 Nikkor. There are times when I wish I had a zoom, but in general a fixed focal length is not a problem, and having good, fast glass is worth it. Even with f2.8, I am shooting indoors at ISO 800, because I prefer not to use a flash.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/23/2006 08:38:13 AM · #5

I was considering that lense with a Canon mount myself.

Until I read that it can have some Chromatic Aberration. Some people have written that it has very little, others have written that the Chromatic Aberration with this lense can be rather strong.

I have also read that not all of these lenses are made alike, as it was suggested some might be better constructed then others. (Which could explain why some people saw very little Chromatic Aberration and others saw quite a bit.)

I would recommend, if you could, borrowing the lense for a day of shooting and see what results you get with it.

I have a lense that has some Chromatic Aberration issues that ruined otherwise good shots of some tigers at the local zoo and thus, I am extremely leary of any lense that mentions it has some Chromatic Aberration issues.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/23/2006 08:44:07 AM · #6

I really like the 70-200mm f2.8 (from sigma, I can't afford nikon)but I think I will need the 2x teleconverter for reach. I really drooll over the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - it looks like a canon.

The price from the sigma is like the 80-200 f2.8 in second hand.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/23/2006 09:45:02 AM · #7

Get the Sigma 120-300 f2.8

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/23/2006 09:53:02 AM · #8

I wish... I would be put to sleep im my cat's bed if my wife knew that would send that money in a lens. :)

coolhar

01/23/2006 10:08:35 AM · #9

Originally posted by Nuno:

I think the answer lies in where your priorties are. If you want to shoot indoor sports you'll need f2.8 (or perhaps a faster prime) but 200 is plenty of reach. For the outdoors stuff like surfing and kiteboarding the reach is more important than a fast aperture because you will have far better light.

I have that Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and love it for it's sharpness. It works well with a 2x teleconverter if the light is real good. But I find myself using my 85 f1.8 and my 50 f1.8 most of the time for HS basketball games. If the lighting is good enough to shoot at f2.8 I'll switch to a 28-70. But that's just me. I like to get close and usually wind up shooting only one end of the court.

Message edited by author 2006-01-23 10:36:27.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/23/2006 11:00:28 AM · #10

Originally posted by Nuno:

I wish... I would be put to sleep im my cat's bed if my wife knew that would send that money in a lens. :)

If your wife is like mine, you would not get that lucky and you'd wind up in the cat's litterbox instead.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

01/23/2006 01:54:53 PM · #11

Generally, indoor sports do not have enough light for a telephoto with a max aperature of f4 to stop motion or prevent camera shake since the shutter speed will be slow.

If I remember correctly, going from f4 to f2.8 is considered on full stop, which means that twice as much light will be available, hence doubling your shutter speed.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/23/2006 02:09:08 PM · #12

Sequence of f-stops in 1 stop increment:

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22...

And the short answer is yes, the faster the better for sports, f/2.8 is a bare minimum for shooting indoor sports without strobes.

Count

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/23/2006 02:12:47 PM · #13

My favorite lens of all time for indoor or lowlight shots is my Olympus 50mm f1.2

Sadly I don't shoot film very often anymore but its sitting around just in case, man that was a fast lens...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/23/2006 06:22:55 PM · #14

Originally posted by doctornick:

Thanks for the f-stop review. I needed that My math was wrong I gess.

terje

Apple iPhone

01/23/2006 06:33:07 PM · #15

Yes, you absolutly need 2.8 or less! If you can, try to get a Canon 200/1.8

edit: Just noticed you had a Nikon camera. :-) So forget about the Canon lens! }:-]

Message edited by author 2006-01-23 18:34:09.

terje

Apple iPhone

01/24/2006 10:41:10 AM · #16

Nikon has a 200mm/1.8 don't they?

DjFenzl

01/24/2006 10:48:28 AM · #17

Nikon has a 200 2.0

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 10:48:58.

d95vette

Nikon D200

01/24/2006 10:55:20 AM · #18

I have a f/2.8 lens, but I rent a f/2 lens when I shoot basketball and hockey. The cost to me is $50 per weekend

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/24/2006 11:11:05 AM · #19

Originally posted by terje:

Nikon has a 200mm/1.8 don't they?

Canon used to have a 200mm/f1.8, but, they stopped production since it used lead and/or arsenic in some of the optical elements. It's highly regarded as one of the best EOS lenses ever. I don't know, since I've never actually shot with one. I've just seen enough pictures to be covetous. Occasionally, they pop up for sale on ebay or FredMiranda, but they are quite expensive. I know that you can rent one several places, but aside from Calumet in Chicago, I'm not sure exactly where.