best lens for indoor sports

Hi there, I am just starting to get into digital photography.....I would like to photograph indoor sports, specifically ice hockey...which lens would be a

good lens to start with (I cannot afford canon 70-200 unfortunately!!)....would it be better to get a cheaper image stabilsed lens like a canon 17-85

IS or is it better to get a constant aperture like a sigma 18-50 2.8..?

John,

 

for photographing indoor sports the IS wont be as much use as you might think as it does nothing to help freeze the motion

of the players. The best way to go is probably to get a lens with a wide maximum aperture (f/2.8 for example) but if you

want a zoom then this can become rather expensive. Also, I would have the 18-50 2.8 that you mentioned would be rather

wide for sports (unless thats what you want) - how close to the players will you be? Have you thought about buying a

telephoto prime lens? That would work out much cheaper than getting a comparable zoom.

Ice hockey is a fast sport, so you need a fast lens. Even f/2.8 isn't really fast enough for aperture unless you are shooting a NHL game under TV lighting. You also need rapid focus. As a Canon shooter, the most popular choice for ice hockey is the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM prime, which meets these needs well, and provides a suitable angle of view to get some good action shots from rinkside. Even so, you'll be shooting at 1600 ISO or more at f/1.8-2: use M mode, and don't forget the white ice will mean you need to meter your exposure for an extra stop slower shutter speed to avoid underexposure (unless you can meter off a mid tone coloured player shirt). Hopefully you'll end up with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze most of the action. You don't mention which body you are using, but I'd plan on upgrading to the 50D when you can manage it - the high ISO capability is really worth having for shooting indoor sport - game changing, in fact.

 

You can get more shooting and setup tips in the Sports forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/

Image stabilizing doesn't do much to help when the problem is both low light and moving subjects. Besides the 2.8 constant aperture zooms, you might want to look to see about fast primes. The 50/1.8s are fast, the 85mm/1.8 would give some additional reach.

> would it be better to get a cheaper image [stabilised] lens like a canon 17-85 IS or is it better to get a constant

aperture like a sigma 18-50 2.8..? <

 

For any indoor sports photography, at the shorter focal lengths, it is better to have a faster lens than and Image

Stabilized lens: thus, in this regard (and all other issues equal, like focussing speed, for example) the Sigma 18 -

50F2.8 is the better choice of the two lenses you mention.

 

Adequate Shutter Speed freezes Subject Motion: Image Stabilization does NOT freeze Subject Motion.

 

***

 

As a general answer, for indoor sport, your lens choice is dependent upon four main factors:

 

1. How much light you have: goes to determining the Speed of the Lens (how bright the scene is: TV Trans Lighting

might be 6EV more than a School Gym)

 

2. The speed of the sport: goes to determining the Speed of the Lens (e.g. Chess might requires 1/50 to freeze

motion / camera movement, Ice hockey might require 1/800s

 

3. The distance you are from the action: goes to determining the FL, or FL range of the lens.

 

4. Whether (or not) you have the ability to roam: goes to determining the FL or FL range of the lens.

 

***

 

Whilst F2.8 zoom lenses (e.g. Canon`s 24 to 70 and 70 to 200) are very useful for indoor sport, there are many

times, especially in amateur venues, or professional venues lit for amateur meets, where the lighting and the speed

of the sport will require a lens faster than F2.8. And this means using a Prime Lens.

 

Each Sport, and the level of that sport (e.g. Schoolboy is usually slower than professional) has minimum shutter

requirements to freeze motion, at different times during the sport and at different camera angles.

 

Freezing motion is not the be all and end all of everything, but most sports photos do freeze motion.

 

As an example, I know that at a the proficiency level of National Swimming, 1/640s is right at the limit to freeze a

Backstroke Start, even then I get some blur in the hands and sometimes the feet.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7303794

 

 

For your requirements, I think you could take some test shots with a fast lens you have or borrow one to determine

what light you actually have, and also determine how close you can get to the action.

 

It would be silly buying an 18 to 50mm Sigma only to find that you really needed a faster lens such as a 50mm,

85mm or 100mm because the F2.8 was too slow or you needed a longer lens like a 200mm prime, to get good, tight

shots.

 

WW

Hi, John, a (used?) 1.8/85 USM or a 2.0/100 USM will give You better results compared to the lenses You mentioned. The

2.0/135 or the 2.8/200 would be even better if cannot shoot close to the action. Please excuse my lack of english, georg.

I have some experience shooting in ice rinks. Unless you shoot in a NCAA or NHL ice rink, they are not that bright.

You need f2.8 for the speed and the dim light. You also need to dial in some + compensation for that white ice

sheet. You can get by with the slow 17-85 f5.6 for beginning kids hocky or static posts. At 85mm, if you want

induvidual action coverage, you need to wait for some of the actions to come to your side of the rink. The best lens

for ice Rink in IMHO is the 70-200 f2.8 (35mm full frame) . For cropped sensor, it is the 50-135mm f2.8. You need

the short end when the action come to your side of the rink. One thing you hardly need is "IS" due to fast actions.

You can save some money buying non IS version of these lens.

I've had my eye on the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II for awhile now. I want to shoot ice hockey and horses. As mentioned above, the most important thing about shooting indoors, is getting an aperture that's wide enough. I'm in the same boat. I don't have a lot of money to spend. But I need a zoom lense, with the wide aperture. Anyway, I think they're running around $800 now, which is a lot less than the canon or nikon lenses. And I shoot with a Sigma now, and I'm pretty happy with it.