Fast prime for indoor sports

<p>After doing the responsible thing and first searching the Photo.net archives I discovered that most of the postings on this topic were a bit dated and since NIkon has introduced a few "updated" primes over the past couple of years I thought I'd give this question another go. <br>

I was hoping to hear from someone who shoots indoor sports (mostly basketball) with a D300 or similar. I have been using a 50mm f/1.8 (non-D) and although my percentage of keepers isn't bad, I do find that the camera/lens focuses on the crowd in the background more often than focusing on the intended athlete. Sports shooters might be saying to themselves that this is "par for the course"--and maybe it is, but I also want to explore the possibility of improving my success rate with an updated lens.</p>

<p>Years ago--in the film days -- I owned a NIkkor AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 (non-D), I once read on a forum that the D version of that lens model focused faster than the non-D. Is the same true with the D version of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?<br>

I very recently sold my 50mm f/1.8 (non-D) with my D50 body last week in order to raise funds for an "updated" fast prime and ever since I have been "racking my brain" trying to decide which lens would be the best fit.</p>

<p><strong>The likely candidates are as follows:</strong></p>

<ul>

 

<li>Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Lens ($419.00)</li>

<li>Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX ($194.00)</li>

<li>Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens ($119.00)</li>

<li>Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM ($489.00)</li>

<li>Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM ($499.00)</li>

</ul>

<p>Value is important to me. I don't do this for a living, but I do cover local high school sports for fun and sometimes profit---I have had my photos published in local newspapers. I push myself to get better, learn more and practice practice practice....I love the challenge.<br>

However, notice how much more expensive the "internal focusing" lenses are above (with the exception of the Nikkor 35mm). Are these lenses worth the extra $$$ in terms of performance regarding indoor sports? Making things even more complicated is the fact that I've read that the "updated" AF-S Nikon 50mm 1/4G is considered by some "slow to focus"---wow! how can this be? Have others been disappointed by this lens as well (in terms of overall value?). I don't mind paying twice as much for comparable lens if its twice as good...however, on the flipside, I am reluctant to pay twice as much for only a 3% increase in performance, or results which would be considered "negligible" to the naked, untrained eye.</p>

<p>In a perfect world I'd like very much to "try it before I buy it", but the B&H superstore is a 2 hour train ride away. And who knows, I can see how this could potentially turn out like my D300 buying experience where I walked away feeling even more confused after an in-person comparison between, the D90, D300 and D300s--but thats another story.</p>

<p>As a final, related question--> I noticed that both the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G and 50mm f/1.4G are back-ordered at B&H. The 35mm has been "temporarily out of stock" for several weeks, --maybe months?? Any industry insiders out there have an idea what the "pipeline" looks like. B&H insists they have no information on delivery date. Any thoughts on the above would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Craig Morton<br>

Nikon D300<br>

Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX<br>

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 II EX DG APO</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>craig, if getting the right lens is important to you, i would take that 2-hour train ride.</p>

<p>as for your question, i dont shoot indoor sports that often, but i do shoot indoors in low-light frequently. i currently own the 50/1.8D, sigma 50/1.4, sigma 30/1.4, and 35/1.8. the 1.8D is about as fast to focus as the other lenses on the D300s, and the slowest of the bunch might be the 35, whose AF-S isn't quite as nimble as sigma's HSM or the pro-spec nikkors.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do find that the camera/lens focuses on the crowd in the background more often than focusing on the intended athlete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this could be the result of shooting wide open or at wide apertures, because the plane of focus is really just a narrow sliver at 1.8, which can be compounded by a moving subject. normally i would say the camera might not be able to keep up with the action, but the d300 is a pretty good sports camera, with the same AF module as the D3 series. you dont mention your settings, so that would be the first thing i would check. it's also possible that your lens is back-focusing. what it may come down to is needing to push ISO and shoot at f/2-2.8 to give yourself more wiggle room.</p>

<p>as far as the difference in prices, you get what you pay for, sort of. the nikon 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 D are sharp and inexpensive, but... the main advantage of the 1.4s is better bokeh. the sigma 50 is reportedly better than the nikon 50/1.4 D and AF-S at wider apertures, but i haven't tried the nikon, so i couldn't tell you for sure. it's hard to say whether in your case the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 would be meaningful.</p>

<p>I would not get any of those lenses. From my days of shooting sports for a daily paper and covering a lot of high school sports, I would be hard pressed to use any of those lenses. I am not a huge fan of the 50mm lens. I would suggest looking at the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1931/AF-NIKKOR-85mm-f%252F1.8D.html. I would say for Basketball, volleyball and wrestling it would be a better choice.<br>

The lenses that I use are:<br>

Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS<br>

Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8<br>

Tokina 300mm f/2.8<br>

Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8</p>

<p>When I shot my daughter's indoor basketball games with a D200, I found the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>A 50 mm f/1.8D focused fast enough</li>

<li>If it focused on the wrong thing, it was my fault, not the lenses...bad setting, bad aiming, bad timing</li>

<li>85 mm f/1.8D was about as short as I could stand...very rarely was the action close enough to me to enable a wider lens</li>

<li>Occasionally, I shot a 50 mm on a film camera. i.e. equivalent to DX 35 mm. Definitely too wide for my taste. Your vision may vary, of course...but I wanted tighter, more distant images.</li>

<li>ISO 1600 was the practical minimum for descent shutter speeds with f/1.8</li>

<li>Therefore, my subsequent switch to a 80-200 f/2.8 was ill-advised...not enough light for that</li>

</ul>

<p>The D300 should give you at least one more stop of usable ISO compared to my D200. That means that if your venues are lit about the same as mine (typical school gymnasium) then f/2.8 should work, and your range of lenses gets bigger.</p>

 

<p>Couple of thoughts.</p>

<p>I think you need more reach than 50mm. I would look at the 85/1.8 as well.</p>

<p>All of the lenses you are talking about (including the 50/1.8) are way plenty good enough. You do not "Need" better glass.</p>

<p>You don't "Need" AF-S either. You're talking about free lance HS sports, how any keepers do you need? A couple will be enough. Sports shooters use manual focus for decades and did quite well. D-AF lenses on a D300 are pretty darn fast to foucs.</p>

<p>Work on your technique and anticipating the action.</p>

<p>You'll do fine.</p>

<p>I had started with a 50/1.8 and this year moved to an 85/1.8 for indoor basketball. I found that was cropping too many of the 50mm pictures, and much less to the 85s. I am using an old D2HS which should be plenty in terms of turning the crank and focusing, but I still get my share of misses. Part of it is that I'll push it as high as ISO 1600 and still be down at f2, f2.2. So there's still not a lot of margin for error.</p>

<p>Even though it is AF-S, the 50mm/f1.4 G AF-S is not known for fast AF. Apparently it is optimized for precise AF @ f1.4 instead of speed.</p>

<p>Craig, I've had good results for school sports (mostly snaps for family and friends) using the humble 50/1.8D AF Nikkor, 35-70/2.8D AF and even on occasion the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX. There were occasions when I wished for a faster f/1.4 prime or a longer f/2.8 zoom, but for snaps of school volleyball and basketball games, the lenses I already had were good enough. The D2H had plenty of oomph to quickly autofocus with screwdriver AF Nikkors.</p>

<p>The main challenge in every case was choosing the most appropriate AF mode on the camera body. Usually the various groups of AF sensors weren't well suited to indoor sports in dimly lit gyms. Shooting wide open gave no margin for error. Single AF sensor modes worked best for me.</p>

<p>The next challenge was deciding whether to assign AF to the shutter release button or AF-ON button. I found myself assigning AF to the shutter release with the f/2.8 or slower zooms for basketball, which involved more panning with the flow; and to the AF-ON button for volleyball pix at the net level using the 50/1.8. With volleyball I'd watch the players, get a sense of the most active zones and prefocus. I'd touch up the focus with the AF-ON button, which seemed to cause fewer problems than assigning AF to the shutter release button - sometimes the latter would result in the lens racking focus from near to far before settling down.</p>

<p>Those faster premium zooms and primes some folks suggest would be dandy, but before plunking down that much money try to optimize results with your existing equipment by trying other techniques for quicker autofocus.</p>

<p><em>" I do find that the camera/lens focuses on the crowd in the background more often than focusing on the intended athlete"</em> This has little to do with the lens. You should be able to easily track the athletes with the D300 with any lens. What AF settings are you using?</p>

<p>If the 50mm had enough reach for you, that is all you need. If you found it had too little reach, the 85mm might be a better choice. If you found it had too much reach, the 35mm is the way to go. All three lenses might be your best choice depending on where you are positioned.</p>

<p>I agree with Elliot that camera settings are a likely culprit for focusing on the wrong area.</p>

<p>Try the following CUSTOM SETTINGS (D300):<br>

a1 - Release+Focus: Frame rate slows, but AF accuracy is improved<br>

a3 - 51-point w/ 3D-Tracking<br>

a4 - Normal<br>

a9 - OFF</p>

<p>These are the settings I would use, but you may or may not like them.</p>

<p>As for glass for a basketball game...</p>

<p>I used to own a D300s and the following primes:</p>

<ul>

<li>35mm f/1.8 ($250) - too wide for basketball...unless you're taking a shot of the whole team</li>

<li>50mm f/1.8D ($125)- Good for basketball...AF is fast enough on a D300s and tracks well enough for crisp, sharp shots when stopped down to ~f/2.8.</li>

<li>50mm f/1.4G ($450)- Similar to 50mm f/1.8D except crisp shots can be expected by f/2</li>

<li>85mm f/1.4D ($1150) - I have very little experience with this lens on a D300s, but the few times I did use it I found the AF quite fast enough to keep up with HS games and got great results once I stopped down to f/2</li>

<li>105mm f/2 DC ($1050) - Probably my favorite lens for basketball. Focal length is great for framing individuals and throwing the background sufficiently OOF to make the player pop. I generally shoot at f/2 and f/2.8, which takes some practice, but gives great results.</li>

</ul>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AF is fast enough on a D300s and tracks well enough for crisp, sharp shots when stopped down to ~f/2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that was my experience with the 50/1.8 too, that it didn't get sharp until 2.8, which made it redundant when i got the tamron 17-50, which was very sharp wide open, much like the nikon 24-70 (which would probably blow your budget). if you're going to spend $450, i would definitely consider the original version of the tamron for that reason--it's sharp enough at 2.8 you don't have to stop down, and it covers the 35 and 50 range (as well as 17 and 24), so that's just a great focal length all around for DX.</p>

<p>i now have the sigma 50/1.4 which mainly gets used on FX but i haven't shot any sports with it yet. i shot a concert the other night, though, and got some great shots at f/2, 1/200 and ISO 1600. if you absolutely need sub-2.8 apertures, i would get that over the 50/1.4 D or AF-S. actually i did get that over those lenses. and yes, it produces images that 'pop.'</p>

<p>ultimately, however, this probably comes down to budget. if you already have a 50/1.8 AF, i'm not sure going to the 1.4D or G or HSM is going to be worth it. you'd probably be better off not duplicating a focal length you already have and going for an 85 instead, or, if 50mm on DX is long enough, scooping the 17-50. as others have pointed out, technique may be the culprit more than AF speed of the lens, and optimizing your camera's settings for sports could help here as well. i just wouldn't expect a whole lot at 1.4 or 1.8 with a fast-moving subject, even with a D300s.</p><div></div>

<p>@ Craig Morton - I see you already have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. Guessing you are looking for a fast aperture lens to combat those high school dungeons called gyms. In my experience I find Nikon screw type lenses like the 50/1.8 are not good enough for fast action indoor sports as far as consistent fast accurate focusing. The inherit play in the mechanical linkage between lens and body makes it less likely to keep up with a fast running sport like basketball. And shooting at f/2.8 and wider will reveal any focusing errors. I'd be more inclined to go with the AFS or HSM type lenses. As far as testing how fast a lens will focus, you're best bet is to try it under actual conditions. Just mounting the lens and letting it rack from infinity to close focus and back will not tell you how well your camera + lens + lighting + subject combination will respond in real life.<br>

Some have suggested to stop down to f/2.8 to give you a bit more depth of focus to help with slight focus errors. But stopping down just brings you back to your Sigma 70-200/2.8 capabilities. Trying to keep a running player in focus at f2.8 is hard; trying to keep them in focus at f/1.4 will be even harder. Using 51 pt focus was also suggested, but I'd recommend 9 pts at most. 51 pts will pick up to much of all the players surrounding and cutting in front of your subject/player as well as focus on a busy/competing background. Also, follow focus your subject and wait for them to fill the frame and reach the peak action. A lot of times when you have the camera focusing on the background is because the subject was too small relative to the AF area.<br>

Of the focal lengths you are considering, if you will be shooting from under the basket, the 30/35mm might work best. If you shoot from about the 3 pt line, the 50mm might work better. If light levels allow, your 70-200 would be great from the 3 pt line to the corner position. The corner spot is my usual location for basketball (http://www.tonycorreastudios.com/p1057953198/h12b58b8f#h12b58b8f).<br>

Whatever lens you decide upon, as you said practice, practice, practice. That's really the only way to learn to be good at photography in general and sports photography specifically. At the end of the day, the camera and lens are just tools. You are the one creating the images.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"I find Nikon screw type lenses like the 50/1.8 are not good enough for fast action indoor sports as far as consistent fast accurate focusing</em>" I think it really depends on the body you are using. I have 3 non AF-S lenses and they all focus quickly and accurately on the D3 even in less than ideal lighting.</p>

<p>@ Elliot B re: </p>

 

 

<p><em>"I find Nikon screw type lenses like the 50/1.8 are not good enough for fast action indoor sports as far as consistent fast accurate focusing</em>" I think it really depends on the body you are using. I have 3 non AF-S lenses and they all focus quickly and accurately on the D3 even in less than ideal lighting.<br>

True, a D3 type camera with it's better motor and battery will drive a screw type lens better than the Dxx/Dxxx series of cameras. But the inherent design of such a mechanical linkage is not as good as the AFS/USM/HSM type motors when it comes to fast start-stop less than predictable action. It's not just a matter of fast initial focus. It's more of how quickly the lens can react to the constant changing type of action in such sports as indoor basketball. USM type lenses is one of the reason sports photographers moved to Canon when Nikon only had screw type lenses and later a few AF-I telephoto lenses back in the '90s.<br>

I also have both AF-S and screw type lenses. For everything but fast action sports, the screw type lenses are just fine in their focusing speed and accuracy.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p>When I did some focus testing of the 50/1.8D and 50/1.4D and 50/1.4G I found that the 1.8D was the most accurate. The f/1.4G does track moving subjects with less jitter and real-world results are very good (on FX). I think the 85/1.4 AF-S is something to consider for your application. It is sharper than the 1.4D at f/1.4, and has better focus accuracy. It's not a huge difference but significant nonetheless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also have both AF-S and screw type lenses. For everything but fast action sports, the screw type lenses are just fine in their focusing speed and accuracy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree entirely. Provided you are using a pro/pro-sumer body, (D3/D2x/D700/D300/D200), your AF motor is perfectly fine for most screw-drive AF motors, even when shooting fast action sports. </p>

<p>Notice that of the lenses I suggested only two were AF-S lenses...the 50mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.8DX. </p>

<p>Look at what pros were using only a few (10 or so) years ago... mostly screw drive AF lenses...and their results were good enough for magazine covers. Now look even further back and you'll see that pros used to use MANUAL FOCUS lenses...yet their results were also high quality. </p>

<p>AF-S is nice, but never necessary. In fact, the AF-S 85mm f/1.4G focuses slower, (yet more precisely when wide open), than the 85mm f/1.8 w/ screw drive AF.</p>

<p>Additionally, in regards to the 51-Point AF w/ 3D tracking, I forgot to mention that you will need to change two other settings on the camera body. You will need to set your AF mode selector (page 62 of your D300 manual) to "C" (continuous) and use "Dynamic Area" AF (page 64 in the D300 manual) to make this an effective solution. </p>

<p>I guarantee that with practice you will rarely lock onto the background if you are using Single Point or "Dynamic Area" AF rather than the "Auto AF" (big white box) mode.</p>

<p>RS</p>

Richard we will have to agree to disagree. I have been photographing sporting events since the late 80s having used various bodies from an F2 to the D3. Back then before the digital age Nikon cameras and lenses were designed with good viewfinders, focusing screens, and

manual focus rings. Today's tools are less suited for manual focus. Still usable, but not as good as the pre-digital.

Unfortunately not many new photographers develop those manual focuing skills. The market dictates AF performance.

10 years ago Nikon Pro sports users had the 17-35, 28-70, 80-200, 300, 400, 500, 600 AFS/AFI lenses. If a skilled

football photographer were using the original screw type 300/2.8 they would be at a disadvantage compared to an

equally skilled Canon user with their 300 USM. Doesn't mean the Nikon photographer couldn't deliver great images.

But if there is a better, more effective tool available, they would utilize it. For certain types of sporting events and level

of play, AFS/USM type lenses are generally the better choice.

<p>As the original poster, I justed wanted to thank those who contributed to this thread. Many of the comments offered constructive points to consider. I will certainly heed the well intended advice to focus on technique, rather than get too hung up on AF specs between lenses. Although, I did find it interesting to learn that the modern AF-S G design involves a compromise between speed and accuracy (wide open). <br>

At any rate, I think I am going to go with the Nikon 50mm 1.8D at this time. Remember, I sold my old non-D last week with a D50 body (my first DSLR)--so I want to replace it soon. I have owned the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, but I found the reach was too tight for me, even for shooting in the corners (and certainly under the basket). It's challenging enough (for me) to follow/anticipate the action with a 50mm on DX. And since I never seemed to develop a fondness for 85mm focal length in other environments- (even at social gatherings it was just too tight)--i rarely had a desire to use it, so I sold it. <br>

Or perhaps thats just my style with sports. I prefer to get a little more context than just the "look of concentration" on the individual ball handler we often see with longer telephotos. I like to get more of the body and/or that one-on-one matchup that reveals a clean block. For those that wanted to direct the conversation towards a discussion on settings I most recently used the following custom AF settings shooting basketball:</p>

<ul>

<li>AF-C</li>

<li>Dynamic Area AF (21 points)</li>

<li>Custom set WB with gray card</li>

<li>Release+Focus priority</li>

<li>AF-ON Only (a technique suggested by a close friend that shoots sports for a living)</li>

</ul>

<p>I think the latter is where I might want to start. Thinking carefully about all of the steps I take, the AF-ON only technique involves using my right thumb to engage AF while my index finger hits the shutter when I anticipate action peaks. I have a habit of removing my thumb off of the AF-ON button when I hit the shutter and I'll want to experiment next time with consttant AF-C engagement and see what happens...OR perhaps use the AF-ON only dial in on the focus plane by the basket and wait for the action to enter the "focus zone"....<br>

I try to shoot between f/2 and f/2.8 with my previously owned 50mm f/1.8 (non-D) as it naturally improves my margin for error a bit with the increased DOF. I tried using mySigma 70-200mm at f/2.8, but found that even though both lenses were shot at f/2.8 in the same lousy gym light---the 50mm was brighter/faster by a full stop. Why is that? I'm sure there is a simple explanation for this that involves a better understanding of optics than I have. <br>

Between my recent sale of the D50 body and 50mm lens (non-D), combined with a generous B&H gift card I have about $600 to play with. A new, slightly updated, 50mm AF-D will cost $119.00. Baseball is coming up so I was thinking that a 1.4x teleconverter for my Sigma ($249.00) would be something to try (the other option would be to sell the Sigma and get a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR IF-ED G ($439.00) for outdoor sports. I also want to get a pro/semi-pro tripod and ball head. After breaking a couple of cheap plasticky $30 dollar tripod units (bought at a big box) store its time to finally get something thats built to last. I currently have a Manfrotto monopod, which speaks to what I said in my original post, I don't mind paying double for something if its twice as good and this is certainly what I discovered with that tool...it reeks of quality, the design is great and was worth ever cent. Now to find a Manfrotto tripod kit under $250 :-). I live in rural, upstate NY and would like to get into landscape/night photography this summer--but perhaps thats a topic for another thread. <br>

Cheers,</p>

<p>Craig Morton</p>

<p>Nikon D300<br />Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX<br />Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 II EX DG APO<br>

Manfrotto monopod w/pistol grip<br>

Nikon SB-800 speedlight</p><div></div>

 

 

<p>Craig - keep enjoy the 'new' lens - keep shooting. Best way to develop one's skills.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Re: interesting to learn that the modern AF-S G design involves a compromise between speed and accuracy (wide open).</em> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is more to do with the recent 24/35/85/1.4 AFS lenes. Apparently the AF motors that Nikon incorporated into their design were geared for accuracy over pure AF speed. The other AFS lenses such as the 70-200 and the 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 telephotos do not exhibit this characteristic. They are fast and accurate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Re: I have owned the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, but I found the reach was too tight for me, even for shooting in the corners (and certainly under the basket). </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everyone has their styles, and that might change over time. I tend to go very wide under the net or long from the corners. Views/details a spectator wouldn't typically see from their seats. I also like to show the players' facial expressions/game face.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Re:</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>AF-C - good; AFC plus CH drive is needed to follow the action. CH is not to gun the camera, it's a good assest to be able to get that quick follow up shot.</em></li>

<li><em>Dynamic Area AF (21 points) - I tend to use 9 pts; I find 21 or 51 too much coverage for basketball.</em></li>

<li><em>Custom set WB with gray card - good idea but many venues have bad lighting that will vary across your fame or from shot to shot. Just something to keep in mind.</em></li>

<li><em>Release+Focus priority - good</em></li>

<li><em>AF-ON Only (a technique suggested by a close friend that shoots sports for a living) - many swear by it; takes some getting used to.</em></li>

</ul>

<p><br /><em>Re: I tried using mySigma 70-200mm at f/2.8, but found that even though both lenses were shot at f/2.8 in the same lousy gym light---the 50mm was brighter/faster by a full stop. Why is that? I'm sure there is a simple explanation for this that involves a better understanding of optics than I have. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few reasons. There's a whole lot of glass in a comple zoom than the plain old 50mm. All that glass and the internal reflections decrease the actual T-stop of a lens. Lens apertures are rated by their physical diamater, f/stop. This is different than the lens actual transmissive qualities, T-stop. Cinema lenses are rated by their T-stops for this reason. An f/2.8 zoom lens might actually transmit f/3.2, 3.5. Also there's light fall off at wide open. In some cases this can be one or more stops of light towards the corner. This will give you the appearance of a darker image, even though the center of the image might be properly exposed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Re: Baseball is coming up so I was thinking that a 1.4x teleconverter for my Sigma ($249.00) would be something to try (the other option would be to sell the Sigma and get a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR IF-ED G ($439.00) for outdoor sports.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't comment on the Sigma + TC vs Nikon 70-300 AFS. If the Sigma is not that bright/sharp wide open, the TC will make it worse. If you have to stop down a stop or more then with the TC you're at f/5.6 already - same as the Nikon zoom. Kinda a wash there. But the Nikon gives you VR, which is not all that useful for action sports, but comes in handy at times.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Re: I also want to get a pro/semi-pro tripod and ball head. After breaking a couple of cheap plasticky $30 dollar tripod units</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cheap tripods tend to cost more in the long run. I'd recommend a RSS or Kirk L bracket for your body and corresponding Arca Swiss type head, plus a good set of legs. </p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Cheap tripods tend to cost more in the long run. I'd recommend a RSS or Kirk L bracket for your body and corresponding Arca Swiss type head, plus a good set of legs.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>YAY!! We AGREE!!</p>

<p>I'll also admit that since I've got the lenses I mentioned in my first post that I'm partial to them. They've served me well and I have a hard time finding faults with something that works so well. AF-S is just another tool that makes life easier...that's why all of my longer lenses are AF-S...they focus faster, which I see much clearer with focal lengths longer than 135mm.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a habit of removing my thumb off of the AF-ON button when I hit the shutter and I'll want to experiment next time with consttant AF-C engagement and see what happens...OR perhaps use the AF-ON only dial in on the focus plane by the basket and wait for the action to enter the "focus zone"....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>craig, you have to keep the AF-On button engaged when you hit the shutter. this likely explains your focus accuracy issues.</p>

<p>tony makes an interesting point about AF-S vs. screw-drive, but i think it's largely irrelevant for what the OP is talking about. he's not competing with Canon sports pros for SI covers, he's shooting HS sports and selling shots to local papers. the 50/1.8D is fine on a D300s for that as long as you can live with the bokeh. if i were craig, i would probably not trade down from a 70-200 2.8 telezoom to a 70-300.</p>

<p>as for a manfrotto kit under $250, i went with the 190XProB and the 488RC4 head, total cost was about $300 i think. the 190 series is the least expensive "good" set of legs, with a load-bearing/weight ratio which is comparable to entry-level CF. if you don't need the bubble levels you can go for a less expensive model in that series and be within budget. of course, landscape shooters using long lenses a lot will say just go for CF and you only buy once, but to be honest, i don't use a tripod that much and i don't use anything longer than a 70-300 so i can't justify $400-$500 (or more) for a set of legs.</p>

<p>I just bought a Manfrotto 190XPROB and a used 488RC2 head, and am very pleased with it. I got it all for $200 (I got the head used).</p>

<p>Regarding focusing on the crowd instead of the player - there are at least two causes:</p>

<p>1) The focus points aren't infinitesimal points; they have some area. If that area includes a portion of a player and a portion of crowd (or brick wall) then it may well focus on the background. This is more likely to be a problem with wider lenses or longer distances to the players. When I've used a 30mm or 50mm it happens to me more than with the 85mm.</p>

<p>2) The other obvious reason is that you missed the target for a moment, focused on crowd and shot. It happens.</p>

<p>I set focusing to AF-C, center point only, and then I focus either on waist, numbers or face depending upon distance to the player. Best focus is achieved by tracking the player for one second or so. Composition comes later by cropping.</p>

<p>I've shot several tens of thousands of frames of basketball (enough to wear out a D50), mostly with the 85/1.8. I'm convinced the 85/1.8 is the best solution for the non-professional. By non-professional, I really mean someone who can't afford an FX body and 70-200/2.8. A 70-200/2.8 on a DX body generally doesn't work so well for basketball at high-school and smaller colleges as the gyms are too dark.</p>

<p>A few of my basketball shots can be found here: <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/dklaff">https://picasaweb.google.com/dklaff</a></p>

<p>A sports director is going to pay you for shots with a 50mm lens? You must have a very front row seat.</p>

<p>A 50mm lens is not uncommon for shooting basketball from under the basket area. On a DX sensor camera like the OP, it provide a mild telephoto angle of view of about a 75mm lens (compared to a FX body). That's a decent focal length for shooting close to the basket from about the 3 pt line for capturing a player from head to toe.</p>