Need some advice on choosing a lens for gymnastics

<p>My son competes in Acrobatic gymnastics, and I've become the unofficial team photographer, only because I'm the only parent with a DSLR and I know enough about photography to make acceptable photographs. At some of the meets, the hosting gym provides a professional photographer. But at the meet this past weekend, they didn't and I stepped in to take photographs for the team. We will not have a professional photographer at the next meet, so I'll probably take photos for the parents again.<br>

I have a Nikon D5000. (I could kick myself for not buying the D90, but never expected to be using the camera as much as I am.) This past weekend, the gym was very dark so I used ISO 1600 and 3200 and got acceptable results for 4 x 6s. (I haven't tried to print anything larger.) I still had some motion blur but the nice thing about acrobatic gymnastics is that a major component of the sport is balance skills - the "base" balances the "top" and they have to hold that pose for a certain length of time. That means that I'm able to get some reasonably sharp pictures without a high shutter speed. (1/125 works.) But it would be fun to get sharp photos of the dynamic parts of the routines.<br>

After the meet, my husband very generously offered to buy me a better lens. I realize that the 70 - 200 f/2.8 in the obvious choice. However, I'm usually able to get fairly close to the floor and I don't think I need as much range. Also, I'm not sure I want a lens that big. Ideally, I need 50 - 150mm - the 50mm end would let me get candid shots of the team getting ready and the 150mm end would probably extend to the far end of the floor at most meets. Maybe two prime lenses would be better? (Though I'd prefer to have to carry only one lens.) Or maybe a lens that starts at 3.5 combined with noise reduction software?<br>

Thanks for any help you can offer. I'm trying to be wise about using my money because I have a feeling I'm going to want to upgrade my camera in a couple of years! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lisa -</p>

<p>You're right - the 70-200 f2.8 is the gold standard for sports lenses. Unfortunately it's almost as expensive as gold. However there are options - my preferred option is the 70-200 f2.8 Sigma - it's about $700 - $800</p>

<p>The other lens to consider might be the 80-200 Nikon f2.8 - again will give you the f2.8 (fast lens) but without the high price.</p>

<p>A final option and last choice would the 55-200 vr - the disadvantage of this lens is that it is a variable aperture and is slower than snot.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Lisa,</p>

 

<p>A 50mm f/1.8 can be had for a song, and you should be able to get something along the lines of a

100 f/2 for a fraction of the cost of even a 70-200 f/4. Image quality should be on a par with the 70-200,

but they’ll be a stop or more faster than the zoom. If you’re not printing big, you should

have no trouble cropping the 100 to get your 150mm framing.</p>

 

<p>The 50 will be smaller than your clenched fist, and the 100 a bit bigger. Both are quite pocketable unless your pants are spray-on. Changing lenses only takes

a couple seconds.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>The 80-200mm f/2.8 would be nearly ideal (except for your point about the wide-end), and except for the fact that it needs an autofocus motor built into the body, which the D5000 doesn't have. That's true for many of the other lenses people are recommending (ex. the 50mm f/1.8). If you plan to use autofocus, you need to look at AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>It would be good to get the high dollar lense that you want but Ben has the right idea. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and it's great-sharpe and fast.</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions. I'm leaning towards getting two prime lenses, primarily because I don't plan to go into the sports photography business. I would be able to use the primes for other things. However, the Sigma with a 50mm might be a good option. I never intended to be taking the team photos but here I am! (It feels weird to see my photos going up on the team bulletin board and website, and I'm enough of a perfectionist that I want them to look good.) </p>

<p>I do want AF-S lenses. I have a couple of older manual focus Nikon lenses that my Dad loaned me. I love using them, but I think I need the autofocus capabilities for gymnastics.</p>

<p>Ben, you mentioned a 100 f/2. Is that an older lens? Or, am I missing it when I look at the list of Nikon lenses?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lisa, you should consider Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8. It's focal range is perfect for gymnstics and does not costs an arm & leg... It is enough lightweight, constant f2.8 and with a good IQ. Just make sure to get a copy with no front focussing problems - Sigma is famous for it's low quality control. I use this lens on D5000 and I am happy with it.</p>

<p>Apart of this I think you'll highly benefit from a faster f1.4 prime... probably Sigma 50mm/f1.4 being a smart option.</p>

<p>Lisa,</p>

 

<p>I’m a Canon guy. Canon has a 100 f/2. (It shares a lot in common with their 85 f/1.8 and their

135 f/2.8.) I don’t know Nikon, but I’d be astounded if they didn’t have a fast prime

in that focal length range.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Thanks, Ben. Nikon does have a 105.</p>

<p>Mihai, thanks for the recommendation. I think I'll drive downtown to the camera store and try out all these options.</p>

<p>Hi Lisa - I've been shooting HS sports for a few yrs now, including some gymnastics. The gym my HS uses for gymnastics is about 1/2 size of normal gym and lighting is not great as well. Typical of virtually all gyms!<br>

for lenses, I've been using an 85 1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I would suggest not buying anything with max aperture of 3.5(or greater), or variable aperture. Just too 'slow' for indoor sports. I use two bodies, one with a long lens and other with short lens, which is convenient for fast action sports.<br>

As you know, you need to buy AF-S lenses which may not include the older 100 and 135 lenses. They are likely AF but not AF-S.I would think that at an ISO of 3200 you cold shoot at higher shutter spd. 125 is really quite slow but you seem to have nailed down the type of shots you can get at that speed. I'd suggest shooting in manual mode if you are not already. Take a few shots with aperture set wide, ISO high 1600 or 3200, and see what speed you need to get good exposure. Then set the speed. Unless you have daylight entering & lighting the gym, the light intensity is stable/constant and makes it convenient to go manual. If light from the sun is a factor, you can still go manual but keep eye on the monitor as you shoot, to keep exposure in decent range. Adjust as light changes.<br>

I always though that the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 would be great range for gymnastics. Well built but not sure if it focuses quickly for sports photography. A pro (mostly portrait) from New Hampshire, Steve Bedel use one, Go to his website and send him an email.<br>

Good shootin'</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did Acrobatic gymnastics for the first time a few weeks back. Lighting typically poor (even though it was the British Championships!)<br>

I'm a big prime fan too, and the 50 1.8 or better still 1.4 are good choices, relatively really cheap and on a crop body a good magnification.<br>

I ended up shooting 85 f21.4 and 200 f2 on a D3( full frame). There were a couple of other photogs there, and as there is at almost everything from ice hockey to netball, badminton etc., they were almost exclusively shooting 70-200 2.8.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve H and Steve P: thanks for the extra suggestions. I'm leaning towards two primes, but want to try out the Sigma. I'm hoping to call the downtown camera store (they have a good selection) and see if they have it in stock. Our next meet is hosted by our gym and it is fairly bright. It will be a good place to practice if I can get my new lenses before then. </p>

<p>We have a smallish Acro team but we have one pair on the National team this year. Steve P, they will probably be competing against some of the athletes you photographed in a few weeks. And, yes, the professional photographers usually have the 70-200 lenses. If I could find one used, I'd probably seriously consider it, but I can't see myself spending that much money on a new one.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your help. I'm expecting to have more questions after I get my lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Have you checked out www.ffordes.com They've got loads of 70-200s and some 80-200s.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Steve. We're actually in the U.S (unfortunately because ffordes has a good selection), but I think I'll start looking at KEH every morning to see what comes in. </p>

<p>If the lighting is really horrible, even a 70-200 f/2.8 will get you some pretty dark exposures. I took pictures of a Stanford/UCLA meet earlier this year, and it was so dark inside that it was pretty difficult to shoot at a high enough shutter speed to freeze the action, and still get an exposure that was good enough...and I think I was shooting at 6400 ISO. My recommendation would be the 85mm f/1.4 (or 1.8 if the 1.4 is too pricey for you) - but if you're gonna get a 70-200 price may not be a sticking point.<br>

<a href="http://www.myking76.com/Sports/Gymnastics/Stanford-vs-UCLA/11044800_MNbQk#772813010_5QTaF">http://www.myking76.com/Sports/Gymnastics/Stanford-vs-UCLA/11044800_MNbQk#772813010_5QTaF</a></p>

<p>Thanks, Mike. I posted an update: http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00WGFp</p>

<p>I took a few of my photos along with the focal length data to the camera store with me. The salesman recommended the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikon 50 1.4. I have to have an AF-S lens. That limits me. I don't think the Nikon 85mm has AF-S? Anyway, I bought the Sigma lens and will probably go back and get the 50 f/1.4. Otherwise, I think the 85mm is probably perfect. </p>

<p>I can tell from your photos that the gym was very dark but they are still nice and sharp. And's that's what I'm hoping to get with my new lenses. We'll see if I can accomplish that. </p>

<p>I tried the Nikon 50 1.4G and the Sigma 50 1.4 and wide apertures the Sigma definitely had the edge.<br>

I'm not that thrilled with any of these 1.4 lenses (I have the 85 1.4 too) wide open, but at f2 they're fine - while the f1.8 are not so hot at f2 as they're virtually wide open still.<br>

It's a bit disappointing though to spend all that money on a 1.4 lens and not happily be able to use it at f1.4!<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>I tried the Nikon 50 1.4G and the Sigma 50 1.4 and wide apertures the Sigma definitely had the edge.<br>

I'm not that thrilled with any of these 1.4 lenses (I have the 85 1.4 too) wide open, but at f2 they're fine - while the f1.8 are not so hot at f2 as they're virtually wide open still.<br>

It's a bit disappointing though to spend all that money on a 1.4 lens and not happily be able to use it at f1.4!<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Hmmm, I had planned to get the Nikon but I'll read some reviews first. It's really the focal length I need, but the salesman did talk about getting an extra stop. Thanks for the tip.</p>

<p>Better still Lisa to try them both out in the shop if you can, on your own camera - that's the great thing about digital, you can instantly see how they're performing.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I read some reviews last night and it sounds like each lens has different strengths. I'm trying to decide what is more important. I didn't want to have to make another drive downtown (in my day job, I'm a homeschool mom), but if I do, then I can try out the monopod, too. </p>

Lisa, sorry for the late response--I just noticed your post. I've been photographing my daughter's gym meets for a couple of years now with a 70-200 (Canon) and recently bought a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the smaller venues. The focusing is not up to par with the 70-200's but it seems to be fast enough for me and it's pretty sharp at f/2.8. Saves me from having to change between my 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8. It won't break the bank either.

 

One thing I'm pleased about the Tamron is that it's great for portraits, too. I shot my kids for our Christmas card with that lens and it came out great.

<p>Lisa, I don't know if you are still checking this thread...but I am wondering if you think 85mm would be enough if you weren't the team photographer (ie do all the moms get as close as you can)?<br>

Those photos were awesome, I thought, with the f2.8 lens--I'd be happy with that! :)<br>

PS I think it's funny, I'm a homeschooling mom also</p>

<p>L.Schin: I got the notice that you had posted here. :)</p>

<p>I'm not sure if the 85mm would be long enough. I'm assuming that your athlete is still at a lower level and does artistic gymnastics? Our gym does primarily artistic gymnastics, but I've never been to a lower level meet. I think you might be able to get closer at those meets. I'm not sure about upper level meets.</p>

<p>I'm trying to think this through. Our gym hosts several large international artistic meets. I've been to a couple of those (Level 8 - elite), and usually the parents are several yards (20+?) from at least some of the apparatuses. At our meets, I can usually get within 10 yards of the floor they compete on. (I just checked the dimensions of a spring floor. According to Wikipedia, it's 39 ft. x 39 ft.) When my son and his partner are at the far side of the floor, I usually need at least 150mm to avoid cropping too much.</p>

<p>You also might consider talking to the coach. If you don't usually have a professional photographer, the coach might be happy to give you floor access, in exchange for some photos for him/her to use on the team website. </p>

<p>I've had a VERY long day today - I'm not thinking very clearly (I'm not even sure I'm reading your questions accurately!). I should have more time tomorrow - let me try to get back to you then.</p>

<p> </p>