What should I buy?

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<blockquote>

<p>besides the fact that the 50-135 has been discontinued for some time, the OP clearly stated he felt the 85 was too long for smaller gyms, so a telephoto probably isnt the answer for him</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is the fact that the lens is discontinued that categorizes it as a non worthy purchase? I thought it was the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/277-tokina-af-50-135mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-test-report-review?start=2">quality </a>that matters...<br /> Also the OP did say that as well: "<em>At this time I cannot afford a good fast lens, 24-70 2.8 or <strong>70-200 2.8"</strong> </em><br /> If he can't afford a full frame 70-200 f/2.8, then I thought that he might be interested in solutions like the Tokina or the already mentioned <a href="http://www.photozone.de/reviews/322-sigma-af-50-150mm-f28-ex-hsm-dc-nikon-mount-review--test-report?start=2">Sigma 50-150</a>, in DX format, which is almost equivalent to 70-200 in full frame<strong>.<br /></strong></p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I have been shooting HS basketball for the last 5 years. Our gym has poor lighting. My typical setting is 1/640 at f/2.2 at above ISO 6400 using an FX camera. I am able to shoot from the baseline.</p>

<p>This setup is after a lot of experimentation. Most would comment that 1/640 is higher than necessary, but, after looking at 50-100 shots per game, I think I see greater clarity with 1/640 vs 1/500.</p>

<p>1. I had the 50mm1.8D. I replaced it with the 50mm 1.4D which was significantly better at around f/2.2. I also have the 50 and 85 1.8G lenses. Both G lenses seem to AF fast enough on my D600 (and D3 and D800). I would look into replacing the 50mm1.8D first, it is not great below f/4 compared to other lenses.</p>

<p>2. I have the 28-70/2.8AFS. AF is fast, but there just is not enough light in many gyms for this lens to work well without jacking the ISO WAY up. I would not spend a lot of $'s on a 2.8 zoom for indoor HS sports, it just does not work out in many venues. Get an FX body instead.</p>

<p>3. I have a D300, shooting raw I can get <em>acceptable</em> results in many gyms. But the FX cameras are a LOT better here. Have not used a D7100, can't comment on how much better it is than a D300 in a gym, but the difference is probably significant, but...</p>

<p>4. Look into a used D3 or D700. Used D3 is something of a bargain right now, I think. Others have had great success with the D700, but I did not love the two that I had. I now have a beater D3 that I like quite a bit, but the D600 edges it out when the ISO gets way up there. And, I think the auto white balance is better with the D600.</p>

<p>5. Used D3s is probably the best, but still pricey used. Used one last year off and on. Am sure a D4 is better, but big $.</p>

<p>6. College gyms and coliseums have a lot (2-3 stops typical) more light than HS gyms around here. When the games are at the local coliseum, I am able to back off the ISO and use zooms. Pretty dismal lighting in many HS gyms, though, which makes shooting a challenge. Have been through a lot of gear chasing the best possible results.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Robert, spoken from experience, well said.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Would add to my posting that I am pretty happy using the D600 for basketball. Overall, AF and noise are pretty similar to the D3s I was able to use on occasion. Maybe the D3s AF maybe had a higher % of in focus shots, but I am not sure about that. Pretty sure that auto white balance is better with the D600. In practice, the smaller D600 AF array has not proven to be a significant issue.<br /> For whatever reason(s), it seems that liking and recommending the D600 is not popular, but I replaced my D700 with a D600 and have not missed the D700 since. When the ISO is above 6400, I am sure that a D600 would deliver notably better results than a D7100 (or D700/D3).</p>

<p>Also, I have a 70-200/2.8VR1. I wish the 2.8 zooms would work out, but I get better results with primes.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>OP states that he can 'borrow a flash', but I wonder what flash? A good flash (SB x00) might be valuable.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Is the fact that the lens is discontinued that categorizes it as a non worthy purchase?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no, the fact the 50-135 was discontinued makes it more difficult to obtain one. i heard the optics on that were pretty good, though at the time, i opted for the sigma 50-150 (non-OS), which i still have. what makes a telephoto a dubious recommendation for the OP is the fact he stated an 85 is too long.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When the ISO is above 6400, I am sure that a D600 would deliver notably better results than a D7100 (or D700/D3).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an obvious point.FX does have better low-light ability and is one of the reasons i own a D3s. however, the OP has stated he has $500 to spend and is maybe willing to throw in an extra $300. A d600 will set you back at least $1500-$1600, which is twice the OP's budget. if he did somehow manage to do that, he'd be in an even worse situation, since he'd have to get a replacement for the 18-70. As previously stated, a d7100 may not be the way to go because you're still looking at shooting with a too-slow lens.</p>

<p>OTOH, the 18-35 is $800, so within the OP's reach. zooms are better than primes for sports since the action is so fluid, except for the fact that other zooms only go to 2.8. in low light, this necessitates a lens which can shoot at sub-2.8. the more i think about it, the better the 18-35 looks for the OP's situation. in the long run, an FX body would be ideal, but youre looking at much higher cost -- not just for the camera, but for FX-compatible lenses. however, the 18-35 would certainly make a difference right now to the OP, by allowing more than two stops of aperture over his current zoom and allowing him to keep the ISO reasonable.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Eric, good points.</p>

<p>A lot would depend on the gyms that the OP intends to shoot in. If these gyms have enough light to keep the ISO at 1600 or a little higher with reasonable shutter speed and f stop, then keeping the D300s and adding the Sigma 18-35/1.8 would be a great option assuming that the lens performs well, though I would want to upgrade the 50/1.8D also.</p>

<p>In many gyms that I shoot, I find that I am usually around ISO 6400 or more, which is a real challenge for the DX cameras (and the FX ones, also!)</p>