dave_wag

I agree with those who say "if you can afford it, get it". It's definitely true that IS helps, even though for most sports, if you need the IS, you'd better start considering figuring out how to get more light.

I shoot Nikon (70-200 f/2.8 VR, same deal), available light, and I always end up shooting at 1/250-320 for basketball (although some well-lit gyms allow for 1/400), and at least 1/500 for football - I usually end up at 1/2000.

The IS helps in the little ways - even at 1/250, you can generally freeze most of the action, and even if you couldn't, the IS isn't going to help. HOWEVER, if you're nearing the 200mm mark, it becomes a completely different story. Let's just say that I'd rather shoot a game with the 70-200 VR/IS than a 80-200 f/2.8, and it's not for the extra 10mm.

Food for thought - you will never find a pro-shooter at something like a basketball game working with the non-IS 70-200. Period.

I know the 24-70 f/2.8L (canon, of course) is supposedly far superior

to the sigma version. but does anybody have any real gripes with the

sigma, or any experiences/knowledge of sharpness/focus/anything issues

with the sigma? also, will the sigma work on an FF? im making the

switch to canon, and need some suggestions. thanks.

I understand that there is quite a bit of difference between the Canon

(L) and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - about $800's worth. Does anybody have

any FIRST-HAND experience with the two? Any sample images? Any

issues with either (I assume more so with the Sigma)? Will the Sigma

work on an FF?

Thanks, Lily and Dan, for pointing out an AF issue. Do any of you guys know of any good sites that offer a lengthy explanation/description/review of the D200 AF system vs the D2 series?

In regards to Armando, no offense, but next time, don't get so worked up trying to answer. The first sentence of the second paragraph in your response by itself would have been adequate.

Lex -

Have you used the D200?

The shutter cycle is supposedly 100K. Our massive fleet of D1H's are dying [they were bought at around the same time]. Our budget is limited, but we need to get new bodies. You suggest something known to be reliable, but we/I need something concrete to consider.

The D70 does not offer what we need at our paper. The D1 is, perhaps obviously, not a very good choice as a camera to buy now. We also cannot afford to purchase 10 more D2H's. In effect, we are pigeon-holed into the D200, if there can be such a thing.

Either way, the purchase of the D200(s) is not my issue - it is management's decision. My question is as a photographer who will soon have access to the D200. Do you have any additional insight as to sports photography in particular?

My college newspaper is planning on purchasing a bunch of new D200s to

try to replace as many of our old D1H bodies as possible. I've always

been using the D2H(s) for our basketball shoots, and I'm wondering if

anybody who shoots basketball games and have used both the D2H(s) and

D200 can let me know whether they're more inclined to switch to the

D200 as a primary body for the higher resolution, or is sticking with

the D2H's 8fps as the primary body?

I'm just wondering whether all these D2H's will go to cr*p and I'll

never use them again - it used to be that I'd have a 70-200 on the D2

and either a 17-[3/5]5, a 50, an 85, or 300 on the D1 - whatever my

mood, and I'd basically never even touch it during the game.

I don't have major crop problems with my shots, but as a photographer,

what has been your experience with them? (This is just for opinions,

getting the D200s is already a given cause the shutters on the D1's

had began to show their age a while ago.)

Sorry, but please post only if you have personally used both the D200

and D2H(s) for indoor sports, esp basketball. Thanks alot.

First of all, gotta love Sigma. Sure, for football, I love my 300mm, sometimes with either the 1.4x or 2x, but for basketball, you can't hate the Sigma 120-300.

If you can't afford a $2000 lens now, then opt not to get it only if you can't make it back and then some if you do get it. Don't go crazy buying gear, but after all, this is a business, and the difference is either watching $500 go down the drain or watching $2000 bloom into a great career. The only reasonable 'general advice' that anybody can offer is going to be vague.

Go for the f/1.4. The price differential isn't enough to actually make the consideration of "if I save $X, that's $X towards my next lens". You'll get better exposure with the 1.4, your pictures will probably be exposed a bit better overall, and in the long run, if you use it enough (and well), it'll be worth it to spot for the 1.4.

The 80-200 f/2.8 is horrible for basketball - AF is far too slow to keep up well with basketball. I switched to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR after a single game with the 80-200. Are you shooting high school or pro? I generally get ~1/250 ISO1600 f/2.8 on the 70-200 for most college games, and 1/320 easily inside notoriously well-lit arenas like Jadwin Gym.

Watch out for low ISO - depending on how well your camera handles high ISOs, if you can, make sure you can get a good 1/250 before you start knocking down ISO. If necessary, overexposing via slowing down shutter speed 1/3 to 1/2 a stop usually does more to decrease noise than actually dropping ISO by an insignificant amount. Again, you have to figure out how your camera works with the higher ISOs.

You may want to consider a slightly longer lens, although it seems as if you've made clear that you can't afford them. I like the 70-200 2.8 myself, but the 85 and 135 are definitely great too.

Then why is there a problem of having to prove to your father that you can compose a picture? If you had the experience you now claim, why the original post? My comments, however negative, are in fact what I think of what you posted (if you can only take offense and not stop to consider what it is that I said - if you cannot, then it would seem as if you posted in search of accolades, not actual criticism) - that if you were indeed 'new', which you now say you are not, you needed to work on actual composition and not Photoshop.

If you post pictures expecting only the type of nice, but not very useful, comments, then make that very clear.

80-200 f/2.8 is far too slow in terms of focusing for basketball

the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is the better lens

if you can afford it (and it's actually cheap for what you get), shoot for the 120-300 Sigma f/2.8

You've mentioned cost issues, so this may be a problem for you:

I personally shoot with a 50mm f/1.4 on one camera and leave either a Sigma 120-300f/2.8 or the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR on the other. Sit between the sideline and basket, usually better closer to the sideline. Have fun with your basketball shoot, and you will soon learn to hate the living hell out of referees.

First of all, I hope your father is a photog - otherwise, I don't see the point of this 'test'.

Seems to me as if the people who post here have never actually shot sports in their lives. I agree with the only real photog here who suggested that you learn photography, not photoshop. You're 'okay' - that's considering you're using a point 'n shoot. You're not incredible. The day I'd even consider saying "go tell your parents to buy you a D2X" is when you can demonstrate your ability to compose within the camera - which is what your father apparently told you to do. He didn't say go edit some mediocre pictures and let's see if I should buy you CS2.

What I would suggest is that you go online to GettyImages or other sites, and study the 'good' pictures. And no, not all sports pictures on Getty are good.

I'm not saying you're not a reasonable photographer. I'd say you're better than the average person, but I hesitate to be as enthusiastic as others. Work on actual composition, and let's see some originals next time from your D50.

Indoor Sports:

No. The 80-200mm is not the greatest idea in the world. I've managed to pull off good pictures with them, but I've pull off many more with the 70-200f/2.8 VR. For indoor sports (which for me is synonymous with basketball), you need AF-S. Consider the relatively cheap Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Use a flash unit if possible.

Outdoor Sports:

For outdoor sports (synonymous with football), a minimum is the 300mm f/2.8. You can play with the teleconverter here, but I don't like it when my 300mm f/2.8 gets knocked down to an f/5.6 with the 2X converter. Also consider the Sigma 120-300. Use flash unit if its a dark/cloudy day, otherwise you should be fine.

Wildlife:

At least 400mm, teleconverter would certainly be useful. The long f/4s, as somebody already mentioned, are a good choice. If you're good, go straight for primes. When you need 400mm+, you should be good enough to not still be tempted by 200-400 as opposed to straight 400.

Lowlight:

USE A FLASH!!! Haha. At least f/2, depending on what you're shooting, either the 50 or 85mm f/1.4.

Normal Outdoor:

Something along the lines of a 24-70 or 18-70 or even the new 18-200. Don't be tempted to luge around a particularly huge lens for 'normal' outdoor, unless by normal you mean normal conditions, extreme photography [hah].

PS-

In response to Brian Y's post - for indoor sports, unless you are mysteriously pulling tons of light outta your behind, you want to keep your aperture as low as possible - until you can make about 1/320. If you're using a 50 or 85mm, do not go over f/2.8 unless you're suddenly feel inspired to take underexposed shots. Otherwise, Brian's answer is fine. If you can't afford an f/2.8 telephoto, an 85mm with the aperture wide open would work better - just sit closer to the court.

This depends on what kind of pictures you want to take. If you want run-of-the-mill pictures that soccer moms take, just shoot with your kit lens (laughable). I assume you want 'good' pictures, so here's my suggestion:

If you intend to shoot indoor sports, forget the 18-200. You're not getting anything with f/5.6 (at the long end). Also, forget the guy who suggested f/2 or faster. You're not getting any better than f/2.8 with a telephoto, so unless you intend to sit under the basket [not even just baseline seats], you're not going to have to consider a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 (although either of these is a great lens to have in general). [if the gym is small enough though, you may be able to get away with the 85mm].

Stop worrying about VR - it's nice, but not 'incredibly' useful with sports. Your biggest enemies will be focus and movement on the player's part (as Leslie mentioned). Since I hope you'll be shooting vertical (which may become annoying without the v-grip), even the recoil on the shutter may be a bigger problem than actual camera shake.

If you can afford it, go for the 70-200 f/2.8. Yes, it costs well over a thousand dollars, but focus is faster than the 80-200. (If you happen to be 'loaded', consider the over-sized Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 - ~$2300).

To answer your question, there is nothing on any of these lenses that the D50 can't take advantage of, unless you count things like shutter lock as a feature of the lens (which it isnt). The 18-200 is no good for sports, but it'll probably satisfy anything else you have to do that's in 'good' light. On the D50, don't even hesitate to knock ISO up to 1600, as just about everybody else has said. Remember to keep your shutter high - 1/160 or slower is generally unusable, whereas 1/500 or higher is generally overkill.

In regards to what the guy said about exposure settings, I'm quite sure you're NOT going to be able to get 1/500 at f/2.8 on ISO800... probably more like 1/320 at f/2.8 on ISO1600, for decently exposed shots.

Just remember to be liberal with your zoom - you're paying top dollar for it, and don't expect to be able to get good prints shooting @ ISO1600 if end up cropping out a good chunk of the image.

Ultimately, it's all reasonable advice, but it all depends on where you sit, what you can afford, and most importantly, how good a photog you are. gl w/your shooting