Home Forums Gear Photography What lense for indoor sports?

Camera is a Canon T2i with the kit lens EF-S 18-135.

What should I be looking for in a better lense for shooting indoor sports? Daughter is a volleyball player and I want to capture her in action.

For indoor sports, camera manual settings are more important than the lens, IMO.

Budget?

Good friend uses a Canon 70-200, but not cheap.

I use a Tamron 18-270 ($450ish) for bb games and it works well.

Budget will be 500 max.

I've tried the automatic sport mode and didn't like it. What do you like for manual settings? Bump the ISO to 800 and use AP mode? What body are you and your friend using?

Really depends on the lighting in the gym; K will very quite a bit.

Tv mode. Start with 1/500.

You will need to use a high ISO (>1500).

Bump WB +1.

Indoor sports photo is more difficult than outdoor.

I use a 70D.

j elky, you have a couple things that are working slightly against you. You need speed to stop action which Fair Chase has pointed out. With the T2i, the sensor may get "noisy" or grainy when you push the ISO. Short of replacing the camera body, it can't be avoided but you can use it to your advantage. You could shoot as BW and it would just look grainy, no big deal. The kit lens you are using is probably about an f5.6 at 55mm. One thing you could look at is to pick up a good fast lens, like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which will give you more light hitting the sensor and you could shoot at a lower ISO and reduce noise.

You might be able to pick up a newer body with newer sensor technology for your budget as an alternative. I would call up to Camera Land to check options and see if any of them work for you budget and requirements. Talk with Mark or Joel and make sure you let them know you are a member of the Campfire.

Would a 60D be enough of an upgrade for my purposes?

On the Tamron 17-50, is that going to be enough zoom?

It all depends. If the 18-55mm was not enough, then no, it won't be enough. To jump to a longer lens though with a faster f-stop would push way above your budget ($1200). The 60D is a good camera.

Yes. One should look for a lens that gets down to the lowest F-stop he can afford. A zoom that gets to 250-300 mm would dish out some close in shots.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens for about $420 (less $ if used). 85mm on a your crop sensor may be enough if you can get close to the floor. The amount of light will be better too closer to the floor.

Rabbit,

I have been eyeing up used lenses and wondered if something like that would work. I also see some that are in the range of 24-70. I'm going to try some different settings on my current equipment and see what happens. Also going to try and limit the amount of zoom I am using to that 70-85mm range.

Thanks for all the help guys.

I shoot alot of outdoor sports, but of late I've been asked to shoot in gyms a bit. That is one of the most challenging sports environment I've had to work in.
Lighting ranges from bad to very bad, and you have light that not only throw funny colors, but cycle giving you different illumination/colors depending on where in the cycle your shutter releases.
All this while trying to keep your shutter speed high enough to capture the action.

First try I used my old 1D 2N and 70-200 2.8 and maxed out the ISO at 3200. Lots of grain but if I minded my angles, I could work things out in PP.

Next I borrowed a 7D with it's better ISO performance. Still not happy with the results.

Most recently I rented a 7DII and at ISO 6400, I can keep the shutter at 1/500 without too much of a noise toll,I get 10 fps and it has a new feature to delay the shutter release a microsecond to catch the light in the same point in the cycle!

FWIW, my friend that shoots lots of indoor sports uses the 85mm 1.4 on a full frame body and crops to get in tight. He says he had to get used to losing more shots because of the unforgiving depth of field. The 85mm 1.8 is much cheaper and I would hope a little more forgiving. Can't speak to the autofocus speed on the 1.8, but anticipating the action and prefocusing can help offset a slow autofocus.

Anymore, I use my Zeiss 135 f1.8 for just about everything.

I have a 24-70 and 70-200 (both f2.8) but don't find either fast enough.

I did have an 85 f1.4 but sold it after realizing I always used the 135.

this likely won't be in your budget (unless you get lucky used) but try to get as close to it as you can.

UtahLefty,
Are you shooting Sony, or is that Zeiss lens adapted for Canon? I couldn't find anything on the CZ 135mm 1.8 other than a Sony mount.

Any one with experience or thoughts on the Tamron 25-75 f2.8?

A900. with the ZA 135/1.8

Uh...okay.

j elky,
That Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens is a great lens. I used it for many years prior to the 24-70mm f2.8 coming out. I have lots of friends that still use it. It is made with the XR glass so clarity and sharpness are not an issue. It is prior to the Vibration Compensation being added but you should be fine for sports with it. Also it is a lens designed for Full Frame but can be used on APS-C cameras. The advantage is you are shooting more of the "sweet spot" with a cropped sensor camera like yours.

The OP can do very well with his camera as long as he uses a fast lens, something the kit lens is not. Also, I would set the camera to Av (aperture priority), and open up the lens to the widest setting. The 85mm or even the 50mm f/1.8 are plenty fast and relatively cheap.

If you're able to use the focal length the 135mm f2 is an awesome lens.

If you're not sure, try renting from lens rentals, you can rent the lenses and bodies that you want to try out and even purchase them if you really fall in love with them. They really have a good business model.

Also, if you're shooting sports for your dogs kids or whatever...you'll eventually get a 70-200mm f2.8 - resistance is futile - canon has an older model that I have and a new model with is.

Sigma makes some fine lenses too, so don't forget about them. My friend uses a sigma 70-200 f2.8 that he used for his kids high school football games on a 7d and he gets phenomenal images shooting av.

If you google fred miranda there's a lot of reviews of lenses on his site, but it's best to try one in your hand via rental or borrow a friends than rely on total webary.

Have to agree with the above - indoor sports under $500...85mm 1.8 would be my choice. If going used, maybe you'll get lucky and find a "fast" zoom. Working on your focus techniques will go a long way as well. Mine is not quite there when it comes to shooting indoor sports.

I haven't done a lot of indoor sport's but when I did I always used a 70-300. With the ISO as changeable today as it is, I don't think the ability to get light is anything like in film day's.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. Excellent lens, especially for the money.

Little update....picked up the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I was able to try it out an a volleyball match over the w/e. Lens work fine, but I think I am running up against the abilities of my camera body(rebel t2i). I tried various settings, AV, TV and the Athletic mode. ISO 1600 and 3200, pics were in focus but very grainy. ISO 800 pics were not so grainy, but it was harder to stop the action with out blurring. We were in a old gym with crappy lighting. My FIL was along using his 60D, need to compare and see how his pics came out.

I would agree, the grain is from the older sensor. It will be a little better with the 60D but not a lot. You might want to look at a T5i or possibly a T4i to actually see the capabilities of the newer sensors in low light. Of course as the budget permits.

To really shine you'll need a full frame sensor. Granted, I'm from the Nikon camp, but I went from a D300 (maybe a little better than your t2i) to a D700. With my 70-200 f2.8 lens I've taken thousands of indoor volleyball pictures. I've settled out on F4.0-4.5 if I can get away with it (to give some depth of field - i.e. forgiveness on focus). So, an F4.0 lens should suffice in most situations (my 2.8 also doubles as a portrait lens). In very badly lit gyms I'll open it up more. I typically end up at ISO 12,800 but sometimes go to 25,600 (max for D700) to get at least 1/500 shutter speed. With some Noise Reduction in Lightroom, the D700 gives 'good-enough' pictures even at the highest ISO. We're not talking Sports Illustrated quality, but over 30 of my pictures landed in last year's yearbook (I donate them freely). Parents also love me since I post them online (for free) and only one other parent that I know of has the equipment to match mine. I also use the same camera for outdoor, night-time soccer games (another typically terribly lit venue).

I realize you have Canon equipment, but I hope the above helps in general. Canon certainly has equipment that matches Nikon's.

If you're interested in the quality of the pictures using the above setup, feel free to check www.beenphotod.com. You can navigate to sports - etc... from there.