Thanks msmoto. I just got a bit confused for a minute there!

DJBee49 said:
Huh?

@ DJBee49....you will see some "spammers" dropping inappropriate posts in almost all forums.... Deleting these is what mods do..:-)

Huh?

TaoTeJared said:
aquarian_light - you have much to learn young grasshopper, but your base of knowledge is growing.

It is rare that you can have a flash set-up like you stated - very rare.

Suggestion was theoretical :P

aquarian_light - you have much to learn young grasshopper, but your base of knowledge is growing.

It is rare that you can have a flash set-up like you stated - very rare.

safyre said:
Topic is getting a little out of hand.

Simple answer: Fast Telephoto lens (70-200mm f2.8) is THE standard for Basketball Games on all levels, NBA, College, etc. When I photographed sports in college, this was the #1 lens followed by a 200mm f/2 or 24-70mm 2.8 on a second body.

You need fast lenses because you need atleast 1/500th shutter speed to freeze action. Since these are indoors with low light, having a larger aperture is essential so you can keep you shutter speeds high while maintaining lower ISO (less noise).

Regarding price:
If you can't afford the newer 70-200mm 2.8 VR2, here's some less expensive alternatives that are good for indoor sports (with the going rate for used):
70-200mm 2.8 VR1 ($1300)
80-200mm 2.8 AF-D ($800)
85mm mm f/1.8 AF-D ($350)

I would not recommend any slower lenses for indoor sports unless you want super grainy photos (by using very high ISO to compensate for the lower aperture). Even with 2.8, I still had to go up to 3200-6400 ISO to get the right balance of shutter speed and exposure.

+1 on getting way off the mark.

I often wondered what good a 200mm f/2 until I shot a basketball game. If that is what you did for a living, that would be a great tool to have in the bag.

Has anyone used the new 85mm f1.8g for Basket ball or other sports and can speak to the AF performance (lock and tracking) on any body?
How about the Sigma 85mm 1.4?

I used the 85mm D version and it did well but was never as good as my 70-200.

I'm trying to line out my purchases/upgrades/budget for next year any experience towards using those with indoor sports would be welcome.

starralazn said:
i think this thread should be closed, it seems that people will just continue arguing about things that don't really matter.

and yes, you cant see the effect of diffraction on a camera from the 1930s because there is not a noticeable enough difference from f/8 to f/64. this was due to the fact that lenses were incapable of resolving enough detail show a difference. which shows in the end that there is no point discussing lens technology of the first half of the last century.

point trying to be made is that the topic of lens sharpness is not one worth discussing with modern lenses based on the fact that it's never mattered even to the man who produced arguably some of the sharpest images ever made. And that if he could coax absolute sharpness onto 8x10 film in the 30's we certainly can on 35mm or crop sensors today without much trouble. So the comparison of the 28-300 and the 70-300 in the area of sharpness is moot. Variables such as camera AF, aperture, photographer technique, and a host of many other things affect sharpness far greater than what your glass does. Both of them will produce beyond reasonable sharpness when in perfect conditions. and both of them will produce beyond un-usable images with sloppy technique.
Neither of them is going to have an wide enough fstop to really be top notch for indoor sports, but the 28-300 is a newer lens, with slightly improved AF, and a wider zoom range that make it well worth the extra cost. That and it's asphericals and ED will help reduce glare and CA.
My suggestion to OP is to have a flash set up with possibly three devises. One at either hoop pointed away to bounce of the walls and one ontop of your camera. Get some pocket wizards and set the flashes at either end to separate channels, switch your channels back and forth between what ever channel you have them set to as the action moves back and forth, and use a bounce card on the top of your camera. That set up will provide you ample light and still cost much much less than any 2.8 zoom. I would wait at either hoop for the action to come to me for a while, then spend some time at mid court at the long end of the zoom getting a different perspective, then to the opposite hoop, basically making a circle around the court, switching pocket wizard channels as needed or turning it off completely and using solely the on camera flash depending on the situation and light needed.

i think this thread should be closed, it seems that people will just continue arguing about things that don't really matter.

and yes, you cant see the effect of diffraction on a camera from the 1930s because there is not a noticeable enough difference from f/8 to f/64. this was due to the fact that lenses were incapable of resolving enough detail show a difference. which shows in the end that there is no point discussing lens technology of the first half of the last century.

SquamishPhoto said:
Derp. He was part of the Group f/64 and when shooting at such outrageously small apertures their whole goal was to bring as much of the scene into focus. Doing that while maintaining "EXTREME sharpness", as you put it, was hardly a priority and was generally an after thought since diffraction would have already had very clear effects at that point.

Derp indeed Mr.Squamish... 8x10 cameras are significantly different than 35mm and at f64 an 8x10 camera certainly performs much much differently than a 35mm
from the group f/64 manifesto
"The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group."
Clearness and definition sir... go look at Ansel Adams images and come back to me when you see any diffraction softness.

Oi .. Derp? I actually find aquarian_light's points of views refreshing and interesting.. makes me challenge my knowledge framework. Just bec I think he is wrong on some points doesn't mean I disagree with everypoint he makes. And I would also like to question your assertion that generically F64 causes a lot of diffraction, but I am happy to let it go.. (for now) as its an irrelevant point to the discussion at hand.. ;-)

aquarian_light said:
Because Ansel Adams used an 8x10 camera that had 100s of times the resolution of even todays best of the best digitals. Even a hasselblad 100MP digial MF has nuthin on 8x10 film. And as such his lenses required EXTREME sharpness to get the results he did, and yet he still didn't even consider lens sharpness and a point of comparison. His print's have been blown up to murals... so I very heavily beg to differ.

Derp. He was part of the Group f/64 and when shooting at such outrageously small apertures their whole goal was to bring as much of the scene into focus. Doing that while maintaining "EXTREME sharpness", as you put it, was hardly a priority and was generally an after thought since diffraction would have already had very clear effects at that point.

Hi all,

Shooters that have the time to adjust images and aren't constrained by other considerations generally shoot Raw, unless they are ignorant of the advantages of Raw or don't know how to process or use image editors.

Some photographers don't want to bother with the time-consuming process of learning and using the software, but that likely one of the items on the list that makes what makes the distinction between a casual shooter and professional photographer. There are many others, experience is one - the time behind a camera on assignment measured in years and decades add up for something, as does working with colleagues in the media and collaborating in good faith and sharing ideas and techniques freely so that others can learn on equal footing.

@ aquarian_light: Some of the photographers on this forum knew Ansel, I am one of them. You are sort of using one thing, sharpness, to answer to distortion, which isn't the same thing. Ansel wouldn't let you get away with that. Apples need to be kept with apples and oranges with oranges.

He also used a Polaroid and a 35mm. I'm sure if he were around he'd have a digital camera and be a Photoshop wiz.

There are murals of digital works, too. ;-)

My best,

Mike

PB PM said:
I get the Ansel Adams quote, but honestly, how can a quote from the 1930's, when images were commonly printed smaller 4x6, be compared to a lenses abilities in the modern world?

Because Ansel Adams used an 8x10 camera that had 100s of times the resolution of even todays best of the best digitals. Even a hasselblad 100MP digial MF has nuthin on 8x10 film. And as such his lenses required EXTREME sharpness to get the results he did, and yet he still didn't even consider lens sharpness and a point of comparison. His print's have been blown up to murals... so I very heavily beg to differ.

I was initially going to close it down as the forum goes crazy when KR is mentioned, but I decided to keep it open with only one condition. no more KR in this thread.

as for Ansel Adams, PB PM has a good point. You can't compare 1930 print sizes with current one. moreover, more expensive glass is not only about sharpness, for me it's mostly about subject isolation.

+1 safyre, I'll only add that if You want/need 200mm and can live with 5.6 You can get 70-300vr, up to 200mm it's an excellent lens, only after that it starts to show it weaknesses.

aquarian_light said:
Because you haven't turned it on... I would also like to point out that NFL, NBA, MLB, etc... shooters are alllll shooting in JPG.

Not all pro sports photographers are shooting jpg. It really depends on who you are shooting for. If you are shooting for an agency like Reuters or AP, then jpg would be the more optimal choice as they need photos immediately. There are many photographers who shoot raw for publications like Sports Illustrated, ESPN, etc. that don't have such stringent time constraints.

Topic is getting a little out of hand.

Simple answer: Fast Telephoto lens (70-200mm f2.8) is THE standard for Basketball Games on all levels, NBA, College, etc. When I photographed sports in college, this was the #1 lens followed by a 200mm f/2 or 24-70mm 2.8 on a second body.

You need fast lenses because you need atleast 1/500th shutter speed to freeze action. Since these are indoors with low light, having a larger aperture is essential so you can keep you shutter speeds high while maintaining lower ISO (less noise).

Regarding price:
If you can't afford the newer 70-200mm 2.8 VR2, here's some less expensive alternatives that are good for indoor sports (with the going rate for used):
70-200mm 2.8 VR1 ($1300)
80-200mm 2.8 AF-D ($800)
85mm mm f/1.8 AF-D ($350)

I would not recommend any slower lenses for indoor sports unless you want super grainy photos (by using very high ISO to compensate for the lower aperture). Even with 2.8, I still had to go up to 3200-6400 ISO to get the right balance of shutter speed and exposure.

aquarian_light said:
Okay so you all just missed the whole point of the entire post and focused on one bit of your biased opinions about one man. Please by all means ignore my point and Ansel Adams quote and just make fun of me... well done.

I get the Ansel Adams quote, but honestly, how can a quote from the 1930's, when images were commonly printed smaller 4x6, be compared to a lenses abilities in the modern world? What is good enough is in the eye of the beholder. With that quote in mind, why use a DSLR at all? Surely the lens of any point and shoot camera or cell phone is "good enough" ? After all I can get a 28-1200mm equivalent zoom in a point and shoot, way more convenient than switching big heavy lenses.

BTW using a Ken Rockwell quote is a straw mans argument.

Well said, Ironheart.

SquamishPhoto said:
Friends don't let friends read Ken Rockwell.

LOL

Back on topic: indoor sports, as many writers on this topic, I'd go 70-200mm f/2.8 if you can afford it. If you're willing to buy 2nd hand, you might even save a few hundreds by buying the VR instead of the VRII. I hear it's softer in the corners, but doesn't breathe as much. You'll need shutter speed anyway, so the 2nd gen VR doesn't really help you.

Depending on what you plan on doing other than sports, it could make sense. But think before you buy... Maybe considering your type of photography, the 70-200mm f/4 could be a good choice too. Sure, not as good for indoor sports as the f/2.8, as you loose a stop, but significantly cheaper, shorter, and lighter.

It's always a compromise...

SquamishPhoto said:
Friends don't let friends read Ken Rockwell.

LOL!

Maybe I shouldn't have sold my 18-200...and I should buy a d40. Perfect combo for anything I will need ;-)

Friends don't let friends read Ken Rockwell.

spraynpray said:
They do? Then why do I have all kinds of distortion correction in Lightroom which improves the images?

Because you haven't turned it on... I would also like to point out that NFL, NBA, MLB, etc... shooters are alllll shooting in JPG. They don't have the time to bother with raw, and for the purposes of internet magazine and news paper the in camera compression and post camera conversions look for all intents and purposes identical when posted to the afformentioned mediums. That and in camera compressions make it so they can tether their cameras directly to the editors desk for review and post. So with that said correcting for the distortion the 28-300 has is as simple as turning on the lens profile in your camera, which if you update your firmware should be easy as pie.

Aquarian_light,

In cyberspace no one can hear you scream :-) i don't think anyone here would debate that for 95% of all the photos taken with 99% percent of the 80 million Nikkor lenses ever made, sharpness, resolution, CA, etc... are fine for posting at 2MP, or sticking on your fridge. However this is a gear site and we will endlessly debate the last 5%. Especially if asked "which one is better", even though it's like debating who was the better physicist between Einstein and Hawking.

I liked your Ansel quote, it's something we should all keep in mind.

Why did this become about sharpness?

Based on my experience with a D700, any lens with f/5.6 at the long end is going to make for a sad indoor sports shooting experience, unless you're using flash. If one is content shooting basketball without flash and with a f/5.6 lens then, imHo, you might as well recommend taking a p&s and having at it...

The OP asked what the 'best' lens would be, not 'what lens should I look at in order to struggle through the experience'.

Okay so you all just missed the whole point of the entire post and focused on one bit of your biased opinions about one man. Please by all means ignore my point and Ansel Adams quote and just make fun of me... well done.

Related post:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4720

Aquarian_light, using KR as your reference is equivalent to grabbing the third rail.

I have the 70-300, and I have rented and used the 28-300. The extra $€£¥ go towards convenience not image quality. This is clear in the first few minutes. If $€£¥ is an issue, my recommendation is to get the 70-300 now and save up for the 70-200 (and perhaps a TC). Also I think it was mentioned here already but the 28-300 is neither 28 or 300. More like a 30-290. TANSTAAFL.