i looking for help,what is the best lens to use to take high school gym basketball games,i have nikon d700 camera body
thanks for any help
question regarding lenses
(55 posts) (22 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
If you have a D700 then you should know already.
Posted 5 months ago # -
70-200mm f/2.8... Learn your camera b4 you ask...
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
I have shot basketball professionally with that lens and did mighty fine. What kind of shots are you looking for. Screw Nikon suggestions! If you are a photographer you should know what you want. If you know what you want, you either use the tools to get what you want or you learn what tools you need to get what you want. I have used a 10.5mm and a 300mm to shoot basketball. A mid-tele is a good range to get close ups of the action.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I would guess the 70-200 f/2.8 is probably the most common lens used. It should be all you need if you can use your feet and know the game. Basketball is fun to shoot with remote flashes if you are able; there's a lot of action at the baskets.
There are a few other indoor sports question threads you should search for that might help you out too.
Good luck!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Alan J said:
If you have a D700 then you should know already.dont be a jerk.... Smug pros are no use to anyone.
kyoshinikon said:
70-200mm f/2.8... Learn your camera b4 you ask...I'm assuming this kid's in highschool. Way to suggest a 2300 dollar lens to a highschool kid.
Get the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6
it's half the cost of the 70-200, its twice as versatile, not as fast but fast enough because it's got VR and your d700 has plenty of high iso range together making it just as good for what you want. Esp with a flash. You wouldn't be using the 70-200 at 2.8 anyway because of your depth of field. Stop down, turn on VR and bump up to 3200+iso and save yourself a truckload of cash.kyoshinikon said:
If you know what you want, you either use the tools to get what you want or you learn what tools you need to get what you want.What do you think he's doing here asking us? possibly learning what tools he needs? It's sometimes nice to here from real live people answering specifically to your question rather than reading generalized reviews.
kyoshinikon said:
A mid-tele is a good range to get close ups of the action.Mid range tele's are a waste of money. there are many other lenses that do what they do and more, and do it better. i.e. the 28-300.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I actually prefer the 85mm 1.8 if I can get fairly close - 70-200vr if not. Personally I never plan on using anything above f/4 in a gym.
Posted 5 months ago # -
joetarlos...as TaoTeJared said, you need to be on the floor with a pro 1.8 lens. 2.8 lens will work if you have a lot of light, normally only a pro basketball or college arena will give you that much light.
Also, you'll want to shoot at 1/800 speed, that's what all the pro's shoot the b'ball games at. I hope this helps.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Bland +1.
I shot a low light volleyball venue last summer...
1/400 sec f/4.5 but this required an ISO of 9000. Probably typical for a high school gym. And, if not working press, they may limit you to staying off the court in a sport like volleyball where the ball can be played from just about anywhere.... But in basketball, once off court and touching the ground the player cannot do much.
Thus, the 85mm f/1.8 would work for a few shots near the photographer. But, if you are retired in the chronologically mature age group, moving from a crouch to avoid a collision may be a bit more than some of us can do. The 135mm f/2 might be nice, but with action I am not so sure the AF will be as nice as on the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I think I recently saw some very nice basketball shots with a D700 and an old 35-70 F2.8 ! :-) yeah you need to get close and avoid being "taken out" ! But those shots were really nice.. also that lens had no VR. I remember taking note that the poster said that because of the speed of the players, you need to up the shutter speed to at least 1/250 and preferable 1/320. Thus VR is of no use in those situations.
Posted 5 months ago # -
aquarian_light said:
dont be a jerk.... Smug pros are no use to anyone.I'm assuming this kid's in highschool. Way to suggest a 2300 dollar lens to a highschool kid.
Get the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6
it's half the cost of the 70-200, its twice as versatile, not as fast but fast enough because it's got VR and your d700 has plenty of high iso range together making it just as good for what you want. Esp with a flash. You wouldn't be using the 70-200 at 2.8 anyway because of your depth of field. Stop down, turn on VR and bump up to 3200+iso and save yourself a truckload of cash.What do you think he's doing here asking us? possibly learning what tools he needs? It's sometimes nice to here from real live people answering specifically to your question rather than reading generalized reviews.
Mid range tele's are a waste of money. there are many other lenses that do what they do and more, and do it better. i.e. the 28-300.
Sorry, but I can't say I would take your advice. Yeah a variable aperture lens like the 28-300 might be Ok, but in good light and outside and at which point it is still only a marginal lens at longer focal lengths. I have tried to shoot with a 18-200 even inside a pro football stadium and it didn't work well. Not to mention VR will not help at all when shooting sports. When stuff is moving, being able to shoot slow shutter speeds with VR is not helpful. You want the fastest possible lens for sports as to not have to boost the ISO beyond repair just to not get lots of blur.
I will second the 70-200 F2.8 as it is probably the best, faster lens with some reach. A prime would be optimal, but you would have to get close...guess it depends on what you want to spend and what you are willing to compromise with. If you can stand the noise just up the ISO with any lens you have...I would say you probably want and F2.8 or faster.
Posted 5 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Sorry, but I can't say I would take your advice. Yeah a variable aperture lens like the 28-300 might be Ok, but in good light and outside and at which point it is still only a marginal lens at longer focal lengths. I have tried to shoot with a 18-200 even inside a pro football stadium and it didn't work well.I will second the 70-200 F2.8 as it is probably the best, faster lens with some reach. A prime would be optimal, but you would have to get close...guess it depends on what you want to spend and what you are willing to compromise with. If you can stand the noise just up the ISO with any lens you have...I would say you probably want and F2.8 or faster.
The 18-200 is a DX lens... I wouldn't expect it to be nearly as good as the FX version. on my d800 body the 28-300 is near instant focus.
tcole1983 said:
Not to mention VR will not help at all when shooting sports. When stuff is moving, being able to shoot slow shutter speeds with VR is not helpful. You want the fastest possible lens for sports as to not have to boost the ISO beyond repair just to not get lots of blur.No one said to shoot with low shutter speeds... VR is always helpful even at high shutter speeds, ESPECIALLY with long teles. And sides, the high ISO range of the d700 is perfectly capable of providing excellent images all the way to 6,400. So ISO isn't even a discussion.
tcole1983 said:
I will second the 70-200 F2.8 as it is probably the best, faster lens with some reach. A prime would be optimal, but you would have to get close...guess it depends on what you want to spend and what you are willing to compromise with. If you can stand the noise just up the ISO with any lens you have...I would say you probably want and F2.8 or faster.There are so many people who can't seem to realize that recomending the most expensive lens to everybody isn't always the best recommendation. The 28-300 will perform ADMIRABLY focus wise, IQ wise and COST wise. The 70-200 is just simply not in everyone's budget at $2,300... And if someone were to buy it... they better damn well KNOW they need it and not be online asking questions about it. Thus that lens should NEVER be recommend because it's for NOONE but WORKING professionals with the cash to throw at it. Recommending that lens is like recommending a ferrari to a pizza delivery boy. Not to compare OP to a pizza delivery boy, but just to make my point...
Posted 5 months ago # -
Aquarian note that the OP did not give a budget just asked what would the best lens to be. Everyone can take the suggestions and look at used 70/80-200s or similar products from other manufactures that might fit in their budget.
The 18-200 is a DX is just as good as the 28-300vr. DX Glass doesn't have any poorer performance from their FX counterparts from my experience.
I would not suggest the 28-300 either unless you are shooting on Ms Moto's D4. I tried once shooting with a 70-300vr and found the shutter speed too slow and didn't get a thing. As Bland said, 1/800 shutter is what you would be looking to get to - unfortunately 1/500 is about as high as I can get with my acceptable ISO vs. Quality. Indoor sports are not easy to shoot.
Posted 5 months ago # -
aquarian_light said:
No one said to shoot with low shutter speeds... VR is always helpful even at high shutter speeds, ESPECIALLY with long teles.
This is pretty much dead wrong. Nikon and most experts agree that VR should be disabled at speeds faster than about 1/500.
Google "nyquist frequency" and realize that VR samples at 1000Hz.
aquarian_light said:
The 70-200 is just simply not in everyone's budget at $2,300... And if someone were to buy it... they better damn well KNOW they need it and not be online asking questions about it. Thus that lens should NEVER be recommend because it's for NOONE but WORKING professionals with the cash to throw at it.
Pretty extreme position. Some of us have more disposable income than others, some save up for luxury items. Please ease off the caps, we can all hear you. Breathe :-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
For what it's worth, 2 years ago I joined this board and asked what were the best lenses to buy with my D7000. Someone recommended the Nikkor 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200mm f/2.8s. I looked at the prices and thought no way. Well, over the last couple of years of buying and selling DX glass and less desireable FX options and saving up, I've found that my best, sharpest, most stunning photos have come from the 14-24, and 24-70mm lenses. I once shot a swim meet with a borrowed 70-200mm f/2.8 and got some stunning photos, freezing water droplets right where I saw them in the viewfinder. The focus motor in that lens snaps that thing into focus instantaneously. I have the 28-300mm VR and personally don't feel it could live up to the job.
That said, I do think the expensive recommendations are "sometimes" warranted, especially if the person has experience with what he/she's recommending and in the venue in question. I too, would have thought that if someone has a D700 then they should be able to stomach a more expensive lens recommendation - or at least the 80-200mm f2.8 for starters. I've seen threads where someone states that (s)he has a D3200 and needs a recommendation for such & such. Someone will inevitably recommend a 24mm f/1.4 or something like that. Now that's over the top.
Posted 5 months ago # -
@aquarian_light I won't turn it into a battle thread and you obviously have a strong preference in what you like or think works. But I will note the OP has a D700 and therefore I don't find f2.8 glass out of the realm of recommendation. That and the d700 does have good iso performance but shooting inside in low light the two stops difference in your 28-300 and 70-200 is pretty large. I am a big fan of VR but I still don't agree that it is a lifesaver in low light with any sort of movement. Good light it works great...landscapes at slow shutters works great. Action in poor light...vr is worthless.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hi,
The OP might be someone who got the camera at a school with little experience and needs some help with lenses (lucky for him), the D700 gets great marks for a FX camera, and Joe has a lot of homework to do.
Budget will certainly play a role in what direction to go, and whether VR is necessary or desirable, meaning if the shooting will be largely hand held (which it sounds like (and VR would be very helpful).
High ISOs might reduce the need for VR, if shooting could be at 1/500 or higher. That should keep the image solid, _assuming_ good shooting technique is used - upper arms tucked into the body, breath control, no other movement during shutter release - a monopod is useful, too. Some of the more experienced (read - older) just have other problems and have to use a tripod anyway.
Higher ISO will likely increase apparent grain in the photos. You'll have to decide where you can live with the results you get from the camera/ISO settings/light available/distance/and your setup. Try different things and mix that with your flash if you have one, but don't (my recommendation) use only flash illumination, use it for fill on your camera.
The point of the faster zoom is trying to use the lowest ISO to stop the action with the most pleasing results. It's a heavy sumbitch and tiring.
For more interesting pictures, try lowering the ISO and panning the camera with the player(s). Do that with a more moderate mid telephoto setting. It will blur everything but the player(s) - a 1/15 second should work, but try several settings.
In general, I think you'll find that the forum is a great place to do your research and I, for one, will be happy to help in as much as I can.
My best,
Mike
Posted 5 months ago # -
aquarian_light said:
There are so many people who can't seem to realize that recomending the most expensive lens to everybody isn't always the best recommendation.The only reason we're recommending the high dollar glass is because it takes that type of glass to shoot indoor basketball. Each and everyone of us would suggest the lower price glass if it worked but it doesn't, unless you're using a D4 like msmoto.
Even with good glass shooting indoor basketball is a nightmare to shoot. The light is not shining evenly across the floor, you have to zoom constantly in hopes your autofocus can keep up and you have to do all of this while people are bumping into you and the players and refs are blocking your shots over 90% of the time.
If someone wants a good low price sports lens I suggest the $500 70-300, it's incredible. I use it more shooting outdoor sports than I do my 2.8 70-200.
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
aquarian_light said:
the 70-300 is exactly the same as the 28-300, cept the 28-300 goes down to 28.The 70-300 is a longer lens because it's designed for sports, shooting wildlife and etc. The 28-300 is designed for all around shooting, vacations, family events,sight seeing and etc.
The 70-300 is extremely fast for the price. Not that the 28-300 is slow, it's just not near as fast as the 70-300. Trust me, you want to own the 70-300 as well.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Bland said:
The 70-300 is a longer lens because it's designed for sports, shooting wildlife and etc. The 28-300 is designed for all around shooting, vacations, family events,sight seeing and etc.The 70-300 is extremely fast for the price. Not that the 28-300 is slow, it's just not near as fast as the 70-300. Trust me, you want to own the 70-300 as well.
I think you're confusing the 70-300 and the 70-200... the 70-300 is a f/4-5.6 variable aperture lens that is literally the exact same glass as the 28-300 cept the 28-300 is newer and goes wider....
the 70-200 is the f/2.8 $2,300 lens.Posted 5 months ago # -
aquarian_light said:
I think you're confusing the 70-300 and the 70-200... the 70-300 is a f/4-5.6 variable aperture lens that is literally the exact same glass as the 28-300 cept the 28-300 is newer and goes wider....
the 70-200 is the f/2.8 $2,300 lens.Bland is correct in the design for the 70-300vr. The two (70-300vr & 28-300vr) have very different designs and are designed for different intended uses. Yes they can cross at points, but it would be incorrect to say the 28-300vr is an upgraded 70-300vr as you may be thinking. It is actually an upgraded 28-200 from about 6-8 years ago that was popular with the last consumer film cameras.
Every lens is designed for a specific intended purpose that can do other things well but with compromises. It is in those compromises (variable aperture, Size/weight, AF motors, ED glass, design, price, etc.) that we all photographers have to grapple with and decide for ourselves if those compromises are acceptable and will not hinder our ability to help attain our goals or if they will become a handicap that can not be overcome, and a different lens would be a better choice.
Posted 5 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Bland is correct in the design for the 70-300vr. The two (70-300vr & 28-300vr) have very different designs and are designed for different intended uses. Yes they can cross at points, but it would be incorrect to say the 28-300vr is an upgraded 70-300vr as you may be thinking. It is actually an upgraded 28-200 from about 6-8 years ago that was popular with the last consumer film cameras.Every lens is designed for a specific intended purpose that can do other things well but with compromises. It is in those compromises (variable aperture, Size/weight, AF motors, ED glass, design, price, etc.) that we all photographers have to grapple with and decide for ourselves if those compromises are acceptable and will not hinder our ability to help attain our goals or if they will become a handicap that can not be overcome, and a different lens would be a better choice.
The 28-300 I'm looking at is most clearly an upgraded 70-300. Additions of asphericals in the 28-300 to give it better edge to edge sharpness across is zoom range, more compact design with faster focusing and all around higher build quality, addition of extra ED elements, a larger front glass and filter ring to decrease light falloff at wider apertures and significantly more complex internal layout resulting in a significantly upgraded lens. I personally don't see one advantage to the 70-300 besides price.
If lenses were designed for one use and one use only, manufacturers would be shooting themselves in their feet. Lenses aren't "designed for all around shooting, vacations, family events,sight seeing and etc." to the point where they are entirely useless in any other situation. To suggest so is ludicrous. I have done plenty of sports and wildlife imagery in my spare time with the 28-300 and it is superb. If you say otherwise I would suggest that you haven't actually used it to any significant extent.Posted 5 months ago # -
All those extra higher end glass elements in the 28-300mm sure haven't helped it too much. The 70-300 VR shows higher resolution figures, across the entire frame, throughout most of the zoom range (particularly beyond 200mm).
Of course the 70-300mm and 28-300mm are different classes of lenses. The 28-300mm is an all in one, for situations where flexibility is of higher value. The 28-300mm also has higher barrel and pincushion distortions. Thus correcting for that distortion additionally reduces image resolution.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
