Is this the lens to use for low light and indoor sports? Thank you!
2000653
You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the focus and clarity is amazing. It's expensive, but it's amazing what it can do. You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the... » Read More You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the focus and clarity is amazing. It's expensive, but it's amazing what it can do. « Show Less
1241571
Its a great all around lense. It produces very sharp images. Portrait shots will definatelly come out crisp but keep in kind that its a 70-300 lense, therefore; distance may be an issue when trying to shoot indoors.
795052
This lens is fantastic for daylight sports photography but is going to be much weaker in low light situations than the 2.8 versions. In my particular situation I use a crop-frame camera so I'm especially handicapped in low light. My last attempt was photographing a nighttime car race with stadium lighting. Maybe 1 in 10 shots were satisfactory unless I shot on corners where the cars were slowed down significantly.
2243387
Not a lens for action. Manual focus and an extremelybwidr angle are detrimental factors for action for this lens. More of a niche lens in your bag. Can be used on the sidelines of sports or action but not my first choice to get action.
969181
It would be okay if you were wanting to shoot at maybe an ISO 800 indoors, but for outdoor sporting events it's only good if it's very bright out because the widest the aperture goes is an f8
406
Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it... » Read More Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. « Show Less
91517
I bought the lens for shooting night time soccer matches. It is awesome at that. I have moved on to high school basketball and it performs flawlessly there as well. I have used it for one wedding (outside), worked well there too. I think you would be happy, but have not tried in that low of a light situation. Now if you wish to support the lens with a flash of some sort, then there would be no question. My gut tells me you would be fine, but I have nothing to back that up. The lens is great, fast and extremely clear. I am very happy.
1616518
This will work good any how but slow focusing so if you want it for sport i dont recomend it but for normal shots works perfect
1186461
I use this lens primarily for architectural photos. But I imagine it would be ok. It's not the fastest lens in its class, so if stopping action in low light is an issue, you may want to consider that.
1827617
These are two wonderful lens. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the f/4 IS. You have great IS capable of shooting sharp images up to to four stops without a tripod. However, you will not be able to stop the action in low light because of the F/4 aperture. IS fixes the shakes from your hands, it has no effect of freezing action in low or dim light. You could raise your ISO, but then you have to worry about noise. The weight of the F/4 will be much more comfortable around your neck than the f/2.8 because it weighs almost half as much. The price of the f/4 is another factor. Its around $500.00 bucks cheaper. The f/2.8 IS is a beast that will produce fantastic images but you are going to pay a price for it. It's heavy and you need to have deep pockets. On the other hand if sports is your thing and creating fantastic images with great bokeh than why not splurg and get what you really want. Are you shooting indoor sports? You should probably consider the f/2.8. Either way you are going to spend some money and you might as well get the one that is going to fit your needs. To sum up if you are shooting indoor sports i would go with the 2.8. If not the f/4 will not dissappoint you.
2060159
I use this lens with a Nikon D5100 and have found that it focuses quite fast indoors but I have shot mainly my kids lego tournament and choir in gyms. Others have taken basketball and volleyball photos - check out photos posted to pixelpeeper.com and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM group on flickr.com
441826
I love this lens for cross country, track as well as basketball games. It is more of a midrange lens but it takes fabulous photos. If you are thinking football, soccer or any other similar range photos the answer is a definite yes. On occasion I do use a 75-300 at times because I want to catch more expression and less full body shots.
1709380
It's a solid lens with good range. If you plan on using it outside, then the lighting should be ample to take the type of shots you're seeking. I have found that indoor shooting is not its strength. But the shots I've gotten are clear and I've been pleased with it. The additional range has come in handy.
782910
If you are going to shoot where there will be plenty of light, then yes this lens will be okay. Here I hope these videos helps you, since I am still experimenting with this lens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0NQfWuKKEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5wZAvUmPUA
509386
I am not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify your question? Do you mean to ask if this is a good lens for low light conditions?
941929
They make a Nikon version..a number of people have commented on low speed for sports. Most. Lens of this focal length have similar F-stop range
1530821
I use this lens to shoot sports photography and it's a sharp lens. You should have no issues shooting portraits