How is this lens shooting basketball in somewhat dim high school gymnasiums? I want but can't afford a f/2.8 w expensive glass.
496024
Paul,This is a good lens but the lack of zoom may be a problem for basketball depending on where you are allowed to photograph. The F4 is not as problematic with cameras such as the 6D and 5D MarkIII. Those cameras handle higher ISO with much less noise than others. You will be pushing the 7D with ISO 6400 in some gyms. Newer Gyms with good lighting should be fine at F4.0. It also depends on how high you like to run your shutter to stop action crisply.
496025
Paul, This is a good lens but the lack of zoom may be a problem for basketball depending on where you are allowed to photograph. The F4 is not as problematic with cameras such as the 6D and 5D MarkIII. Those cameras handle higher ISO with much less noise than others. You will be pushing the 7D with ISO 6400 in some gyms. Newer Gyms with good lighting should be fine at F4.0. It also depends on how high you like to run your shutter to stop action crisply.
496026
Your biggest issue here will be light. F4 isn't the fastest glass for basketball, but if you up your ISO to the 1600-2500 range you should be OK. Remember you only have 105 as the longest zoom, but if you multiply by your crop factor you'll get decent reach. I would also suggest a tripod/monopod.
496027
I understand your situation, but for shooting indoor sports the wider aperture is the way to go. Save up for the 200mm telephoto. It's a great lens and considerably less expensive than something like a 70-200 IS ii.
496028
With fast shutter speeds, it is very difficult to get a good shot in dim light.
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.
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
32352
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected.The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
358880
I rented this lense to use with my Canon 350D. Shooting a 3rd grade basketball game at 1/250 sec,f2.8, ISO 1600 pics were a little grainy. Shooting at 1/200 sec,f2.8,ISO 800 pics were sharp but a few were just a little under exposed. I am going to buy this lense.
736773
I did use this lens for my grandson's graduation - when he was on stage, under lighting, got some good shots. But I use the 85mm f/1.8 for most school events. I would think you would want at least 2.8 for most events.
1515218
I think much depends on where you will be shooting from.... If you'll be standing near the hoop for a basketball, yes it would be fine but if you'll have more distance between you and the action I would look for an 80-200 2.8 - you can find used ones for around $600. They don't have a built in focus motor but your D80 has it's own so it will work just fine. You can buy one new for about $1,000 or get the VR version for something over $2,000 - same lens but newer bells and whistles.
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.
626722
It's a very good low light lens, however if you use a F/2.8 aperture be very careful with your depth of field. Depth of field is very shallow with that large aperture. Stop it down to f/4 or more if possible.
2173993
That's pretty much the point of this lens - sports. Fast focus and f/2.8 should allow a fast enough shutter speed to capture action in most situations.
736776
I do not own this lens anymore do to the fact that I started shooting indoor events. I loved the lens but with a 4 aperture it doesn't take in enough light. I would recommend the 2.8 version of this lens or a prime lens for your needs. You will be able to keep your shutter speeds up and ISP down.
854405
Look at the price. Seriously these kinds of questions hardly apply. Theres a spherical focusing plane so not everything in the frame can even be in focus. If you want to have fun with a really cheap lens get it. If you want to nitpick don't bother with this.
1028371
This is a great lens, but sports is not really it's thing. Out it might do alright. Sigma has always been the winner for sports, either the 50-150 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8. Don't just take my word for it. Look at the Pentax forums website under the tab lens database. Real helpful reviews.
1530821
I use this lens to shoot sports photography and it's a sharp lens. You should have no issues shooting portraits
1577269
It will work well for action. If you go with the kit lens(es), try to keep the f stop above 5.6. They are sharper in that area. Also, set your focus point to center (most likely). I used it extensively for my daughters indoor volleyball
1759794
Oh, I'll add this:"Great for indoor" yeah that's matketing lingo for "this lens has a big, fast maximum aperture of f2."All lenses are mostly "good for outdoors/broad daylight". But faster max apertures can suck in more light than others which is particularly useful A) if you want amazing bokeh and shallow depth of field (B) you're inside and have horrid light and the extra 2-3 stops will get you the shot.
1695327
I agree it not a super/ ultra wide. I'm not sure that is it's best use anyways. It is as wide as I could find at f/1.8 at 18mm (27mm relative) at this price point with near perfect clarity. I use mine for indoor group shots and can tell you it is wide enough for that and the pictures are amazing with this glass. If you really want wide angle then I would consider prime lens.