Shooting Basketball....VR or no VR?

Fogcity

Hi all, and thanks in advance for ANY help! I am currently shooting indoor basketball in poorly lit gyms (are there any other kinds?). I'm using a NIkon D300 with grip and have been shooting with my 50 AF 1.4. I love that lens and if the gym is lit well enough, I can get some great shots. If it's not lit well enough, not so much. But what I'd really like is a little more reach. Sometimes the best pictures I take, even sitting on the sideline under the hoop are just to grainy when I crop them down.

Soooo, I have a limited budget (like to stay under $1,000 but if absolutely necessary could go to $1,500, but really don't want to do that). I also do some outdoor sports so would like to get the 70-200 2.8 or 80-200 2.8. I considered an 85 1.8 but thought the 70-200 would be more versatile (but would the 2.8 be okay in the gym?)

There is a huge difference in the price though--I'm looking used on EBay. From all the research I've done, the older 80-200 2.8 (no vr) looks like it would be as good as the glass in the newer 70-200 2.8 but the price difference is about $800. I think I can get the 80-200 2.8 for about $700, but the 70-200 2.8 vr is $1,500 (used).

Is the vr really necessary for sports, indoor or outdoor? Is it worth the extra $800? I've read posts that say vr is not helpful with action shots, but I thought that's what it was for?

Thanks for any help! So confused!

Wil Davis

If you're limited with budget (who isn't nowadays?), you might consider non-VR but invest in a mono-pod. Used non-VR 80-200s are around your pricepoint, and there are many gear-heads who, having to have the latest-and-greatest-all-bells-with-whistles gear, often dump their hardly-used toys on eBay or craigslist.

HTH -

- Wil (it's fun being a bottom-feeder!)

BTW - Welcome to dgrin.com

Fogcity

Thanks Wil! As a follow up question....there are so many versions of the 80-200 and 70-200 out there. The pricing is approx. (used)

80-200 2.8 $750
80-200 2.8 AF-S $1,100
70-200 2.8 AF-S VR $1,500

*sigh* I was going to go with the least expensive version, but then was reading the AF-S is faster and quieter-- wondering if would make a huge ($350 worth) difference? And then if that's the case I'm getting awfully close in price to the VR. I'm tempted to go with the non AF-S version and try it out and then resell it if it's slow or clunky with the focusing. Thoughts? Thanks!!!

rainbow

I have shot HS basketball for the past few years with the Canon system and can share some of my thoughts. You can apply these to what is available and affordable in the Nikon system.

VR is not needed nor very helpful for basketball. VR is valuable mostly for holding the camera steady on a stationary target where you would use longer shutter speeds than you can handhold (so I can get an excellent shot with my 24 - 105 IS (equivalent of VR) at 1/6 of a second. It is not useful for sports because it does not stop the motion of something (or someone like a player) moving across the frame. For this a high shutter speed is needed to freeze action (like 1/500), in which case, the VR is not needed to prevent blur from utilizing longer shutter speed.

My two main basketball lenses are my 85 f/1.8 and my 135 f/2. These give me one stop more than a f/2.8 zoom at an affordable price ($325 and $900, respectively when I purchased them). I plant my rear end accordingly and take pics at the distance where it is well framed. The foul line area is a great distance for proper framing: then anything on the far opposite side of the court needs just a little cropping as does all action under the basket. Anything on the close side of the court is not that important because the person with the ball usually has his/her back to me. I will also move to a different spot during a timeout or quarter break if I want to shoot a different spot on the floor (or different players) or change lenses then to change the distance and type of shot I want.

I also usually choose ISO 1600 and RAW, so that I can white balance and not worry about changing lighting on different parts of the court.

Hope this helps some. Good luck and happy shopping!

Fogcity

Thank you, that is so helpful! So you don't think the 80-200 2.8 will work well in most gym lighting situations? I think the 85 would be great to have too, just hoping to sink the money into something I could use for both inside low lighting and get some nice bokeh on my outside sports pics. Oh to be rich and not have to choose!

I really appreciate the explanation on the vr, that helps a LOT.

rainbow

Fogcity wrote:

Thank you, that is so helpful! So you don't think the 80-200 2.8 will work well in most gym lighting situations? I think the 85 would be great to have too, just hoping to sink the money into something I could use for both inside low lighting and get some nice bokeh on my outside sports pics. Oh to be rich and not have to choose!

I really appreciate the explanation on the vr, that helps a LOT.

Many Canon sports shooters swear by the 70-200 f/2.8 (both the IS and non-IS) whereas indoors I use the primes I described (one stop better AND lighter, cheaper). Outdoors, I have the 70-200 f/4 IS (cheaper and lighter than f/2.8) with and without my 1.4X teleconverter. But I do not shoot outdoors sports as much as gym sports and use the 70-200 for many other different uses. Depends on what else you want to use the lens for as the 135 is really too short for outdoors sports like soccer, football and baseball (but great for portraits and bokeh). So many will tell you that 80 - 200 f2.8 lens may be a good start. That is what you have to figure out since funds are limited. And then, will you be happy with it in a few years or regret that you did not get the VR since it would be useful in taking photos other than sports ones? (BTW, for Canon, if you use a tripod, you should turn the IS off)

Fogcity

Thanks again! All great info, I'll have to think it over a bit. Since I have the 50, the 135 sound like a nice step up for indoors. I'm worried the 2.8 is not going to be enough in some of the gyms I shoot at. I'm going to check into that one. Again, I really appreciate your advice!

donek

You may find the 70-200 length a bit long on your D300. I thinks it's perfect on my D700. You'll really need to add light though to use such a lens in a gym. Last year I used 3 SB-800 flashes mounted even with the key and pointed at or slightly beyond it. I don't know your flash kit, but you could fairly easily come by a couple SB-28s on e-bay for $100 a piece and pick up some Cactus triggers for $40 a set. You're adding another $300 to your expenses.

Obtaining an 85 f1.8 or f1.4 would help. Within about a year, you'll become dissapointed in the depth of field issues and probably begin using a bounce flash to reduce the dark eye sockets. You'll eventually move to adding light where it doesn't exist with Speed Lights or studio strobes and want to shoot at f4 iso 400 to 800.

The question is what to do now. I can't really answer that for you. The 70-200 won't do it alone, you'll need more light. The 85 f1.8 will only put one playing in focus unless they are both in the same focal plane.

Fogcity

Thank you for the great info! Yes, I think sad to say even though I "want" the 80-200 the 85 is really the better solution. I appreciate all the great input!

johng

OK,

Like another poster, I shoot Canon. But, for this discussion the systems/lenses involved are close enough.

1) As you've noticed 50mm is really too short for many useful shots.

2) An 85mm lens will get you about 25' of coverage. So if you're shooting baseline you can get out to close to half-court on a perpendicular line but obviously if you're corner baseline don't expect going to opposite sideline and get shots. The biggest problem there is AF will get fooled by the background more easily - even with single focus point.

2b) Problem with 85mm on APS-C is it's very tight. When I used to shoot 85mm with an APS-C canon I found myself along the baseline around the arc to corner area (for HS). And even then there were a lot of partial body shots.

3) As mentioned, VR is not going to buy you much. I also strongly recommend against a monopod. Monopods work fine for field sports with greater distances, but for basketball you have to swing way too much and a monopod would cause more problems (just imagine passes around the arc and trying to pivot around a monopod - if you're kneeling or sitting as you should be, it's impossible to do).

4) whether you go 70-200 or 85 depends on the trade-off of noise vs. versatility. If you're comfortable with the ISO 3200-6400 performance of your D300 then the 70-200 will give you a lot more shot opportunities and the ability to capture shots at the far end. If you don't like the 3200-6400 performance than the 85 is the best solution.

As another poster mentioned, ultimate results can be obtained via strobing (either with strobes or flashes) and using a 70-200. But that's more money and requires additional permission - plus depending on the gym you may have issues with where you can place the flashes.

For my part I used to shoot basketall with a Canon 20d and 85mm 1.8. Got very good results. When I moved to the 1dmkIII I was happy enough with the high ISO that I switched to the 70-200 2.8 and love the added versatility it provides in my shot selection.

Fogcity

Wow, thanks for the insightful response! It's sounding more and more like the 85 1.8 is the best choice for indoor basketball. I need to go out and shoot more pics and pay close attention to the iso to see what works best. And every gym is different, so maybe with some better lighting the 2.8 will work, but most gyms the 1.8 is the better choice. I'm sure at some point I'll talk myself into both of them....I really want that 80-200 (well I *really*) want the 70-200 vr but that's probably a little out of reach right now....

Thanks so very much!

donek

Fogcity wrote:

Wow, thanks for the insightful response! It's sounding more and more like the 85 1.8 is the best choice for indoor basketball. I need to go out and shoot more pics and pay close attention to the iso to see what works best. And every gym is different, so maybe with some better lighting the 2.8 will work, but most gyms the 1.8 is the better choice. I'm sure at some point I'll talk myself into both of them....I really want that 80-200 (well I *really*) want the 70-200 vr but that's probably a little out of reach right now....

Thanks so very much!

Shoot your 50 at 2.8 and see what you think. While it won't have the reach, it will tell you if you can get away with that f-stop.

Fogcity

Thanks for the idea! I did do that--worked great (well, more like "okay") in one gym, not so great in the other (couldn't stop the action or get the shutter speed up high enough). It's so dependent on each particular gym's lighting.....but 2.8 is really less than ideal for the most part. I'm thinking the 85 1.8, I can get one used on Ebay for $325 or so, then decide if I should keep the 50 (love that 50 though....).
I can't thank everyone enough for your help!

ASkip

Fogcity wrote:

Thanks for the idea! I did do that--worked great (well, more like "okay") in one gym, not so great in the other (couldn't stop the action or get the shutter speed up high enough). It's so dependent on each particular gym's lighting.....but 2.8 is really less than ideal for the most part. I'm thinking the 85 1.8, I can get one used on Ebay for $325 or so, then decide if I should keep the 50 (love that 50 though....).
I can't thank everyone enough for your help!

Hi,
I thought I'd chime in, even though you have a ton of good answers here.
I have a D300 (and a D700) and use the 85mm 1.8 for basketball. The 70-200 gets you better range, but I think it's too slow at focusing, so I'd end up missing a bunch of shots. Maybe I'm just not coordinated. and it gets heavy for my girly arms/wrists.
And for most outdoor sports, if you're taking pictures in the daytime the 80-400 f4.5/5.6 is a good all purpose lens and cheaper than the 70-200 2.8. It's slower than the AF-S, but it can see farther. 200mm isn't enough for full field sports (field hockey, soccer, lacrosse) or surfing, but it's pretty good for football if you have full use of the sideline. In fact, that's about all I use my 70-200 for, summer football.
happy shopping!
anna

Fogcity

ASkip wrote:

Hi,
I thought I'd chime in, even though you have a ton of good answers here.
I have a D300 (and a D700) and use the 85mm 1.8 for basketball. The 70-200 gets you better range, but I think it's too slow at focusing, so I'd end up missing a bunch of shots. Maybe I'm just not coordinated. and it gets heavy for my girly arms/wrists.
And for most outdoor sports, if you're taking pictures in the daytime the 80-400 f4.5/5.6 is a good all purpose lens and cheaper than the 70-200 2.8. It's slower than the AF-S, but it can see farther. 200mm isn't enough for full field sports (field hockey, soccer, lacrosse) or surfing, but it's pretty good for football if you have full use of the sideline. In fact, that's about all I use my 70-200 for, summer football.
happy shopping!
anna

Thanks so much! I hadn't looked at the 80-400..... I have a 70-300 4.5/5.6 and am thinking of getting the 1.4x tele for the 80-200 (since I think you loose a couple stops with the converter, if it even works with the AF?). I'll have to check into the 80-400 pricing and see if that's feasible for outdoor and maybe jump in and try some of these out!

I appreciate it!!!

ASkip

Fogcity wrote:

Thanks so much! I hadn't looked at the 80-400..... I have a 70-300 4.5/5.6 and am thinking of getting the 1.4x tele for the 80-200 (since I think you loose a couple stops with the converter, if it even works with the AF?). I'll have to check into the 80-400 pricing and see if that's feasible for outdoor and maybe jump in and try some of these out!

I appreciate it!!!

I have a 1.4 tc. hate it. AF still works but it cuts out some of the light and the pictures aren't as sharp. I've heard they're not as good on zoom lenses either. I tried mine with my 300mm f2.8 lens, just proves you cannot make a $10,000 lens out of a $4500 lens and a TC. ook.
I've seen pictures over at the Wildlife section taken with TC's that look fabulous, so maybe I don't know how to take pictures, or mine doesn't like sports, or ducks sitting still just look better though a TC.
I'm ranting. You actually asked about VR. my 80-400 has VR, but I usually turn it off. Sometimes it actually seems to shake the camera a bit. I don't think one really needs VR. Though I admit I use VR on the 300 when I'm hand holding it, which is most of the time. I'm not sure it makes a difference, but I like the little whirring noise it makes.
Anna

Fogcity

ASkip wrote:

I have a 1.4 tc. hate it. AF still works but it cuts out some of the light and the pictures aren't as sharp. I've heard they're not as good on zoom lenses either. I tried mine with my 300mm f2.8 lens, just proves you cannot make a $10,000 lens out of a $4500 lens and a TC. ook.
I've seen pictures over at the Wildlife section taken with TC's that look fabulous, so maybe I don't know how to take pictures, or mine doesn't like sports, or ducks sitting still just look better though a TC.
I'm ranting. You actually asked about VR. my 80-400 has VR, but I usually turn it off. Sometimes it actually seems to shake the camera a bit. I don't think one really needs VR. Though I admit I use VR on the 300 when I'm hand holding it, which is most of the time. I'm not sure it makes a difference, but I like the little whirring noise it makes.
Anna

SO funny about the VR whirring noise--makes you feel like something is actually happening-- ! Well, I bought a used 85 1.8 and a used 80-200 2.8 (non vr) so I'm am waiting (very impatiently) to see how they work out! I also got the 1.4x--read mixed reviews but figured what the heck, I can give it a shot for not too much money. I can always go back to my 70-300 for a little more reach in daylight if I need it. Obviously blew my budget a bit (and probably lost my mind) but I can't wait to try them out both for basketball and outdoor daytime sports this fall and spring. Time will tell. I'll post some pictures if they work out, and if they don't work out, I'll come back to get more words of wisdom--you guys are great!