Help - 55-200 vs 56 1.2

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

I also now have the 55-200 on order. I know many here have said the 50-230 is probably as good and less expensive - but I am indoors a lot and I will need all of the aperture I can get

Really, 55-200 for indoor shooting? I would say that both lenses are slow for that. Also is 200mm needed for indoor? 🤔

maybe you don't know that volleyball, swimming, gymnastics - all happen indoors?

I saw no mention about indoor sport in your post, I expected outdoor use. I shoot indoor sport only rarely, but I think, that lens with faster aperture would be certainly better, as there is often not much light.

From my example of table tennis shot, you can roughly calculate what parameters you would need to use with 55-200 in the same conditions.

Shutter speed is set to 1/500 (reasonable minimum)

Aperture f1.4, lets say, that you would use f4, it means...

...that instead of ISO 800 you would have ISO6400, which is usable, but far from optimal on apsc sensor.

I would recommend to rather buy 50-140f2.8 or 90mm f2 for this purpose (or maybe even Sigma 56f1.4 as me).

f1.4, 1/500s, ISO800

I plan to use the 50mm f/1.2 manual focus lens for high shutter speed indoor sports.  I know it isn't ideal - but if you can anticipate where the action will be - it can work out.  I tested it outdoors with my erratically running daughter - I kinda knew she would be running to a certain location and focused on that location - and when she got there - I took the shot mid-run.  It worked out well in that situation.  I imagine for table tennis it might work out too - since the action will likely be kinda predictable.