Next lens - basketball

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between 1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time? Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

I would go for the 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8 IS. If you can get a good deal on a 28-70, by all means go for it.

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically
I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some
of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get
large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for
fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is
awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the
factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some
photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos
with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were
with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen
criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the
opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM
lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a
little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor
sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with
my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time?
Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the
non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no
good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

Click to expand...

Iso 800 still isn't too bad as far as noise is concerned. I'd try a Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. That's 1/2 a stop faster than the kit lens at 18mm and it will react similar to the Canon and at only 300 US. I use the 135mm F/2 Canon but usually sit at midcourt. If you can get the Canon for a great price than I'd opt for that. You seem to have descent lighting (better than the high schools I have to contend with.) and like to stay by the basket. The 28-75 near the baskets would be ideal.
--
Stop pointing fingers and lend a hand.

Same feelings on focal lengths and speed. I shoot high school basketball. I just got a 35/1.4L to complement the 85/1.8 and 135L. Will be trying it Friday night.

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically
I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some
of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get
large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for
fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is
awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the
factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some
photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos
with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were
with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen
criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the
opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM
lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a
little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor
sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with
my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time?
Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the
non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no
good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

Click to expand...

It won't be anywhere near as sharp as the 85 at f2.8, but the zoom will give you that flexibility to adjust for the right angle of view depending on the players' position.

In this range, no zoom is better for an EOS body than the 24/28-70. If this doesn't work for you, you'll probably have to buy a couple of fast primes ranging from 24 to 50.

--
Pieter
http://www.pbase.com/pgordebeke (supporter)
(equipment in profile)

Not to pick on you but you seemed to be a little confused about focal length and the 1.6X crop, particularly with respect to the part quoted below:

Orin Day said:

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent.

Click to expand...

Focal length is a phyical property of the lens and is not affected by the crop factor. There is nothing adjusted/corrected/true about the 18-55mm lens with respect to the crop factor or the "effective magnification." If you bought a lens than covered 18mm for a full frame SLR and used it on that camera you would have the same Field of View. The 18-55mm is not "coverted" some how by that lens.

What is different about the 18-55mm lens:

1. The lens extends into the body more. The 300D's reflex mirror moves differently so that it will not hit the back of this lens. Other SLR/DSLR mirrors would hit the back of the lens.

2. By extending into the body, it makes it easier and thus cheaper to make a wide angle lens. The focal length is by definition the distance to focus light rays coming from far away (infininty). A wide angle "wants" to focus before the film/sensor plane on a normal 35mm SLR and requires a lot of extra and expensive optics because of this." By letting the lens "reach into" the body they simplified the optical design.

3. The projected image from this lense vignettes (gets dark) outside the 1.6X crop. Creating a larger "image circle" is more expensive both to get the light to fill a larger circle and to keep chroma abberations down.

A few other comments to your question.

I doubt you actually gain much if anything by shooting at 18mm and cropping. What you gain in using a smaller F-number you will loose back because you are magnifying the noise and any motion blur with the cropping.

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of good options for shooting wide and fast. If you have pretty good lighting for basketball, then a 24/28-70F2.8L may work for you. As you isolate players/fill the frame with a person, you need a higher shutter speed to reduce blur (the amount of blur you see is a function of the shutter speed AND how much that motion fills the image). If you get a 1/2 body shot, even 1/1000th will not "freeze" well fast hand motions. Conversely, you can get away with a slower shutter speed as you shoot wider.

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically ...

Click to expand...

Hi Orin,

F 2.8 is no good for your purpose. Try the 50mm F1.8 or the 50mm F1.4. With our 1.6 digital crop factor 50mm is about right for your your application.

Compared to F 2.8 these lenses let resp. 3 X and 4 X more light in, as you already found out with the 80mm F1.8. This often makes a go/no-go difference in available shutter speed to freeze the action. Then do not forget that autofocus lock-on speed also improves with wider open lenses.
The 50 1.4 is my only lens that permits available light stage shooting.
--
rgds, Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

At least if you're always shooting in the same stadium (Cameron Indoor?)... At the next game shoot some with your 85mm set to f/2.8 and see if you can get enough shutter speed. I wouldn't hesitate to go to ISO 800 or even higher if necessary... I have to shoot at 1600 all the time in high school gyms and occasionally (yikes!) 3200.

If it works, then go for the 28-70, it's a superb lens that will serve you well. If it doesn't, then try a 50 f/1.8 at the next game and see if it does the trick. For 75 clams it's hard to go wrong.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically
I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some
of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get
large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for
fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is
awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the
factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some
photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos
with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were
with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen
criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the
opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM
lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a
little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor
sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with
my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time?
Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the
non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no
good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

Click to expand...

It would be nice if Canon would make a 50mm 1.4 "L" lens at a reasonable price. My 1.4 has been in the shop, focusing mechanism stopped working. 50mm is a good focal length for basketball, but need a better build, focusing mechanism, optics than the current 1.4 offers and don't want to spend thousands on an f1.0, if they are even still available.

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically
I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some
of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get
large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for
fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is
awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the
factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some
photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos
with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were
with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen
criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the
opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM
lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a
little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor
sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with
my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time?
Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the
non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no
good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

Click to expand...

http://events.creativosity.net/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album23

Orin Day said:

I'm trying to evaluate which (if any) lens to buy next and would
appreciate some input/suggestions. My primary subject is college
basketball, reasonably well lit (but no flash available), typically
I shoot from a courtside (baseline) seat close to the basket. Some
of the best photos are published on the web, and I'd like to get
large prints of the best of the best, but otherwise it's "just for
fun".

Current Lineup:
300D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

So far the 85mm has worked well, plenty of speed and the USM is
awesome, but it's just a little too long for where I sit - the
factor for the camera is 1.6 so it's effectively 135mm. Some
photos I took with this lens (at F2.0) are at:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/825.html

The kit lens (built for 300D thus a "true" 18-55mm for it) was too
slow to achieve any better than average shots - I treated it like a
fixed 18mm and at f3.5 ISO800 I was able to stop action (between
1/320 and 1/400) - but usually needed to crop because 18mm was just
too short - that made the ISO setting all too apparent. Photos
with these settings (some cropped, skip second pair which were were
with the 85mm) are here:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/women/834.html

My first thought was to pick up a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but have seen
criticism of the "slower" USM. And I believe the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
also has the slower mechanism.

For about the cost of the above primes plus $100 I have the
opportunity to pick up the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM
lens - a fantastic lens by most accounts, but it may be just a
little too slow. Has anybody used this lens to shoot indoor
sports, or is it totally inappropriate? Would trying to shoot with
my 85mm at f/2.8 be a reasonable experiment or a waste of time?
Certainly the lens would be wonderful for many other subjects.

Or, alternatively, I could just go "cheap" and first buy the
non-USM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens for ~$65 - if the lens proves to be no
good because the focus is too slow I'm not out that much.

Thanks for reading and for any advice!

Orin

Click to expand...

Orn, Nill has a good point about using 2.8 and go from there. I have the 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200L 2.8 and can use them all. I rate the 70-200L focus fastest, the 85mm 2nd and the 50mm 3rd. Haven't used the 1.8 50mm but I think the focus is even slower than the 1.4. ISO 1600 isn't to bad with the 10D if not underexposed to much. Neat Image works very good if needed or Noise Ninja.

--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

I really appreciate all the great feedback and advice!

I'm indeed shooting women's games in Cameron Indoor, almost always from our front row floor seats under the basket. (The pros often sit right in front of us.) Have shot a road game at Wake Forest and hope to shoot in Charlottesville vs. UVa Sunday night (if they'll let me in with it, sounds like camera bag is out).

Thanks dimage for setting me straight on the crop issue - it's definitely the framing problem with the 85mm from my vantage, it's virtually impossible to get more than a 2/3 body shot of a layup.

Still haven't made a final decision but am now leaning more strongly to the 28-70 plus tracking down a 50mm 1.8 II if they're still around - I'll let you all know how things work out.

Thanks again!

Orin

Does an 18-55 f/1.75-2.8 zoom sound like what you need (but with the larger depth of field of f/3.5-5.6)?

Then Noise Ninja is for you. I consistently see at least a 2 stop improvement in noise using Noise Ninja. My ISO 2000 and 3200 shots are coming out great after using Noise Ninja. (No, the 300D doesn't have that high an ISO - you just deliberately underexpose to get those effective ISOs.)

Try the free demo version at http://www.picturecode.com and see what you think. If you end up liking it, the 8 bit version (no batch processing) is only $29. I got the 16 bit version with batch processing capability for $69. Dirt cheap compared to actually buying 2 stop faster lenses! And with batch processing, it couldn't be easier to use.

...other than being a satisfied customer." Otherwise, some may see this as a mere shill.

Leonard Richmond said:

Does an 18-55 f/1.75-2.8 zoom sound like what you need (but with
the larger depth of field of f/3.5-5.6)?

Then Noise Ninja is for you. I consistently see at least a 2 stop
improvement in noise using Noise Ninja. My ISO 2000 and 3200 shots
are coming out great after using Noise Ninja. (No, the 300D
doesn't have that high an ISO - you just deliberately underexpose
to get those effective ISOs.)

Try the free demo version at http://www.picturecode.com and see
what you think. If you end up liking it, the 8 bit version (no
batch processing) is only $29. I got the 16 bit version with batch
processing capability for $69. Dirt cheap compared to actually
buying 2 stop faster lenses! And with batch processing, it
couldn't be easier to use.

Click to expand...

OK - I am not associated with this product...other than being a satisfied customer.

I'm also a Sr. Software Engineer with a masters degree in computer graphics and mathematics (as well as a bachelors degree in physics) who has delved greatly into filtering, along with a lot of Photoshop experience. I can REALLY appreciate how good NN is.

Neat Image will do as well, but frankly, even with my background, I found NN much easier to quickly get good results from, so it got my money.

And yes, it is that good. Anybody doesn't think so is probably not using it right. (That will get a ton of negative responses, but all I'll say is be humble, listen to other's advice, and experiment a little. I did and it was worth it.)

...on Noise Ninja. I've got Neat Image dialed in to work for me. I would agree that it's got an odd interface, and settings that are difficult to understand.

Orin,

The 70mm length of a 70 -200 shouldn't be too long from where you are sitting. You can also shoot the other end better. If you get a good shutter speed at f2.8, I would get that. See what you get with the 85 at ISO 1600. The 50 is fine if you can move around to get close, but in your case, I don't think you can. For wide angle the 35mm f1.4 beats anything for fast focus and sharpness. The 35f2 is also good (from 2.8 up) but marginal at the aperture you need most (f2).

Duke

Orin Day said:

I really appreciate all the great feedback and advice!

I'm indeed shooting women's games in Cameron Indoor, almost always
from our front row floor seats under the basket. (The pros often
sit right in front of us.) Have shot a road game at Wake Forest and
hope to shoot in Charlottesville vs. UVa Sunday night (if they'll
let me in with it, sounds like camera bag is out).

Thanks dimage for setting me straight on the crop issue - it's
definitely the framing problem with the 85mm from my vantage, it's
virtually impossible to get more than a 2/3 body shot of a layup.

Still haven't made a final decision but am now leaning more
strongly to the 28-70 plus tracking down a 50mm 1.8 II if they're
still around - I'll let you all know how things work out.

Thanks again!

Orin

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Actually, I couldn't get any closer unless I was a ref or a player. OK, I could be two feet closer if I got photo credentials, but my lenses are safer sitting in the folding chair. We have had a player or two fall on us. Seriously, the seats are right on the floor, arms length from the baseline. We're 1/3 closer to the edge of the backboard than the sideline, thus players taking/blocking layups are really close. I have gotten some good frames with the EF-S at full length, but at slow shutters. I do have other vantage points available (including friends with an extra floor seat at the other end).

For a while I did have a (slower) 70-300 lens, I returned it. 70 was pretty much like the 85, with the D300 crop the frame wasn't big enough to shoot the near end.

The "great deal" for the 28-70mm lens turned out to be a dead end, so I'm going to go with the 50mm f/1.8 II and the 28mm f1.8 USM. Those lenses will also serve me well in other situations.

Figured I'd go "bottom line" on the 50mm in the hopes that Canon will develop a ring USM version someday, or that someday I'll be a good enough photographer to warrant an "L" at that length. And if that ever happens I'll probably need some cash to trade up the D300.

A 70-200 is definitely on my wish list (probably the Sigma HSM) though at this point I still have a lot of practical experience to gain and a whole lot left to learn.

Orin

dukefleming said:

Orin,

The 70mm length of a 70 -200 shouldn't be too long from where you
are sitting. You can also shoot the other end better. If you get
a good shutter speed at f2.8, I would get that. See what you get
with the 85 at ISO 1600. The 50 is fine if you can move around to
get close, but in your case, I don't think you can. For wide angle
the 35mm f1.4 beats anything for fast focus and sharpness. The
35f2 is also good (from 2.8 up) but marginal at the aperture you
need most (f2).

Click to expand...

Leonard, thanks for the suggestion, it looks like an interesting package. (As an aside my undergrad degree is also in physics, worked in an optics lab for two years, have been in software development for the last 10.)

However it doesn't appear that it works with RAW images - I'm going to be going that route in the future for more flexibility, going with the C1LE workflow software. For my hoops pictures there is a bit of time pressure, I try to get them out the same night as they're taken so my processing time is pretty much maxed out.

Leonard Richmond said:

Does an 18-55 f/1.75-2.8 zoom sound like what you need (but with
the larger depth of field of f/3.5-5.6)?

Then Noise Ninja is for you. I consistently see at least a 2 stop
improvement in noise using Noise Ninja. My ISO 2000 and 3200 shots
are coming out great after using Noise Ninja. (No, the 300D
doesn't have that high an ISO - you just deliberately underexpose
to get those effective ISOs.)

Try the free demo version at http://www.picturecode.com and see
what you think. If you end up liking it, the 8 bit version (no
batch processing) is only $29. I got the 16 bit version with batch
processing capability for $69. Dirt cheap compared to actually
buying 2 stop faster lenses! And with batch processing, it
couldn't be easier to use.

Click to expand...

I think that's best about the 28-70. The 85 and 50 are better for this.

If you going to wish for a 70-200, wish for something big (IS). (-:

Duke

Orin Day said:

For a while I did have a (slower) 70-300 lens, I returned it. 70
was pretty much like the 85, with the D300 crop the frame wasn't
big enough to shoot the near end.

The "great deal" for the 28-70mm lens turned out to be a dead end,
so I'm going to go with the 50mm f/1.8 II and the 28mm f1.8 USM.
Those lenses will also serve me well in other situations.

Figured I'd go "bottom line" on the 50mm in the hopes that Canon
will develop a ring USM version someday, or that someday I'll be a
good enough photographer to warrant an "L" at that length. And
if that ever happens I'll probably need some cash to trade up the
D300.

A 70-200 is definitely on my wish list (probably the Sigma HSM)
though at this point I still have a lot of practical experience to
gain and a whole lot left to learn.

Orin

dukefleming said:

Orin,

The 70mm length of a 70 -200 shouldn't be too long from where you
are sitting. You can also shoot the other end better. If you get
a good shutter speed at f2.8, I would get that. See what you get
with the 85 at ISO 1600. The 50 is fine if you can move around to
get close, but in your case, I don't think you can. For wide angle
the 35mm f1.4 beats anything for fast focus and sharpness. The
35f2 is also good (from 2.8 up) but marginal at the aperture you
need most (f2).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke