Best Lens for Sports Photography

Honestly, you are getting a lot of answers from folks who either never ever shot high school sports, or if they did have completely forgotten what's involved.

Presumably, you are going to end up shooting a variety of sports, not just one basketball tournament. Even for basketball (which involves much more than tight action shots if you're planning to do the assignment correctly and provide proper views of the entire scene), you need a wide variety of perspectives, and the ability to swing into those opportunities quickly.

Anything other than a zoom will be a huge compromise. (I'm primarily a prime shooter, so don't bother to flame me about this suggestion). You already have the best AF-C body ever made, so the choices of zoom lenses that will track well are fairly broad. If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

Feel free to shoot at high ISO to use proper shutter speeds (1/500 minimum, but 1/800 would be better for high school sports). Image noise isn't a concern for action shots, so ISO 6400 isn't a problem. You don't need a fast aperture to get the shot, but great shots will be better with that wider lens - down the line. However, getting several fine shots is a whole lot better than getting no great or even good shots with a demanding new lens you haven't yet mastered.

Canadianguy wrote:

dwmcreative wrote:

I have a Fuji XH2s. I need to take photos for a basketball tournament at my job in January (I work at a high school). I have a lot of Fuji lenses but I don't think I have anything that is amazing for sports. What is the best lens you'd recommend for sports? I have a 90mm f2 but unfortunately I've missed a lot of shots due to the lack of zoom capability (That said when the subjects are at the right distance the shots are great). Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. I tested out the new Fuji f4 18-120mm but I don't think there is enough light there and when I bump up the ISO it's pretty grainy. Hoping someone has a better recommendation! Thanks

If you work for the school - best piece of equipment you can get is some strobes and install them overhead like the pros do.

Forgot getting a new lens - strobes will get you photos just like the pros do and no one else will get photos like yours get unless they have access to the strobes too.

First, you can't be sure the school will even let you do that. Second, there's a pretty significant learning curve relating to positioning and shooting technique. The timing (soon) tends to discourage the effort, but long term this is a worthy option.

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Likely true for some rural and olden days gyms, but not true for the majority of situations now. You aren't respecting the OP's explanation that he is a hobbyist, and the timing of the situation.

JNR wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Likely true for some rural and olden days gyms, but not true for the majority of situations now. You aren't respecting the OP's explanation that he is a hobbyist, and the timing of the situation.

If disrespect has been extended toward the OP, it was your assertion that they don't have time to learn to use the 50-140mm f/2.8 properly. It's equivalent to a full-frame 70-210mm, which is a good match for the standard zoom range for indoor sports. In a very well-lit arena, the OP could be working at f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 3200. At those same exposure settings, the OP would be at ISO 12800 with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or something like ISO 8000 with the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8.

N8G wrote:

JNR wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Likely true for some rural and olden days gyms, but not true for the majority of situations now. You aren't respecting the OP's explanation that he is a hobbyist, and the timing of the situation.

I strongly disagree. I have been dozens and dozens of high school gyms, including many built in the last 5-10 years, where anything over 2.8 isn't ideal and I definitely prefer the extra stop of an f2. I wouldn't ever use the 70-300 in a high school gym. You may be able to get away with the 55-200 if you don't mind going over iso 6400.

Feel free, but as you say you're an extremely experienced indoor sports shooter, and this thread isn't about you or any shooter like you. You're not listening, and you aren't taking into account what the challenges are for a hobbyist who has to get the shot. He'll have some wriggle room at reasonable apertures.

The speed differences comparing the 70-300 to the 55-200 are negligible. At the common focal lengths they are the same at the wide end and on the long end the 70-300 shows f/5 (but probably is closer to f/5.2) at 200mm... so less than one-third of a stop slower.

So, the following shots were taken with the 50-230 using a X-T2 in a 95-year-old college gym - a dim place, for sure. The typical high school gym is not more than one stop slower than this place. But the college guys are at least one-third of a stop quicker as athletes, the H2S is at least one-third of a stop better than the T2, and the two XF zooms I mentioned are nearly a full stop faster than the XC lens... And I was stuck in my seat far from the action shooting at f/6.4 or 6.7 because that lens was what was handy at the moment...

The hobbyist will have an easier time because he can shoot with a short focal length at wider aperture, and presumably can move around. Obviously, f/2.8 would be much better, but not if you don't shoot sports regularly and aren't familiar shooting with a heavy lens. Admittedly, a monopod would help, though.

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Likely true for some rural and olden days gyms, but not true for the majority of situations now. You aren't respecting the OP's explanation that he is a hobbyist, and the timing of the situation.

If disrespect has been extended toward the OP, it was your assertion that they don't have time to learn to use the 50-140mm f/2.8 properly. It's equivalent to a full-frame 70-210mm, which is a good match for the standard zoom range for indoor sports. In a very well-lit arena, the OP could be working at f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 3200. At those same exposure settings, the OP would be at ISO 12800 with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or something like ISO 8000 with the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8.

The OP said he is a hobbyist, and he has less than a month to get ready for the shoot. If you became a sports shooting pro in a month, I'm impressed. You're disrespecting him by not taking into account what is practical based on the challenge.

You don't shoot boys high school basketball, I'd have to guess. You really don't need 1/1000th for college, let alone high school. See the photos posted above. Shot with what I had with me that night. Again, compared within the same range (70-200), the two XF lenses are a little less than one-third of a stop difference. Also, take care with established facts... the 70-300 starts at f/4 not f4.5.

A larger aperture would have prevented the public from "contaminating" the photograph by being in focus. In sports it is convenient to blur the audience, that gives athletes greater visual strength.

fernandojval wrote:

A larger aperture would have prevented the public from "contaminating" the photograph by being in focus. In sports it is convenient to blur the audience, that gives athletes greater visual strength.

Yes, of course. And if I felt it essential I would masked when processing accordingly. That isn't the point of what we are discussing, though, is it?

nnowak wrote:

JNR wrote:

Anything other than a zoom will be a huge compromise. (I'm primarily a prime shooter, so don't bother to flame me about this suggestion). You already have the best AF-C body ever made, so the choices of zoom lenses that will track well are fairly broad. If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

Some of these comments don't quite make sense.

First off, I would not call the 50-140mm f/2.8 a "heavy" lens. Yes, it weighs more than one of Fuji's f/2.0 primes, but it is far, far lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms we were using on DSLRs not too long ago. Especially with the excellent OIS, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is easily hand holdable for extended periods.

Agreed, and I've said the 50-140 is much better... but I'm trying to help the OP get useable shots. In a H.S. gym with APS-c, around 60-120 is optimal (depending on where the action is at). If you aren't used to the weight, it would seem heavy, but a monopod would help a lot, as I said.

Secondly, shooting sports is a lot harder at longer focal lengths, not easier. Shooting at 200mm or 300mm will require more effort than at 140mm. The much slower apertures of these longer lenses compound the issues.

I wasn't talking about using the longer focal lengths... my shots that I posted required it (in a much-larger space).

Finally, we have the quirks of these specific lenses. I have not used the 55-200mm for years, but I do regularly use the 70-300mm. I do remember that the AF motor in the 55-200mm was not exactly blazing fast. The 70-300mm is pretty far from being parfocal. This means any time your zoom, your focus plane will shift. A lot. The 50-140mm f/2.8 is also not parfocal, but it does behave a lot better than the 70-300mm. If you are trying to zoom out to maintain framing as an athlete approaches, your odds of maintaining focus are significantly higher with the 50-140mm.

Quite simply, the 50-140mm f/2.8 will be easier to use and perform much better than either the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 or 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6.

I've said all that, but I'm addressing a specific situation. The 70-300 cannot shoot action while zooming but the 50-140 can - there's a pro sports shooter who has shown that in detail on a YouTube video. In fact, the 70-300 is pretty close to useless in AF-c on the T2 (so far for me, but I have to see if I can find better settings). Then again, the 70-300 tracks much better - same pro shooter has shown - on the bodies that came out this year. Keep in mind even regular sports shooters (non-pros) almost never get good at tracking movement while zooming. I know it isn't something I try to do if I can avoid it.

nnowak wrote:

The Barn may be a 95 year old stadium (almost), but the lighting is certainly not 95 years old. As a BIG 10 NCAA school, light levels are high enough to support broadcast TV. Not only are most high school gyms nowhere near this bright, or evenly lit, they are also often using lower quality lights with terrible CRI's that make white balance a real challenge.

Yeah, the white floor especially helps with spreading the light compared to the old yellow flooring. The OP should for sure plan to be processing from raw... if totally on deadline and they need JPEGs OOC, then we are talking about needing somewhat faster lenses. CRI is pretty bad in all gyms, but some are truly awful. I just assumed he was going to have a bit of time for processing... or will need to get a knack for manual WB (also not easy if you're new at it).

You'll just have to trust me that the Barn is still lower light than most college gyms, and not more than a stop better than a typical high school gym. We don't have much detail, so this is speculative for all of us.

JNR wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

JNR wrote:

If you aren't already experienced with shooting heavy lenses extensively (such as the 50-140), then you don't really have enough time to learn how to do so proficiently. I think your best bet is the 70-300, or possibly the 55-200 if you don't expect to be doing much longer shooting (football and soccer especially require longer focal lengths). Down the line, the 50-140 would be best for basketball in a close H.S. environment, but you would want far more time to learn how to properly shoot it.

The 70-300 and 55-200 are too slow for sports photography. The 50-140 is the obvious best option for basketball, assuming the OP will have courtside access and the freedom to roam.

Likely true for some rural and olden days gyms, but not true for the majority of situations now. You aren't respecting the OP's explanation that he is a hobbyist, and the timing of the situation.

If disrespect has been extended toward the OP, it was your assertion that they don't have time to learn to use the 50-140mm f/2.8 properly. It's equivalent to a full-frame 70-210mm, which is a good match for the standard zoom range for indoor sports. In a very well-lit arena, the OP could be working at f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 3200. At those same exposure settings, the OP would be at ISO 12800 with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or something like ISO 8000 with the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8.

The OP said he is a hobbyist, and he has less than a month to get ready for the shoot. If you became a sports shooting pro in a month, I'm impressed. You're disrespecting him by not taking into account what is practical based on the challenge.

I hope we can agree that the goal, here, is to recommend a lens that will help the OP get the shots they envision getting. To suggest that the OP should decline to get the best lens for the job because it's over their head ignores the fact that the OP has already purchased the $2,500 X-H2S. They've invested in Fuji's best - arguably among the best available from any brand - fast action camera body, available. If the OP is up to the challenge of mastering the X-H2S's autofocus system in a month, I fail to see why we should assume they're incapable of figuring out how to point a lens, frame a shot, and press the shutter release in the same time window.

The 50-70mm f/2.8 is literally the perfect choice in a native X-mount option for the use the OP has in mind. Please, let's not get in the way of what should be a pretty easy decision.

You don't shoot boys high school basketball, I'd have to guess. You really don't need 1/1000th for college, let alone high school. See the photos posted above. Shot with what I had with me that night. Again, compared within the same range (70-200), the two XF lenses are a little less than one-third of a stop difference. Also, take care with established facts... the 70-300 starts at f/4 not f4.5.

I haven't shot high school sports. I've shot college sports and in my experience f/2.8, 1/1000 is a good target for exposure settings that will consistently freeze action while balancing the need to deliver a reasonable amount of light to the sensor. I've also shot in indoor arenas that require ISOs in the 6400+ range at those settings. That's why I can't endorse a recommendation of an f/4.8 or f/5.6 lens for high school sports. Also, it's generally the case that an f/2.8 zoom will be manufactured with more powerful focus motors allowing for quicker focus acquisition and more nimble tracking of focus. Given the price of the 50-140, I'd expect it to be a solid performer in those areas.

There's room to adjust the settings I target for sports. I've gone as slow as 1/640 with the 70-200 but was not pleased with the keeper rate. Too many photos had motion blur. A shutter speed of 1/800-second is my minimum with that lens. Varsity boys basketball players may not all be as quick as college athletes, in general, but they're not that far behind. And some are as quick or quicker.

Here's a wide-angle shot made at 16mm, f /4, 1/500, ISO 4000. It's been lifted 0.5 stop in LRC. In a dark venue, a wide-angle lens can deliver some nice group action shots at slower shutter speeds. But that perspective doesn't tell the whole story.

70mm, f/2.8, 1/800, ISO 4500

I included this shot because it was made at f/4.5, 1/800, ISO 4500. It's been lifted 0.8 stop in LRC.

200mm, f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 6400 (volleyball is the fastest sport I've shot; pretty intense)

78mm, f/3.2, 1/1250, ISO 125 (Outdoor sport in midday light)

112mm, f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 5600

70mm, f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 8063 (You get some interesting ISO selections in auto ISO)

The 70-300mm is f/5.6 at the long end. That's two full stops slower than the 50-140 and is much longer than is needed for basketball. The 55-200 is f/4.8 at the long end (1.5 stops slower) and, again, longer than needed for basketball.

If the OP were on a budget and had expressed a need for a lens that could be used for field sports as well as basketball, those lenses might be good options. The OP isn't on a budget and has asked for guidance in selecting a good lens specifically for basketball. If the $1,350 price tag for that lens is more than they'd like to spend, consider buying used. Good copies of the 50-140mm can be found in the $900 range.

The obvious choice in a native X-mount lens for the OP's stated interests and needs is the 50-140mm f/2.8.

Nice shots Bill, agree with just about everything you wrote.

I shoot all types of HS sports, inside you need at least 2.8 to be able to freeze the action at a reasonable ISO. I use the same thought process, I like to shoot at 1,000 sec but my minimum is normally not lower than 800. Anything less can lower the hit rate.

I will say using the EL Shutter at 30 fps will help gets few more keepers.

If I was just starting, I might use a 50F2 to get a better feel for the sport. The wider lens helps you see more action and get more keepers. I'd take my 90F2 over the zoom, even if the zoom is more covenant. For me, with primes I tend to focus more on getting shots instead of zoning inand out.