What would be a good, reasonably priced lens to shoot an indoor dog show with dubious lighting?

It would need to be used for both the movement shots and also winner shots.

Thanks guys

Budget probably no more than $800 US.

I use the 200 1.8 and it is awesome, and just the right reach for movement on the far side of the ring shots. It is also just the right reach for horses on the other side of an arena. The 1.8 though does well with movement indoors but I do get more blur than I like sometimes. I keep wishing it was a little faster. This lens isn't cheap but if you'd like to see how a 1.8 does with movement, there are several shots on my site at www.murryphotography.com. Just go to events and click on any of the dog shows. I wouldn't go any slower than 1.8 if you can.

Thanks Dee Dee...those photos look like they are in a very similar place and they are the quality I would want.

Is that Canon or Nikon that you use? The canon looks to be discontinued.

What ISO do you usually use for these indoor shows?

I doubt I will be able to afford any of the other 1.8s so I might have to buy a 2.8.

Do you find the primes easy at these shows or do you ever wish you had a zoom instead?

Appreciate all the help!

Bummer. Nope, 99% sure it's indoors. I've only been there ages ago and only had my old 100-300 which is 5.6 and on ISO 1600, hehe. WB I'm not worried about cos I'll shoot in raw anyway.

Was your 85 a good length?

I wonder if maybe I could just rent a lens.

Nat

I am one of those who tends to avoid the indoor gigs (good post, PossumCorner) so I can not really advise on specific lenses for best result.

However I HAVE shot indoors with my Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 and Tamron 28-75mm/2.8. I had to bump the ISO up still and do a fair amount of post processing though.

I wasn't expected to do movement shots so I wasn't under the same amount of "pressure" in that regard. I have done a few movement shots here and there (my choice, not a requirement), but again HIGH iso and a fair amount of post processing. Could not avoid it. Will see if I can find a sample.

With the venue you arent just at the mercy of the 3-mix lighting PossumCorner mentioned but the windows/doorways can also make for terrible "hot spots" in the background. Did you notice that PossumCorner?

You are right about the 200 1.8, it is Canon has been discontinued and I can't figure out why, it's an incredible lens. I got mine off of eBay and there were tons of bidders. I didn't get a good deal on it I was just happy to get it at all. I took it with me to Hallie's handling class tonight and took some shots of the class after ours just for fun. I will be shooting a dog show next weekend, I just do the groups. I only get about 40% keepers of the movement shots (could keep a few more but I'm picky) but it really is amazing at close up head shots, the bokeh turns the background into one solid creamy mass sometimes and the dogs face is tack sharp.

I am wondering if a 1.4 or 1.2 would do an even better job with the action but I imagine I'd lose to much in the quality and would be farther away so would have to crop more and thus lose more quality.

I do find it to sometimes be too long for some instances but I actually like that as it forces you to take some intersting close up crops that you might not think to do with a zoom. I now know where to be to get the best distance from the dogs as they are gaiting, and can get the whole dog in, and when they are stacked closer up I just get nice head shots and get the stacked ones when they are out having the judge go over them. But yes I would love it even more if it was a zoom.

I agree with Possum Corner, I think with anything less than 1.8 you won't be getting many indoor shots. I used my 70-200 2.8 at first which is why I decided to buy the 1.8.

I almost always use ISO 800 for the indoor shows. It can sometimes be a bit grainy on darker animals but I've found that it prints out really nice.

That lighting thing with the flourescent lights drives me nuts too. One photo will be yellowish the next a nice blue.

I have not shot in raw yet I need to do that, I just go through cards so fast and raw would fill them up a lot faster yet, I haven't done it yet.

It would be a good idea I think to rent a lens to see if you like it, if you can find a place near you. I had to laugh this summer when I went to a horse show to take photos and in my calendar I had written a note that said "Rent the 200 1.8 lens for this show." I had never dreamt at the time I'd ever have one, but I had had mine for several months by then.

(is it possible to post a picture here from my hard drive or do I have to publish it first?)

Hey Dee Dee,

I think part of the problem is that the 200 F1.8 is a remarkably expensive lens, and Tess has a budget of only 800. The only alternative that I can think about, that exists is the 135 F2. The cost of the 135 F2 is about 1300, I believe, brand new.

Of course, Julie has been sharing photos with her 70-200 F2.0 equivalent that she got for Christmas...but that is an Oly lens....and it is quite pricey.

James

Thanks everyone.

It's not looking too bright then, I really can't afford that much.

I might get them to re-confirm exactly what shots they need.

Is it terrible to back out of a job like this due to lack of equipment?? I'm just not sure what to do.

I have declined jobs because I knew I could not deliver results I would want to show. I did an indoor show with the WORST mixed lighting, on top of being a cave. Even shooting raw wouldn't have helped much because it was a mix of florecsent, natural and mercury vapor(OLD building) And, it was dark on top of it.

I was cleared to use a flash and I thought the photos were pretty poor. I guess not, as they asked me to shoot their nationals in 2008. Which, before then I have GOT to go shoot with someone at a dog show. At least I will be showing myself this year.

I would not attempt an indoor show with no flash and a 5.6 lens. You will not get many keepers. Different story if you can use flash