[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Hawki - can you post a shot or two that are representative of the distances that you normally shoot at, as well as of the lighting conditions? With EXIF information intact, or just add the exposure parameters.

[Alizarine]

The DA* 60-250 is a good idea... though I'm not sure if there are a lot of those lenses still out there... quite pricey too.

[sterretje]

The DA* 60-250 is a good idea

Wonder what makes you say that? It only offers about a stop advantage over the 55-300 in which case I would rather invest in a K5 which (I guess) will give 2 stops if not more.

[Hawki]

This is an example of what I'm able to do with the gear that I currently have. Understand that these are Jr High multipurpose rooms in a very small rural area ... lighting is poor at best. (K20d - DA 55-300mm - 1/60 @ f/:4.0 - 135mm - 1250 iso - AF360 & Monopod)

[crewl1]

On your body does the flash limit you to 1/60? You can see some motion blur on his hands, but otherwise it seems to work. Once they get further away from you the flash effectiveness drops off I expect?

(The 1250 ISO looks better than I expected, also.)

At F4 as I showed the newer bodies can help you get away with no flash and higher ISO for faster shutter - 3200 or 6400 ISO are a possibility, so maybe 2 or more stops faster than you are doing now?

A 2.8 lens is going to give you only 1 stop improvement, and your depth of field is going to drop.

[Hawki]

Here is another example that exhibits some of the motion blur I often get because of the extremely slow shutter speeds I generally use to let enough light in to get a background that is acceptable. (K20d - DA 55-300mm - 1/80 @ f/:4.5 - 170mm - 1250 iso - AF360 & Monopod)

[Hawki]

On your body does the flash limit you to 1/60? You can see some motion blur on his hands, but otherwise it seems to work. Once they get further away from you the flash effectiveness drops off I expect?

(The 1250 ISO looks better than I expected, also.)

At F4 as I showed the newer bodies can help you get away with no flash and higher ISO for faster shutter - 3200 or 6400 ISO are a possibility, so maybe 2 or more stops faster than you are doing now?

A 2.8 lens is going to give you only 1 stop improvement, and your depth of field is going to drop.

Exactly ... With the limitations of the AF360, my range is very limited so I have to run my shutter slow for the sake of the background. At 1600, the quality of the shots begin to drop and beyond that I'm just not happy with them.

The obvious solution is to get both a newer generation body that supports the better ISO performance along with faster glass ... however, I really can't afford to buy both right now.

[crewl1]

Yup, I say get a newer bod - even a K-x - and some wireless triggers, and clamp your flash to the top of the bleachers somewhere for a little extra boost if the light is that bad.

Check this out for some ideas http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-prep-basketball.html

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Hawki, you weren't kidding about that light being challenging.

If you're going to go for a lens, I think a 70-200/2.8 would be ideal here. A prime lens wouldn't allow you flexibility with the framing. The cost of the 60-250 covers that of the Tamron 70-200/2.8, so you could go with the Tamron. Or, if you are comfortable with MF, you could go for an older MF 80-200/2.8 that could be found at half the price of the modern Tamron. This would push you over 1/100 and you would get better IQ too.

[Alizarine]

Wonder what makes you say that? It only offers about a stop advantage over the 55-300 in which case I would rather invest in a K5 which (I guess) will give 2 stops if not more.

SDM for faster focusing and at least a constant f/4 aperture since a lot of movements in basketball are snappy. Price-wise though, it's not very appealing (or practical).

Based from the photos though, it would seem more appropriate to invest in the better high ISO performance of the newer bodies, which would also be a cheaper alternative given the powers of the K-x/K-r (or if budget permits, K-5). Hawki, do you use the 200+mm range often also?

[Alizarine]

I do shoot the range occasionally at the B-Ball games, but mostly in other applications that doesn't require the focus speed quite as much.

In that case it does seem better to get a body or flash upgrade. The lighting in the photos you posted is weaker than most basketball court lights I usually see.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It's worth noting that higher performance bodies still only offer 1-2 stops advantage at most (I'm thinking of K-5 - K-x would offer less).

[Heie]

I am just going to chime in with one thing that seems to have been forgotten:

I recommend the K-5 for the simple reason that you can underexpose all of your shots deliberately in order to maximize faster shutter speeds. I have had zero problem bringing up -3 eV shots in LR3, and even dared a few beyond that (as long as I am careful with how I do the PP). This would probably be the best solution, imho. The K-5 + 55-300 make a great combination, and being able to underexpose so heavily with the K-5's amazing sensor has been a favorite substitute of mine when needed.

I have not used the K20D, so I can't comment on it, however I would argue that improving glass has only so much benefit (just that 1 lens), whereas a K5 upgrade will not only dramatically improve the low light shots you take, but it will apply that to every lens in your arsenal.

If I were you, I would get the K5 - no questions asked.

-Heie

[blind-bat]

Upgrading to a K5 will do wonders for all your current lenses and will allow much better shutter speeds in low light situations with your current line up.