Is f/3.5-6.3 on a 300mm lens good for indoor pictures?

I'm getting a tamron 28-300mm lens for my Nikon d50 and want to know if it is good for indoor basketball pictures and soccer pictures and want to know it there will be enough lighting?

There wouldn't be enough light in an average UK local authority sports hall to use a 300mm lens at f/6.3 successfully hand-held.

I'm unaware of the quality of, and therefore the light levels in, other countries sports halls.

It depends on how you use it and what iso you use, but it should work for indors, but since its a zoom, maybe stand on a distance, and if you know how to use the F you can et some pretty cool shots.

But if you can use the lowest iso as possible! 200 works nice!

Unless the lens costs in excess of £5000 $7500, then a 28 to 300 will be almost useless from any maker;

the apertures are irrelevant, you will have to be in mid range zoom (say 180mm) at about f11 to even think of getting a quality result. Smaller than that and diffraction and internal flare will ruin pix, larger and the images will be soft and lacking in colour and contrast. Also, at f6, 3 the viewing image will be so dark you will have serious trouble framing and focusing. The weight and length of the thing will add to camera shake too.

Total waste of money; stick to zooms no longer range than eg 24 to 70mm, or 70 to 200mm, ie; three to one. Even then, except for phenomenally priced optics, expect image quality compromises, prime lenses (one fixed focal length) are always superior, and money for money will give far more usable open apertures.

The Zeiss lenses that movie makers use for films cost up to £100, 000; there's a reason for it

Depending on the lighting this could pose a bit of a challenge, especially nearing the 300mm focal length. I think it is good as far as the telephoto, or zoom, capability.

Because, as you get closer to 300mm, your lens can only admit light with the f/6.3 aperture you're very likely going to need more light. Increasing your ISO will help, although it depends on how your camera handles digital noise (grainy looking pictures can occur at higher ISO) and if you plan on wanting enlargements. Digital noise can certainly affect the enlargement quality.

I think I would be considering other options if you know the light won't be good because you may be disappointed. With a f/6.3 it could be challenging to keep your shutter speed as fast as you to "freeze" the action for good crisp shots.

I have the same lens, although purchased a few years ago and second hand. At first I didn't think the f/6.3 would be a big deal and was willing to overlook it for the 300mm. There are times when it is a big deal! After getting to use a 70mm - 200mm f/2.8 (stays at f/2.8 through the focal range 70-200) there's just no comparison and the benefit of all of that extra light is a big deal. At least this has been my experience. In this case I was willing to loose a bit of both wide angle and telephoto for the gain of all of that extra light via the larger aperture opening.

It's going to be too slow.

No.

I've had some success with my 100mm f2.8 macro for these kinda things. Even then it's tricky, the D50 isn't the greatest on iso 1600 and even with a f2.8 you're on shutter speeds you'd rather not be.