About to purchase XSI

[donnman]

Im going to move up from my point & shoot and feel this camera will be great for me. Im buying it with the kit lens.


My question is what additional lens can I get that wont break the bank. Looking to take sports photos of my kids. Daughter is a competitive cheerleader and my son is a swimmer. Both of these areas would be indoors with low light. They would probably frown on a flash going off all the time as well.


Any advise on a lens that would fit my needs would be appreciated.



Thanks,


Don

[Tom Wertman]

I shoot sports indoors in low light. For hockey I can get away with f/4 because of the white ice adding to the lighting (requires a custom WB to get white ice, not gray) with a shutter speed of 1/250 to freeze the action and an ISO of 1600. For everything else I need f/2.8 or better. Indoor events are typically poorly lit. My suggestion would be a EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, EF 135 f/2.0 or EF 200 f/2.8. For sports a zoom is preferrable. As far as the XSi goes it is a good starter camera but you may not be happy with it for long. Take a good hard look at the 40D. I know the 50D is out but do you need to pay for video capability?

[Itheone]

Get a slightly used 40D instead, it's almost the same price as the brand new XSI. And save the money by not getting the kit lens and put it towards a decent one, like previously mentioned 70-200 would be a great starter sports lens, then the 100-400.

[donnman]

Thanks for the advice on the lenses, unfortunately those are out of my price range at the moment. Since this wont be a profession for me I cant spend that kind of money right now. Just looking to get some good shots of my kids, without breaking the bank.


Any other suggestions that may fit my needs?

[Alex Bishton]

It would be wise to specify exactly what would constitute 'breaking the bank'. While I agree the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM is a superb lens, at over a thousand dollars it's not exactly a budget lens! Seeing as you're going to be working with low light and want sporty shots, then I think a wise choice would be the EF 100 f/2.0 USM. It's fast and a good focal length for sports shooting, and roughly $700 cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Read the review here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


I love the 70-200 L in all it's permutations, but it isn't a starter lens. Seeing as the OP is getting his first DSLR, then he probably doesn't need L standard lenses just yet.

[donnman]

What about this lens, it seems a little more affordable but pretty much matches your suggestions, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Lens


I know it is not IS and it is not f/2.8 as you suggested but I cant afford a $1,000 + lens right now.


Would you be kind enough to tell me if there would be a huge difference between the two and if the one I described would do the job for me.


Thanks

[Tom Wertman]

Then the 70-200 f/4L would be my next choice if it doesn't "break the bank". You can step up in increments or just get what you are going to end up with anyway now, and save the money you lose by selling or trading up later. With that said the 100-400 is 5.6 and the long end and for low light indoor images 5.6 is way too small. The 100 f.2.0 is a fine lens for the price but if you are in the bleachers or stands it will most likely be too short and leave you yearning for more reach. It's no coincidense that photographers or "Dads" who want good telephoto shots of their kids use fast lenses. Unfortunately those tend to be L glass.

[donnman]

Wow....lots of different choices.


I like the fact of having zoom capability with the 70-200 f/4L, not to mention that it is about half the price of the 70-200 f/2.8 Most of the time I will be in the stands/bleachers so I think I will need a zoom lens as opposed to a fixed length, although from what Im reading the 100 f/2.0 is a very good lens for indoor sports.


What is the biggest difference between them? Brand new to DSLR cameras so sorry if my questions seem silly, just starting to learn about them.

[greggf]

I have to agree with one of the above posters...get the 40D-it has a much faster frame rate than the XSi, faster autofocus, and it will definetly feel better in your hand. They run about the same price, or yu might even find a refurb at adorama(pretty good reputation). Then I think either the 200 f2.8($600-700), or the 100 f2($300-and its equivalent focal range of 160mm on crop cameras). Granted those kind of limit your usage because their primes, but they are sharp wide open, and fast for sports, both indoor and outdoor, and they make good portrait lenses with great bokeh. The 70-200 f4(non-IS) is cheap enough that you could probably get away with a little higher ISO, but the versatility is awesome, and so is the quality!!

[Tom Wertman]

There you go from experienced sport shooters. If your budget allows for the 40D and 70-200 f/4.0L you will have a great kit for many years to come. The difference is mainly one f-stop, which means an f/2.8 allows twice as much light in as an f/4.0. However with a little post processing in Photoshop you can make up the difference and have some great pics. Have fun!!