Trying to pick a lens for my Xsi

[donnman]

Im looking for some advice. Im a new Xsi owner and I currenly have the kit lens and an old 50mm lens from my old film camera.


The two lenses I'm thinking about are the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM and the Canon EF lens - 100 mm f/2.0


Im wondering if I should spend the extra money on the 135 or if the 100 will suit my needs. Im mainly interested in family photos and kids sports. My kids are both in high school now and are involved in various sports. My son plays baseball and swims, while my daughter is a cheerleader. She is on the competive cheer team as well as sideline cheer.


Now, I can get down close to the action so distance really isnt a concern, which is why I thought the 100mm would be a good fit. However, from everything I have read it seems the 135 is the superior lens. The only thing that concerns me is if I am on the floor for photos will the 135 be to long since it is a fixed lens?


Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated as well as any sample shots from both lenses.


Thanks

[Daniel Browning]

Personally, I think the 135 will be a little too long for swimming and cheer-leading, but not long enough for baseball. The 135 has "L" features, but the 100 is very good too.

[Rodger]

Can I (respectfully) ask: why primes only?


I have no doubt that the 135 f/2L would be amazingg, but why not go 70-200 f/4L and use a speedlight for swim meets/indoor cheerleading? That combo costs less than the 135 f/2L and you get some more versatility. Or just go for the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. I personally have never been upset by my 70-200 f/4L, especially outside :)


Are you open to zooms?


Just my 2 cents.


-Rodger

[Jarhead5811]

The price of a Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) is nearly as much as a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). If you are stuck on primes why not the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)and aCanon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)for $150 more than the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) alone?

[donnman]

Yes, I would be open for zoom but from what I have read you can get better indoor low light photos with a prime. In many cases a flash is not allowed indoors so I was looking for the best option with no flash and it seems the primes fit that job.


Am I misguided in this belief? Im open to all suggestions and would quite honestly probably prefer a zoom as it gives me more options.



Thanks,


Don

[Rodger]

from what I have read you can get better indoor low light photos with a prime.


That's true for the most part. Primes tend to have wider apertures so they let in more light. An f/2.8 zoom would be fine for indoors most of the time in my opinion. I shot a poorly lit [little league] hockey game with my 20D and 70-200 f/4L ISO was at 800, and got decently fast shutter speeds. So with the 70-200 f/2.8, you'd be able to drop the ISO some, or increase your shutter speeds. (I don't know the math of it sorry).



Im open to all suggestions and would quite honestly probably prefer a zoom as it gives me more options.


To me, zooms are invaluable when shooting pretty much anything. Once I get a decent wide angle zoom to replace the 18-55mm kit lens, I doubt my 50 1.8 will see alot of action. Zooms are just so versatile.


What focal lengths:


Baseball:Depending on where you are, a 70-200 f/2.8 ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) should do beautifully. Because of the 1.6 FOFCV sensor on your XSi, a 70-200 will give you 112-320mm Full Frame Equivalent. I shot a friends high school game ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/rodgerobley/sets/72157621023783795/) from on top of the dugout along the third baseline with my 70-200 and rarely used 200mm even for 1st base. I found 70mm to be a bit cramped shooting 3rd base though.


The rest of your needs: I have never shot swimming or cheerleading so I can't speak to these from experience. But the 70mm end of a 70-20 f/2.8 might cover cheerleading and swimming. Try shooting an event of each sport with your kit lens to see if you would need wider than 70mm. Basically, if you got some well framed shots (disregard IQ and shutter speed for right now) with your kit lens, you would probably want to go wider than 70mm. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx) would probably be your best bet if you decide you need wider angle stuff for cheerleading and swimming.


Shooting sports is expensive no matter how you cut it :/


Hope I helped some!


-Rodger