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!!

[SRPHOTO]

a great lens that is very fun to use is the 50mm F/1.4 USM lens its great depth of field and cheap :]

[ShutterbugJohan]

Go with a 30D or 40D. They have ISO 3200, and you will definitely need ISO 3200 if you get the 70-200mm f4 and need to shoot in low light.

[ultima16888]

start with 50mm F1.4 You won't bedisappointed, you won't be able to zoom but for a beginner you'll learn to walk around and really compose your shots, it works great in low light, and also in situations like you are talking about most likely there will be people around, distracting background, and also low light. I think it's much nice to take good pictures and crop in on the computer than a blurry one that you can't even use at full size. if you are not printing anything big, shoot with 50mm and you can crop in to a certain extend(Digital zoom). it's cheap, fast and high quality, pro fashion photographers also use this lens.


once you save up, work towards a 17-55 or 70-200, but for now, I don't see any reason not to buy a high quality prime and use digital zoom since the new body has high pixel count, I crop in on my work all the time even when I use 200mm, and they print just fine for general purposes.


(or one of the 100mm or 200mm prime mentioned above if you have to be far away from their practice or competition)

[Tom Wertman]

I own a 50 f/1.4 and it is a great lens. I rarely use it for sports unless I want to capture half the basketball court or hockey rink. If you are looking to capture action along with your kids facial expressions during the heat of the game than you need a telephoto and preferrably a zoom. Walking around with a 50 1.4 is a great idea for learnig to compose in the street, vacation, landscapes, etc. But sports photography is more specific to the action or play of the moment. I suggest going to photo.net and reading the sports photography lessons available there or better yet taking a sports photography class to learn how to get the shots seen in sport magazines. Those shots BTW are the ones that hang on my kids bedroom wall that they admire most. Themselves caught in the heat of the moment making a great play. Remember you are probaly not going to be able to get close to the action without a press pass. A 50mm lens from the stands is going to be wide angle. Nice for what they are but your original post implied getting shots of your kids in action. I'm assuming you want to be able to recognize them so they don't look like just another player on the court or in the pool.

[nerdmonkey]

I agree with Tom -- I also own the 50mm f/1.4 and think it is a great lens, but it doesn't sound like it will be the right focal length for you. I often shoot my girlfriend jumping horses. When we're outdoors, having an f/4 lens is more than fine (I have the 24-105 f/4). But for indoor events, an f/4 lens barely cuts it at ISO 1600 for very decently lit situations. Most indoor horse arenas are not as well lit and having f/4 is almost useless.


I personally think you will enjoy the pictures you take more with a faster prime (non-zoom) lens if you want to keep the price low. You won't be able to zoom and may have to get up and move around to get the shot you want, but the shot will definitely be more likely to be a keeper if it has a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action. The 100mm f/2 sounds like it would be a good, affordable place to start.


As far as getting a 40D over an XSi, it is a definite price jump if you're buying new. The image quality of the 40D is no better than the XSi. The biggest advantage will be the ability to take twice as many pictures per second. You can also use ISO 3200 (but it will be quite noisy) and get slightly better focusing, but you're definitely paying a premium for these features.


If I was on an under $1100 budget and buying new, I think I would buy the XSi with the kit lens which is really a great starter setup and a great combo to take everyday pictures with. And then I would buy the 100mm f/2 for your sports photos.


If you had more money to blow? I would upgrade the lens to the 70-200 f/2.8 (quite a price jump!) and the 40D or 50D.

[Tom Wertman]

Here is an example of a hockey shot I spoke of earlier using f/4. It was taken using a 40D with an EF 300 f/4.0L IS lens wide open from the penalty box. I set a custom white balance first using an ExpoDisc on the front of the lens because indoor arenas have poor lighting. The shutter speed was 1/250 per second and the ISO was 1600. I used auto smart fix in Photoshop afterward. Normally I would go to greater lengths in post processing but for simplicity sake I used something quicker. I also reduced the size of the print for posting. The result should be satisfying to a dad wanting shots of his kids IMO anyway. I also printed an 8 X 10 copy for the coach which is outstanding also IMO.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/CC_2D00_JV_5F00_HFL002-copy-copy.jpg

[nerdmonkey]

Nice shot! It looks like the ice arena is probably a more lit environment than most equine arenas and the f/4 works well there.


Perhaps the 70-200 f/4 would be a better budget option for the original poster for a few hundred dollars more than the 100mm f/2.

[Nicholas]

For starters, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2.0 are really nice. Depends on the distance, either one of those will surely meet your needs without breaking the banks ;)

[donnman]

Tom that is a great shot and is exactly the kind of photos Im looking to take.


Aside from a new camera and lens it looks like I need to invest in photoshop as well.


So, based on all the recommendations it appears I should forget the XSI and go for a 40D. Im not sure I can afford that at the moment, I will have to shop for some deals.


Im actually thinking still of the XSI with the kit lens and maybe the 100mm lens as I think this will get this "DAD" all the photos Im looking for. At least from everything I have been reading. But with all the info from everyone Im reluctant to make the purchase as it seems over time I will be unhappy with the XSI.


Thanks everyone for all the suggestions and tips....Now to just make up my mind, LOL


Don

[Colin]

It's probably a little short for taking pictures from the bleachers, but I'd second that it's an absolutely wonderful lens for the money.


The 70-200 f/4 will probably be a far more useful lens all around, and if you go high ISO and maybe even push down the exposure compensation 1/3 or 1/2 stop, might do the job even in low light. Notnearly as niceashaving a 2.8 available, but you can deal.


However, if the PRIMARY purpose is shootinga particular sport situation, and the bleacher seats are at a distance that is relatively constant (say you're fairly far away, and sitting near the middle of the field/court whatever) you can plan for a particular focal length that will work very well for most situations. Then for the money, I'd opt for one of the fast prime lenses mentioned. Still, a 200 f/2.8 would be great if you've got some distance between you and you need the speed, but it'll be lousy trying to take group pictures of a birthday party in anything smaller than a large convention room :). Even a 70-200, with a'crop' sensor body has difficulty getting a whole person into a shot until they're about 20 feet away. So, unless this is going to be a dedicated telephoto kind of purpose camera, keep the kit lens until you find something you like to replace it that at least dips down into the twenty-something focal length.

[Colin]

Oops... I was talking first about the 50mm f/1.4.... The quotes seemed to have disappeared..too short I mean.

If cost is a key factor, consider refurbished. The XSi is a fine unit in terms of image quality for the money, but the 20D/30D/40D/50D series step you up into a relatively bad ass sports camera for not too much more. I still get a kick out of my obsolete and 'slow' 5 frames per second on my 30d.


Hey, does anybody know anything about those Casio cameras that claim 40 frames per second? For $600 or so, I'm guessing that the optics are nothing to smile about, but it sounds pretty cool for getting pictures of explodiding things :D...

[donnman]

Finally decided on the XSI with the kit lens. The price is in my budget, the entire package on Dell is for a total of $604.03, which includes tax and shipping.


Do you think that is a good price??

[Daniel Browning]

Yes, it's a great price. Good research on your part.

[nerdmonkey]

That does seem like a good price. Amazon has been bumping the price from $640 to $680 for the XSi kit for the last couple of weeks, so it looks like you were able to get pretty good savings at Dell. I bought my XSi for $830 (after a $70 coupon) at Circuit City shortly after it came out, so you got quite a deal by waiting 9 months!