Printable View
I have recently upgraded from a point and shoot camera to the Canon XSi. However, I find that the kit lens does not give me much range. Im looking for suggestions as to what lens to get first. I would like to shoot primarly sports, including football (night), baseball, volleyball (indoors) and swimming (indoors).
My initial price ranges is around $1200 or lower.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you
I'd say go w/ the 70-200 f/2.8 L. It's running about $1200 but will probably be the most versatile and fast lens for what you want to do. If you need something faster (or cheaper), you might want to consider the 100mm f/2. I have one and use it a lot for basketball and volleyball. You trade the ability to zoom for more light and 1/3 the cost. Either way, I'd recommend renting your choice for a week to make sure whatever you get works for you.
Thanks for the suggestion. Do you think that the 100mm will give me enough reach for football? Im sure 100mm would be fine for the indoor sports such as volleyball and swimming, just not sure about football and reaching the middle of the field or the opposite end from where I may be. Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNelson
In a word...no! If you're unsure, you might want to spend a little money renting a couple of lenses you're consideringto make sure of your decision before you buy.
You can probably do more than you think with a $1,200 dollar budget. I just found a nice used EF300 f/4.0 L USM for $500.You may be able to findthe EF70-200mm f/4.0 L USM used as well. Both of these lenses work well for sports. With much of your shooting at night and indoors,you may want to search the market for f/2.8 (or faster) equipment. As mentioned above, the EF70-200mm f/2.8 is a nice lens.
I use the EF70-200MM f/2.8 L IS USMat almost every sports shoot. It's expensive, but does a really nice job.
Don't forget rental options as well. The EF300 f/2.8 L IS USM rents for about $45.00/day and the EF400 f/2.8 L IS USM rents for about $55.00/day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
To be honest Sean, I was not aware one could rent lenses. Not sure where to even look for that option. My town does not have a camera shop nor do I really know of one near me. My purchase was done all on-line.
After looking online and reading the reviews of the 70-200 f/2.8 L, as suggested by cyrstalshadow, I think that looks like a fantastic lens for what Im looking to shoot. Seems that it has the reach for football and should be good in the 7-100 range for the indoor sports. Seems like the perfect lens for my situation. Although I wonder if I should go with this lens and also get the 100mm as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNelson
The 100mm probably won't give you the reach you want to stand in one place and cover the whole field, but neither will a 70-200.
Canon has interviewed Peter Read Miller, a Sports Illustrated photographer who's done lots of games. He goes out there with a 400/2.8, a 70-200, a 16-35, and two bodies. If he can FedEx his gear to the game, he'll also send a 600/4 and some spare bodies. Even so, when the play's on the other end, he's probably looking through his longest lens and hoping for a shot, but suspecting that the photographers at the other end have the better opportunity(ies). Moral of the story: even a 600/4 might not be enough to cover a game from one spot.
I'd vote for a 70-200, especially if you want/need to minimize your need to sneaker zoom. I'd also vote for a 70-200/2.8IS, even though it's out of your budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Thanks peety - I think the 70-200 sounds like the one for me. I would like the IS but it really is out of my range and from what I have read it seems the non-IS will absolutely do the job for me. Im sure the IS would be great, but for the money I will have to pass and go the non-IS way.
The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is indeed a fantastic lens. If you paired it with a decent monopod, then your results would likely be comparable to the IS version.
If you want to rent a lens, try LensRentals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNelson
Here is a lens rental place. LensRentals.com
There are others as well.
Mark
At the risk of sounding like an echo, I'd agree with starting with the 70-200mm f/2.8L. You really don't need IS all that much--it doesn't help at all with moving subjects, except in panning, but that's a long-standing "disagreement" (read "fight"!) between me and some others. The next step would be the 24-70mm f/2.8L or, maybe better, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is actually sharper than the 24-70mm L, according to Bryan's review. That would also help in indoor sports where you're closer to the action. Don't even think about any lens f/4 or slower indoors.
Also get a good monopod. A tripod can work, but it is a lot less convenient to use and gets in the way. I put a decent friction-control ballhead (currently a Giottos or my larger Markins M-10) on my monopod, but that's yet another subject of "disagreement." I often need to point the camera down from the grandstands. Without the ballhead, I have to tip the monopod, which isn't very secure. I was at a horse show this spring where an experienced photographer almost lost her Canon 1D Mk II & 70-200mm f/2.8L lens when the foot of her monopod slipped. She caught the camera in time, though she hadn't taken the simple precaution of using the wrist strap on the monopod. (Do that!)
Here's a suggestion to help figure out what you need. Borrow ANY zoom lens (or lenses) with a range of 24-200mm, more or less, even a cheap, slow lens, or take your kit lens and something longer--55-250mm, 70-200mm, even the cheap 70-300mm or 75-300mm lenses. You're going to be checking the focal length, not the exposure. Go to a a game/match in your selected sport and take photos with the lens. Yes, they'll be blurry, but you can see what focal lengths you need. There's not really any way to guess--it's best to experiment.
If your budget allows, also consider at least one faster prime. The length will depend upon what you are shooting. You might consider the 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty," for example. It's really cheap ($110 new)
but can save your butt if the lighting is bad. The 50mm f/1.4 is
better, but a lot more expensive ($399). If you're close up, the
old, cheap ($320) 35mm f/2 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($439) can be
very useful. Further back, the 85mm f/1.8 ($439) or it's sibling 100mm
f/2 ($450) will give you an extra stop. (The only easy way to tell the
85mm and 100mm lenses apart is to read the labels!) You may find
these used for a bit less, though the 50mm f/1.4 holds its value quite
well. I paid $335, including the hood.
Here's what I have for shooting indoor horse shows, usually in an arena larger than a basketball court, but smaller than a football field. All are Canon lenses except where noted. I've put them in the rough order of frequency of use:
- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
- 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
- 85mm f/1.8
- 50mm f/1.4 (replaced 50mm f/1.8 II)
- 100mm f/2
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (replaced Canon 35mm f/2)
Yes, I use them all. In our Fairgrounds horse arena, I usually end up with the fast primes, as the lighting is terrible, unless I'm shooting still/slow -moving horses. For jumping, barrel racing & other games, the primes are necessary, even with ISO 1600 or 3200 (which I'd rather not use, as it's quite noisy on my 30D).
For outdoor shows, I could use the same zoom lenses, but I often substitute a 70-200mm f/4L IS for the f/2.8L IS because I have it and it's a lot lighter as well as better quality. I may also carry my 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens instead of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I bought both of those before I got the f/2.8 lenses. Occasionally, if the show uses a wide-open course, like cross-country, I haul out my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, though that's almost as heavy as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the push-pull zoom is less convenient to use.
Now, if you're really serious [H] about sports photography, you'll end up with these (no EF-S lenses):
- 400mm f/2.8L IS ($7500)
- 70-200mm f/2.8L ($1250)
- 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1380)
- 16-36mm f/2.8L II ($1550)
and at least two bodies. (I'd say 1D Mk III, but it has autofocus issues. The 1D Mk II might be better, if you can find a used one. Some add a 5D for wide-angle shots, where drive speed isn't critical.) Some would add/substitute a 300mm f/2.8L IS ($4600) and/or 200mm f/2L IS ($5300) for indoor sports like basketball, where 400mm can be too long and maybe add a very wide-angle prime, like a 15mm f/2.8 rectangular fisheye ($700) or 14mm f/2.8L ($2200), for shooting in the melee after the game, when they may be very close to the subjects.
Of course, by then, someone would be paying you to photograph the games and they might provide the gear! [<:o)]