Looking for sports lens suggestion for Canon XSi

[DNelson]

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

[crystalshadow]

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.

[DNelson]

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?

[Sean Setters]

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?

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.

[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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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?

[clemmb]

To be honest Sean, I was not aware one could rent lenses. Not sure where to even look for that option.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Here is a lens rental place. LensRentals.com


There are others as well.


Mark

[peety3]

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?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[DNelson]

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[Sean Setters]

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.

[Dallasphotog]

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.