Which lens for sports/general purpose?

[brendanmcd22]

I've posted a few questions on here before, and I have another one now. I'm saving up for a lens that will be used for indoor sports (hockey and basketball), but also just for general purpose...I do like to shoot things other than just sports. I'll be using it for lots of things.


My budget will be no more than $500-600. The two-three main lenses I've been looking at are the 85 1.8, 100 2.0, and the 70-200 f/4 L (non is). The first two I listed are obviously good for sports and fast enough for inside, butlack versatility for other things. The 70-200 is a beast, but f/4 will be a bit too slow for the sports. I will have a Vivtar DF383 though.


So I'm going to sacrifice something either way. What would you do with this budget/situation?


Thanks in advance.

[Daniel Browning]

So I'm going to sacrifice something either way. What would you do with this budget/situation?

Easy! Sacrifice the flexibility of the zoom. You will really need the f/1.8 or f/2 to shoot indoor sports. And I think you will it useful even in other circumstances as well, such as doing portraits. The 70-200 f/4 can do a nice background blur at 200mm, but if you want a more short-tele portrait, at 85mm it is nowhere near as blurry as the f/1.8.

[peety3]

Flash will be essentially useless for indoor sports - distances are too long, recycle times are too slow, red-eye will become a risk at those distances, and you'll have a tough time matching flash to ambient (both color and intensity). That unfortunately puts the 70-200/4 at a big disadvantage.

[hotsecretary]

Maybe the 135 2.8... or if you want.. 135L if you want to spend a bit more.

[Daniel Browning]

Maybe the 135 2.8... or if you want.. 135L if you want to spend a bit more.

That might be the first 135mm f/2.8 recommendation I've ever heard. It's easy to forget that the lens even exists. []

[ShutterbugJohan]

Maybe the 135 2.8... or if you want.. 135L if you want to spend a bit more.

That might be the first 135mm f/2.8 recommendation I've ever heard. It's easy to forget that the lens even exists. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

While the 135 L features a fast, accurate and silent USM (Ultrasonic
Motor), the Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 With Softfocus Lens uses older AFD
(Arc Form Drive) technology.
This AFD implementation is not loud or slow focusing for a non-USM
lens, but not as fast or quiet as the more-modern USM lenses -
and it does not provide FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing.
The 135 SF's manual focus ring is small, does not turn smoothly (the
gears engaging inside can be felt) and has play in it.
The 135 SF's MF (Manual Focus) switch feels cheap and also does not
work smoothly.
Both lenses focus internally (do not change size) and have non-rotating
front elements.
The 135 SF autofocuses even in softfocus mode.
The 135 SF lens also proved to be difficult to get accurate focus with.
While it nailed autofocus on most of my close portrait shots, other subjects proved to be difficult for it.

It doesn't sound like the 135 SF would be a good choice for sports.

[brendanmcd22]

Thanks guys. I'll probably go with the 100 2.0. Looks like a great lens and its about the same price as the 85 1.8.