Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    166

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    depending on how long a lens you are looking for, there is also a 100mm 2.0 which is suppose to perform similar to the 85 1.8 but is a little longer.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    741

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    For what you shoot I recommend the 200 f/2.8L and the 135 f/2.0L. They aren't exactly cheap, but they're a lot cheaper than other alternatives and they give you excellent performance in term of speed and image quality.


    Please Read Ryan's review of these two excellent lenses.

  3. #13

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?




    <div>


    I've generally been pleased with the 70-300 IS (non-DO version). Not the fastest lens, but on a crop body, it gets great zoom. It was the first non-kit lens I got for my camera, when I knew a lot less than I do now, but in all the lens buying i've done since, I've had a hard time finding a better stabilized zoom lens for the money. You can usually find a refurbished version on Adorama for under $500.


    but for image quality/price, the 85 1.8 might be hard to beat. That's probably my favorite lens right now, especially in low-light conditions.
    </div>

  4. #14
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by about5foot6
    I've narrowed it down between the 70-200 f4, and the 85mm f1.8.

    In general, f/4 is going to be very marginal for indoor sports - especially at the non-pro level, those venues tend to be very poorly lit. However, the 70-200 f/4L would be a very versatile lens for outdoor sports. Indoors, you'll want to be looking at f/2.8 or faster. Also, the longer the better, in most cases, unless you can be assured of being very close to the action.


    The 135mm focal length would be good for sports on your 1.6x crop body - but I'd avoid the 135mm mm f/2.8 SoftFocus as it's one of the oldest lens designs still available. The 135 f/2L is a really excellent lens - the best for indoor sports (short of the 200mm f/2L), but well over your budget.


    In your case, I would recommend either the 85mm f/1.8 or it's close cousin the EF 100mm f/2 - you'll need to crop in many cases, but you'll have a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion of your subject (which was the problem you were having with the cheerleading shots, I presume).

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    763

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    In general, f/4 is going to be very marginal for indoor sports

    Yeah, it'd be marginal if the OP was shooting at ISO 12,800. Otherwise, you need f2.8 at least. f/2.8 is marginal.


    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    However, the 70-200 f/4L would be a very versatile lens for outdoor sports

    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    Also, the longer the better, in most cases, unless you can be assured of being very close to the action.

    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist


    The 135 f/2L is a really excellent lens - the best for indoor sports (short of the 200mm f/2L), but well over your budget.


    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    In your case, I would recommend either the 85mm f/1.8 or it's close cousin the EF 100mm f/2 - you'll need to crop in many cases, but you'll have a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion of your subject (which was the problem you were having with the cheerleading shots, I presume)

    Agreed. The 85mm along with the 70-200 f/4L should be a nice combo.


    Wow....I realize I just duplicated Neuro's post. Well, I second what he said [Y]



  6. #16
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
    Agreed. The 85mm along with the 70-200 f/4L should be a nice combo.

    True, except<span>about5foot6stated, "I think I need to stay under $500." So it's not a combo - it's one or the other (and even the 70-200mm f/4L alone is either going to be over budget or bought used).

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    763

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    In that case he has to pick between indoor and outdoor sports IMO.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


    IS is essential and indispensable. I would suggest the 70-200 f/4 IS but it's $1k.


    I disagree. At the shutter speeds necessary for sports, and at the focal lengths being discussed, IS isn't going to correct any blur-inducing shake or minimize any mirror slap.


    If zoom is TRULY essential, 70-200/4. Otherwise, 85/1.8 and crop as needed, and add additional focal lengths in the future.
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    13

    Re: Telephoto lens on a budget? Is there such a thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by peety3


    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


    IS is essential and indispensable. I would suggest the 70-200 f/4 IS but it's $1k.


    I disagree. At the shutter speeds necessary for sports, and at the focal lengths being discussed, IS isn't going to correct any blur-inducing shake or minimize any mirror slap.


    If zoom is TRULY essential, 70-200/4. Otherwise, 85/1.8 and crop as needed, and add additional focal lengths in the future.



    - Seconded:


    I've got plenty of "keepers" indoor with the F4 70-200 non-IS, and although it is better suited to outdoor shooting with lots of light, it can definitely get the job done with some good timing and ISO hassle (1/160/200/320) handheld ISO 1600, and just wait for the subject to reach a point of lesser motion then snap the shot)


    Good examples of where this has worked for me would be top of the toss (cheerleading), basketball dribble stopped in hand at apex of bounce, etc...


    Will you have a high rate of keepers? -no...... Will you be able to get acceptable results for the circumstances... probably.


    And for $500, I find it hard to argue with the quality of a used 70-200 F4 L...


    Some dark lighting examples:http://www.flickr.com/photos/letiger/1832794227/meta/


    http://www.flickr.com/photos/letiger/2209039824/meta/


    http://www.flickr.com/photos/letiger/2261214427/meta/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •