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

[about5foot6]

Hi!


I'm in search of a lens that I can use for my child's sporting events--some indoor and some outdoor. My current camera is a Rebel XTi. I just sold the "kit" lenses which came with my camera: the 18-55mm IS and 75-300mm (non IS version). I found the 75-300 just awful. I'm guessing because it was the non IS version?


Anyway, using a tripod, isn't practical for me. Also, I think I need to stay under $500.


I was just reading through previous threads and came across phenomenal photos taken with the 70-200 f/2.8, but the price is prohibitive.


What choices do I have? Originally, I thought I'd just get the EF-S 55-250 IS, but then I'm afraid I'll just end up disliking it as much as the 75-300 I sold.


Also, I sold the 18-55 IS lens, and of course I love the EF-S 17-55mm, but again it's way out of my price range (under $500). Any suggestions there?


Currently, I'm down to only one lens-- 50mm f/1.8


Looking forward to your suggestions.

[Keith B]

At that price your best bet may be a used 70-200 4.0. You might be able to get one for about $500.

[WAFKT]

Based upon the criteria you've indicated (or inferred) the 70-200mm f/2.8 is the way to go. With the recent release of the 70-200mm f/2.8 (Mark II), there's a good chance that there will be some used mark I lens in decent condition popping up for sale on Ebay, Craigslist or Kijiji in the US$800-1000 range. I'd caution against purchasing anything else to save a few bucks - you likely won't be satisfied and it could be tough to resell it once you've come to that realization meaning that you're only that much more in the hole. Wait, save up buy the best.

[alex]

With the recent release of the 70-200mm f/2.8 (Mark II), there's a good chance that there will be some used mark I lens in decent condition popping up for sale on Ebay, Craigslist or Kijiji in the US$800-1000 range.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You are referring to the non-IS version, correct? I have a hard time believing the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I would ever be available for that cheap. But I could totally be wrong.

[Brendan7]

Well, the 70-200 f/4L will give you a solid telephoto for ~$600. That'll give you a superb quality replacement to your 75-300. This lens gives you the optics and build of $2000 lenses in a cheaper package. There's no IS (the IS version is $1000) but it's a great lens nevertheless.


The 85mm f/1.8 lens is sharper, longer, better built, and overall a better lens that the 50 f/1.8. It'll cost about $300.


Fast, sharp zooms cost more than $500. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses are often 1/2 the price of their Canon counterparts, and sometimes are just as good. Beware of Sigma in particular because their quality control isn't all that great.


Good Luck!


brendan

[Brendan7]

WAKFT - the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark I is selling for $1900 new. The best deals on Craigslist I've seen in the past 2 weeks were for about $1550. I agree with the "save up and buy the best" idea but I don't think a 300% increase in price is going to sit well here. The 70-200 f/4L is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8 Mark I, and complement the 70-200 f/4L with an 85 f/1.8 and he'd be fine.

[WAFKT]

Oops! Yes, the lenses that I was speaking of were in fact the IS models, but the pricing that I quoted was for a used non-IS model. Sorry for the confusion.


True the 70-400 f/4 is sharper than the f2.8 I wide open, but at the cost of one stop. If you're planning to do a lot of indoor sports (poor indoor lighting - poor with respect to exposure) you'll appreciate the f2.8 (in fact you may even want faster). The f/2.8 stopped down to f/4 is nearly as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 - as either is a great lens for outdoor sports.


As far IS vs. non-IS models, some will say that when shooting at shutter speeds above 1/500s, IS is not very useful, and while that is correct with respect capturing a image; IS is still very useful for image composition when looking through the viewfinder (most especially with long telephotos - arguably not too much a worry with most focal lengths on a 70-200).

[Brendan7]

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


I'd say the 70-200 f/4L would cover outdoor sports (among other things) for $600 and the 85 f/1.8 would cover indoor sports (among other things). That's a solid combo for about $900 total.


Don't expect to get a quality indoor/outdoor sports package for $500. For indoor sports an aperture of at least f/2.8 is required. f/2 is great. But unless you can pay $5000 for the 200 f/2L you can't cover both uses with one lens.


Idea #2: Look at the 200 f/2.8 prime. It won't give you the versatility of the 70-200 f/4 zoom but it will give you that extra stop of light.


brendan

[Sheiky]

I found the 75-300 just awful. I'm guessing because it was the non IS version?

Then what was awful about it? What is it you didn't like?


I would recommend the 70-200 f4L as a "cheap" but amazing telelens, but it doesn't have IS either.

I'm in search of a lens that I can use for my child's sporting events--some indoor and some outdoor

For sports the 70-200 f4L will do great, I used it a lot for sports(outdoor). Indoorevents will be tough though, but you might like your 50mm 1.8 for those cases. Yea I know there will be better ones, but I don't believe you have that advantage.

Also, I think I need to stay under $500

I guess you can achieve this with the 70-200 f4L? Maybe 2nd hand?

Originally, I thought I'd just get the EF-S 55-250 IS, but then I'm afraid I'll just end up disliking it as much as the 75-300 I sold

That's the point where I ask again: what was it that you didn't like about it?

and of course I love the EF-S 17-55mm, but again it's way out of my price range (under $500). Any suggestions there?

Tamron 17-50 f2.8, again no IS, but an amazing lens and it fits your budget. Perhaps it could deal with some indoor events as well.


Good luck!


Jan

[about5foot6]

Thank you for all of the replies. My apologies for not coming back to this thread sooner.



Okay, I've narrowed it down between the 70-200 f4, and the 85mm f1.8. Arrggh--decisions!!!


Also, I'm now very interested in the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to replace my 18-55 kit lens. Thank you all again for the great suggestions.


Jan- to answer your question on why I didn't like the 75-300mm III lens, I really need to use a tripod, at longer zoom lengths (this one was not with IS). The photos I took of my daughter at cheerleading (indoor gym) were not sharp at all--and those are the ones where I could control the camera shake.


Now, while I was researching the 85mm f1.8, I came across the 135mm with SF. While I'm not interested in the soft focus feature at all, would that longer focal length be something worth considering on my 1.6 FOVCF?