Sports Photography Set Up

[terry@softreq.com]

The 70-200 should do it for you.

For sports, I never use anything slower than an F2.8 lens indoors.

The Canon 50mm F1.8 lens at $80 is another good lense for your arsenal.

Sigma makes a nice 70-200 F2.8 lens if your looking for something cheaper than
a Canon lense.

As for the IS walkabout lense, it will probably do ok for sports but I think your better
off with an F2.8 lens, generally.

-- Terry

[eric s]

The reason I didn't metion the 70-200 f2.8 is a stunningly good lens that is expensive. The IS version is even more expensive. It is a great lens for what you want to do, but you have to be willing to spend the money to get it.

The Canon one is very, very good (near amazingly good.) The Sigma is... very good? Some people have had trouble with it (quality control issues) but good ones are porported to be very good.

Eric

[terry@softreq.com]

Eric,

We all don't have your budget lol

I have the poor man's Canon L 70-200 F4 lens.

-- Terry

[eric s]

I'm a weird spender.

I'm very careful with my money and I save a lot of it (not having kids helps.)
On the other hand, once I've convinced myself that something is worth the money and is right for me I'll buy it. Even if it's a 600mm f4 IS.

So I research things to death, trying to understand every angle. And in the process drive my girlfriend nuts. But I'm almost always happy with my purchases. I work very hard for my money so I'm (too) careful with it.

I've heard very good things about the 70-200 f4. But is f4 good enough for indoor sports photography? Someone with experience would have to say.

Eric

[MenloMan]

Terry, thanks very much for your thoughtful advice. I am considering the 70-200mm f/4.0 as well for my outdoor sports shots so I would appreciate the opportunity of saving $500 if I can get away with it!! If it is worth the extra $, I will just save my pennies and buy the 70-200 later. My wife and three kids are my favorite subjects but with Christmas and property taxes on the horizon,something hasto give!

The 50mm/1.8 sounds too good to be true. Thanks for directing me toward this diamond in the rough.

[MenloMan]

Eric, we are the same with our money. I almost never regret paying more for something that is better quality and will make a better long term value. Your advice has made my decision making much easier.

[VictorEM83]

Also something to keep in mind, Last spring I had to cover a series of baseballs games larger stadium becuase some local teams made the playoffs and my 70-200F2.8L was a little short for that stadium for where i had to be for 2nd and 3rd base so I got thw 1.4x Teleconverter and granted its not as sharp as a 300mm F4 prime lens(okay its only 280mm) but much cheaper than buying another lens.

[MenloMan]

Good call. This sounds like a great solution. Do you think the 70-200mm f/4.0 would cut it if I am shooting only outdoors?

[terry@softreq.com]

Personally, I bought it never intending to usethe 70-200 F4indoors, but perhaps in a pinch it could work.

I would definitely need to go ISO3200 and run it wide open at F4, and maybe boost the raw image one stop.

Anyways, here's the outdoor photo, keeping in mind that it'sscaled to a 170K picture whereas the original looks a little better:

[AlpineMan]

Instead of the Canon 17-85mm IS, I'd go with the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC. It's sharper and faster for about the same price. If you can afford the Canon 70-200mm f4, then you can afford the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX HSM...they're about priced the same...again a faster lens.