Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2005, 6:33 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 7:19 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

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
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 7:27 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Eric,

We all don't have your budget lol

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

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 11:45 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

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
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2005, 11:56 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 8
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 12:01 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 8
Default

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.
MenloMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 3:26 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

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.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 9:15 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 8
Default

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?
MenloMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 9:43 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

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:




Attached Images
 
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 12:06 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

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.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.