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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 6, 2008, 3:03 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 43
Default

I own a Canon 350D and I am looking to spend some money and get some decent lenses.

I shoot right mixture of photos, wildlife, indoor and most importantly Sport.

Can someone please advise within a budget of £800 ish the lenses that would best assist me in this.



I've read a lot about getting a CAnon 50mm prime and also 70-200 2.8 or f4.






Fussybuyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 6, 2008, 3:24 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

You say most importantly sports, I shoot sports and it is one of the hardest, most kit intensive areas to aid in getting good results.

What sort of sports do you shoot? The 50mm f1.8 might be OK for shooting basketball from under the hoop but that's about it. The 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens, I use the IS versions for some of my work and it is a lovely lens to say the least but just might not be long enough for certain things.

So they might be a good choice but we need to know more of what you want to get out of the kit otherwise it could be £800+ badly spent.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2008, 6:12 PM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Just echoing Mark. There is no one-lens-for-all-sports so the the 'right' lens (or more likely lenses) depends on the sports you shoot, the time of day you'll shoot and where you'll be shooting from (i.e. stands vs. field).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2008, 5:54 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 43
Default

Put simply the sports side is Football and from behind the hjoardings but not in the stand and hopefully on some occasions pitch side but often you're at the wrong end ofht e field.

The 70-200 sounds good and then I could get a x1.4 converter.

The bulk of my photos will be done during the day but there are evening games. Due to budget I'd like a decent all round telephoto lens that will cover most things.

Is the Sigma a worthwhile sub for the Canon as it's half the price but I don't want to skimp on the kit.


Fussybuyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2008, 5:55 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 43
Default

Add to that I've heard good things obviously about the 2.8 but would the 4 bbe just as good as many say how they have to stop it down a touch anyway. Also I guess IS is a must if there is any handheld photography going on.
Fussybuyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2008, 6:09 PM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

OK,

Soccer from outside the fences? 200mm will be way, way too short. From on the field 300mm is a bit short so if you're outside the fence I would suggest a 400mm lens. 200mm is really only good for about 25 yards of coverage - not much at all in soccer - especially when you're outside the fence.

But it would be tough to get 400mm and stay in your budget. And no lens in the 300-400mm range at consumer prices is going to be good enough for night games (you'd need a 2.8 lens for night games).

The least expensive option would be the bigma (sigma 50-500) which sells for around $1000 USD. I'm afraid that's the price point you're going to be at when you need that kind of reach.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2008, 3:45 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 43
Default

I'm not outside the fences as such and I am after the penalty area shots, it's non league so you're much closer to to the action. I am just not sure which 70-200....2.8 I guess would be better but is it worth the money and is IS really that good to have.
Fussybuyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2008, 3:51 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

IS wont do a bit to improve your shots for this type of shooting. It's beneficial in other areas but not this one. You need shutter speeds > 1/400 (preferably > 1/1000). Unless you have a physical disorder, you should easily be able to keep the rig steady at those speeds. Unless you have some other requirement which would benefit from IS, IMO you're wasting money that could be spent on other things by paying for IS.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2008, 9:57 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 43
Default

This is my biggest issue as I paying out that money I will also be after normla shooting. I am guessing for wildlife I need to be looking at 100-400 lens etc.

What about racing (cars) will the 70-200 2.8 be the best option and save money and not go for IS?
Fussybuyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2008, 11:28 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Remember that on the 350D youve got a Focal Length Multiplier of 1.6x anyway due to the smaller chip size.

A 200mm lens on it would be comparable to a 320 lens on a 35mm Canon, or one of the more expensive canon digital cameras with the full size sensor. So the 70-200 f4 may suit your needs. And its half the cost of the f2.8 version.

I may be wrong but with most of the action taking place within a 10 to 20 ft space on the field at any given moment, an f stop of 2.8 would just blur out a good amount of the action on either side of the focus point due to the smaller DoF.

Also the 50 f1.4 is a really nice lens. but with the 1.6 multiplier of the 350D it effectively becomes an 80 f1.4, which may not be wide enough in some situations. Though really nice for group portraits.

The 24-70 f2.8 may work best for indoor shots. And with the 1.6 x chip in the 350d and a large aperature it would also be a great lens for portraits of the players, either alone or grouped.

In the U.S. a 50 f1.4 is about $325 and a 70-200 f2.8 is around $1200, where a 24-70 f2.8 is $1200 and the 70-200 f4 is $600. So it would be a little more expensive.

Since you said that shooting sport is the most important factor Id stick with Canon on the long lens, and if you needed to save a little go with a Tamron or Sigma on the short zoom. In the U.S. their 28-70 2.8's are under $400, so pairing one with a Canon 70-200 f4 would be at least $200 cheaper than a Canon 70-200 f2.8 alone!
tobybear 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 4:44 AM.