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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 23, 2003, 3:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default Digital Rebel Sports Shots

I just ordered a Digital Rebel. In addition to family photos, I take a ton of sports pictures, especially football action pics. Stadium seating varies, so I'll need a lens that can reach out. My previous camera was a 717. Shutter speed was lacking, hence the DR purchase. I'm literally starting from scratch on my knowledge of such lenses. I'd like to stay in the $400 price range.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 23, 2003, 8:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

The Canon 75-300mm USM IS is fantastic. Its alittle more then the $400 but not much and is well worth it. Look at how much more an IS lens is vs its non-IS. Look at the Canon L Series that have the IS vs non-IS (Almost sometimes twice as much). IS helps out big time expecially at long telephotos. As many say, its like a stop or two improvement. I could never go back to standard lenses again... Which is gonna be bad when I want the L Series...
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2003, 8:16 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

How does this one stack up? EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. BH had it for $240 new. Saw the same lens for about $100 more at some other places. Is there a huge difference between the IS lens and the regular one? BH does hae the EF 75-300 for $400.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2003, 10:18 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

Quote:
How does this one stack up? EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
... Pretty much the lowest rated of all Canon's zoom!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2003, 10:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Thanks for the heads up. So, go with the 75-300 IS/USM. Spend the $400 and be done with it, right? Thanks for the input. Saved me some cash. Update: Just checked the review link. They don't rate the 75-300 IS/USM very highly either. Let's say my price range is $500. What's the biggest bang for my buck for a zoom? I picked up a 80-200 from Circuit City for about $110 on closeout. Now I need a real zoom lens. Thanks in advance for the input.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2003, 11:04 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

I'd still say the 75-300mm IS/USM is your best bang under $500.oo. There are some other lenses out there that are better under 500. But thats only cause it doesnt cover the wide range of zoom area. For Example: Sigma EX 70-200mm HSM is really nice. I had one but sold it. It was too bulky and didnt really didnt understand the full idea behind f/2.8 either. Now I find out about sweet spots, etc with your fstop and focal range. Oh well. But I still love my Canon 75-300. The only thing I have to say about it that gets a thumbs down from me is the auto-focus speed. Sometimes it has to do some searching as well... :? Other then that... I love it. Its my (all around) lens... even thought thats all I have at the moment
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2003, 8:52 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

My take on the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM:

o Bulky: Yes - but then all large constant aperture lenses are. You pay for the big glass to collect more light, ie two stops when you need the shutter speed to freeze the action that IS alone can't give you (+ more control over DOF to boot)!
o ~$750: more than $500 - but then much less than Canon's f/2.8 version, beside with a 2X (or 1.4x) teleconverter it's still a very usable 140-400 f/5.6 zoom. It's like buying two lenses for the price of one!
o Focusing Speed: It's HSM, ie Sigma's Ultrasonic version which is quite fast, almost silent... and also offer full time manual focus overide!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2003, 9:36 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

Yes, I would have to say NHL is right. It is a VERY nice lens, just not sure why it was producing the pictures that it was. It was odd. But anyways, yeah the HSM was ever so quite. And like he said "Almost Silent". To never hear what the L lenses sound like or any others other then Canon's. It was ALOT quieter then any of my other lenses I have had and lightining fast. And I too had the 2x for it as well. Could do some crazy shooting with it...

My next move if any into a major lens will be the Canon 70-200mm L f/4.0 or if I have some extra the 2.8.
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2003, 4:13 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 36
Default

Are these lenses good for sports? I really only need about a 200. Are they fully autofocus???
JBsMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2003, 12:58 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Provided $$ was not an issue... Would I be better off w/ the Canon 75-300/USM/IS or the Sigma 70-200 2.8f and a 2x teleconverter? Also, with a 2x TC, will image stabilization then become a big issue?

I'd rather fork out the extra cash than spend just $400 and get something I won't be satisfied with. That would be the absolute limit though. I really appreciate your input.
aaltenburger 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 1:36 AM.