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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 4, 2004, 8:21 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

I am planning to purchase a digital Rebel mostly for action sports pictures of the family (indoor/outdoor soccer and baseball) and less importantly vacation/landscape shots. Planning on getting the kit lens and a telephoto zoom. Any comments on the following options?

EF70-200 f/4 L USM ~$555

EF75-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS ~$400

EF55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM ~$210

EF28-200 f3.5/5.6 USM (and maybe forgo kit lens) ~$345

Sigma 70-200/f2.8 HSM ~$700

I know the Canon 70-200 f/4L and Sigma are higher quality lenses (also bulkier) but how fast a lens do I need, how important is the IS, and any downsides to these lenses (e.g. some have commented the 75-300 lens autofocus is slow)? Any other lenses you would suggest? The 2.8 IS 70-200 is over $1000 and more than I want to spend. Thanks for any help.
Glcdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 4, 2004, 9:01 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Glcdoc wrote:
Quote:
EF28-200 f3.5/5.6 USM (and maybe forgo kit lens) ~$345
This is another option for that choice: http://www.light-chasers.com/reviews.htm

This lens is also one of the rare breed that'll maintain focus while zooming: "The AT-X 242 AF is what is commonly referred to as a parafocal lens, meaning when focus is achieved at a telephoto focal length, it is possible to zoom back to a wide angle and maintain focus on the subject."
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29

Try to do a close-in AF focus lock and then compose or zoom back on the Canon's... mostly likely (if not for sure) you'll loose focus!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2004, 3:34 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
JKAyres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 20
Default

Sigma 70-200/f2.8 HSM ~$700

You're going to have to spend the bucks to get a decent zoom for indoor action & sports photography. Some of your other choices may prove to be to slow for your needs. In sunlight you may be able to get by with slower lenses, but you'll blur some shots indoors with a slower lens.
You can crank your ISO settings to the limit on the 20D and still get sharp exposures, but I don't believe that you can accomplish the same results with the 300D. You might try experimenting with high ISO settings to see if you're fine with the results. If you're happy with the results, you could probably get by with a slower lens.
JKAyres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2004, 2:13 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The other nice thing about the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is you can get a 1.4 teleconverter later (about $170) and now you have a lense that is effectively 156mm - 448mm (on the 20D or 300D)and is STILL 4.0. At the beginning of the fall I was shooting high school football (as a complete amateur) with my canon 28-135 and the 5.6 aperture was really too slow - I was getting speeds of 1/250 or so. You really want a speed of 1/500 at least to avoid motion blur. I bought the Sigma 70-200 but unfortunately not in time to shoot more football for the year.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2004, 3:32 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Do you think the 2.8 would be sufficient to shoot without a tripod in the absence of image stabilization? Thanks, John.
Glcdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2004, 5:09 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Glcdoc wrote:
Quote:
I am planning to purchase a digital Rebel mostly for action sports pictures of the family (indoor/outdoor soccer and baseball)...
If you shoot action sports then neither the tripod nor the IS can help you! :idea:

Think about it this way: if the shutter speed is too slow for handheld then the shutter speed is also too slow to freeze the actions. If you have to shoot at 1/250 to 1/500s anyway like JohnG suggested then why do you think you need a tripod (or IS)?

IS only compensates for the camera/photographer movements -> it can't detect distant action... The f/2.8 allows you to use a faster shutter speed to freeze the moving subjects which is what you need.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2004, 12:03 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

How about a Monopod? I used to use one back the the FD days with my 300mm 4.0 for outdoor soccer games & also my 200mm 4.0 & I thought that helped a lot, especially on the longer lens! You will be doing Horizontals anyhow.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2004, 1:25 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Railfire wrote:
Quote:
How about a Monopod?
I have one of those too... Not so much for action shots, but for relief on the weight! :-)

My 120-300 f/2.8 weights like ~6lb :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2004, 1:55 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

Two things to consider:
1. What is your definition of "reasonably" priced? For some that would mean $200, for some $2,000. Of the choices you listed I imagine most would agree the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is the best choice, but only you could answer if $700 is a reasonable price for you.
2. By your post, it sounds like these pics would be for personal use as opposed to selling. As such, the extra price and weight of something like the Sigma could be overkill. Now if you were shooting for a publication or to sell prints, that would be another story.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2004, 4:49 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Good point. Yes, these photos would be for personal use. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is the upper end of what I would spend. I think what I may do is get the Digital Rebel with the 28-135 IS USM lens as a general purpose "walkaround" lens and play with it for a while then decide what would be best for telephoto sports shots, namely could I get away with the Canon 70-200 f/4 L or if I need the 2.8 or poss even a longer zoom. Thanks.
Glcdoc 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 5:50 PM.