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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 31, 2005, 10:21 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 106
Default

Hi:

I have the canon 20d and was wondering if anyone can tell me the best add on lense to capture "sports shots" i know i need a 2.8 lense, i have a friend that has the sigma 2.8 apo 70-200 lense and i've heard great things about that lenses as well but is there other possibilities at around $800-900? Thanks John
jcarboski is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 1, 2005, 10:26 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

jcarboski wrote:
Quote:
... i have a friend that has the sigma 2.8 apo 70-200 lense and i've heard great things about that lenses as well but is there other possibilities at around $800-900?
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX?
Highly recommended - http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2005, 10:45 AM   #3
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Indoor or outdoors? What sports? With or without press credentials? For print press or for fun?

Generally the 70-200 is OK. The 100-300 might ge good as well. But ever watch sports on TV and see all those really long white lenses? The Sigma 50-500 might be a better choice.

Give us some more details...
Randy G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2005, 11:28 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
... at around $800-900?
pretty much narrow down the choice to non-white isn't it?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2005, 11:58 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Well, there's the 70-200 f4L that's still possible.

But indoor sports without a flash...

BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2005, 4:10 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

The best lenses for sports shooting, of course depending on the type of sports would be any of, or a combination of canon primes from 200mm upto 600mm.

Of course this is a contradiction to what you want to spend. But you did ask.





LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2005, 7:05 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
The best lenses for sports shooting, of course depending on the type of sports would be any of, or a combination of canon primes from 200mm up to 600mm.
Haven't we established that modern zooms are sharper than 'antique' primes already, especially wide opened (or even stopped down)???
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...57&forum_id=65

-> The zooms are also much more convenient for tracking actions @ various distances than fixed primes, since one could be missing a shot while swapping lenses.

Also while price is no object anymore check this one out:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2005, 7:37 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

hahahahaha,

oh really, I don't know what sort of dreamworld you live in NHL. Most of the sport photographers in this building must really be lagging behind the times, especially for a modern newspaper. Even our glossy sections are keener on the primes for photographic quality.

Let me tell you a little secret. Photography does not end at the word "sharpness". A lens has many characteristics which can often be more appealing than level of sharpness produced. Not that I'm concluding with your idea anyway. Anyway here endeth the lesson. The understanding of those characteristics I think you should seek out for yourself.

You sound like old colleague of mine who couldn't hear the music for trying to pick out the noise.

:roll:
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2005, 8:31 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Don't thoses sport photographers have multiple bodies with multiple lenses for different coverages? :blah:

Most folks here are not doing this for work... I'm sure everyone here want to carry multiple primes (and bodies) around, especially with the budget they have in mind :G :lol: :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2005, 10:56 AM   #10
Member
 
Randy G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
Default

LBoy wrote:
Quote:
hahahahaha,

oh really, I don't know what sort of dreamworld you live in NHL. Most of the sport photographers in this building must really be lagging behind the times, especially for a modern newspaper. Even our glossy sections are keener on the primes for photographic quality.
There was a time, not that long ago (like just a few years), that no "real" photographer would be caught dead with a digital camera. Today, many newspapers are doing away with their developing lab completely (if they haven't already). I know of one newspaper that was using a fixed-lens, digital that sold for <$1000 for their photos.

If you think that it matters what lens you use when printing on newsprint then that's fine. But in that instance I would challenge any but an absolute expert to tell the difference between two shots- one with a quality zoom and one with a tele-prime. I am even more sure tha tthe canaty can't tell the difference either.
Randy G. 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 12:49 PM.