cowski54 wrote:
I want to thank all of you very much for all the advice...still pondering...lens/or new body now A lens will cost $1000+-...A kit with body + 18-55/55-250mm will cost $1000...I understand that the lenses in the kit will not be f2.0 but will they be enough? I will continue to read the forums for advice ...thanks again...Cowski54
For us to comment on gear, you need to provide some details of what you want to shoot and what the conditions are. Like I said, f/2.0 might be critical for high school volleyball but it's not important for most photography outdoors.
cowski54 wrote:
is there a way to post some sample pics of what I have??
Just click the "Image upload" option at the top of the page. It will run you through how to pay for that option.
Alternately if you have a flickr account or other site you can post a link. However, fewer people are likely to see your examples if you choose that option.
For basketball you'll probably need as much light as you can possibly collect. An 85 f/1.8 is a good choice, but if you're lucky or the kids aren't moving super fast the 70-200 f/2.8 would be nice. Choir generally doesn't have much light but you don't need nearly the same shutter speed either, so again the same lenses pop into my mind.
When trying to decide what lens is best, what worked for me is to take my camera to these places with my basic zoom lens and take properly exposed pics from the best locations. So if you take a test photo in Aperture priority mode with your 18-200 at 100mm, f/5.6, and ISO 1600 and the camera set the shutter at 1/60s, then a 100 f/2 or 85mm f/1.8 lens would get you 1/500s shutter speed, and a 70-200 f/2.8 would get you about 1/250s.
Keep in mind that larger apertures require exact focus - I used a 70-200 f/2.8 on an original Digital Rebel (300D) and my keeper rate was very poor at f/2.8 no matter how much I worked on my technique. Your Rebel is probably a newer model that performs better but it's still not the most robust autofocus system. In low light and fast moving subjects you will not have the same keeper rate or consistently sharp focus that a better camera body will provide.
Back to the which lens question: I've rented a few lenses rather than purchase them with good results.
While it's reasonable to buy and sell a used lens just to try it, I don't necessarily have that kind of cash handy. So renting is great and you have no liabilities if the lens is a dud the way buy/sell can be. There are several good lens rental companies out there - my experience has been good with cameralensrentals.com - so just rent what you're curious about for a big event and decide if it's worth buying.
I have the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS and shoot sports from time to time as an amateur. What I like about it is the versatility beyond sports, come what may (good light, low light, moving and still subjects). The background blur is nice. And when I put a 1.4 teleconverter on it, I obtain 280mm while retaining auto-focus with a non-1 series camera at f/4.0. All for a pound and a half more weight than the f/4 version, which is an exceptional lens, (and one I have my eye on as well.) heh heh ...
jerrykur wrote:
Just click the "Image upload" option at the top of the page. It will run you through how to pay for that option.
Alternately if you have a flickr account or other site you can post a link. However, fewer people are likely to see your examples if you choose that option.
The point about teleconverters is important - on the Rebel series, an f/4 lens attached to a teleconverter will not autofocus. f/2.8 versions will autofocus. If money is ok for this, a 70-200 f/2.8 (with or without IS) plus the 1.4 teleconverter is a killer combo. Except for the IS feature, Tamron and Sigma also offer this combo.
Don't be afraid to spend money on lenses rather than camera. A second hand 70-200L will hold its value well, and when you do eventually upgrade camera house it will stay with you.
I still use a lowly Rebel XT / 350D and i love my 70-200L 2.8 with it. Whilst the camera autofocus maybe doesn't use the lens to its full potential, the image quality from the combo is very high.
dgeesaman wrote:
The point about teleconverters is important - on the Rebel series, an f/4 lens attached to a teleconverter will not autofocus. f/2.8 versions will autofocus. If money is ok for this, a 70-200 f/2.8 (with or without IS) plus the 1.4 teleconverter is a killer combo. Except for the IS feature, Tamron and Sigma also offer this combo.
David
if you are using a 1.4 TC then both will AF on a non 1 series (ie rebel) as any of the Canon consumer bodies AF to 5.6
A 70-200 2.8 does not do very well with a 2x TC on any way, Although my 80-200L seems to do OK with a 2X (not canon as it wont fit) if I stop down half a stop or more.
Well at least until I can justify a 100-400 again
Indoors you're gonna need more than f4.0 - there's only one HS gym around here that I can get away with f4. Everything else is 2.8 and ISO 1500-3200.
A cheap lens that works okay for basketball is the Canon 50mm 1.8 I picked up a used copy for $50 and it's been pretty good. Not as sharp or as fast focusing as my Canon 70-200 2.8, but it's not an expensive lens and can get you the light you need.
Used 40d or 50d bodies are really coming down in price, so that might be an option, too.
My favorite football lens is the Sigma 120-300 2.8. If Canon made something close to it I would look at it, but Sigma makes some good stuff, and this lens is near the top of the list! I've used it for some basketball, too (works fantastic for shooting defensive shots from the other end of the floor and makes it more likely to grab faces.)
cowski54 wrote:
I would love to get a "L" lens with 2.8 for kids sports and walk around...Is a 2.8 70-200mm to much for that?
70-200mm is not a good walk-around lens choice, especially on a crop body (like the XT). It will work well for sports and events at large venues that aren't too crowded, but is not well suited for living rooms and the like.
Being an hobby photographer, most of the pictures I take tend to be in living rooms and similar-sized areas. The lens that sees the most action by far is my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Image quality is on par with L lenses and I really can't recommend a lens like that enough. The Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and Canon 24-105 4IS all make wonderful walk-around lenses that perform well where most of us do most of our shooting. I'd upgrade the wide, normal, and/or portrait range before the telephoto range or getting a fancier camera body.
Sports can be hard to shoot and often require specialized equipment to do well. Your camera body is not known to have great auto focus performance, so you probably want to upgrade both your lenses and your body if you want to get serious.
If you want nice lenses and can afford them, by all means get them. Enjoy the challenge of getting professional results, even if you never intend to make a living at it.
I own the Sigma 70-200 2.8 macro version II and I really enjoy using it. I have rented the canon L version for some "pro " work and then compared with what I get from my lens. The result? I do not rent it anymore.
The bokeh of the sigma is more creamy and there is a little yellow cast at 2.8 that is very easy to take (one click)
The only thing that would make me go for the canon is the weather seal.
I use a Rebel XT w/ 70-200 F4L (non IS)
I recommend this lens very highly. If you can afford the F4L IS or either 2.8, then by all means, grab one.
I have found it to be one of my most versatile lenses (on account of the zoom). I've used it in club environments, for macro and general/nature shots (as shown below). However, sports shooting... will be limited by the XT body, as it doesn't have a sufficiently fast enough FPS.
Sorry, I don't have time to read all of the replies, but based on your post, here are my gear suggestions.
Canon 40d body - Fast, 10 mp, good ISO performance
Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens - fast, great lens for the money
Either a Canon 70-200 2.8L USM or a 70-200 f/4L IS USM
If you have shaky hands, I'd suggest the f/4 IS version, it's also much sharper and lighter and smaller. I've owned all of these items and can personally say I've loved all of them.
Down the road, look at an 85mm f/1.8 USM, fast, small, and inexpensive lens, great quality too. The 100mm f/2 is great too. Farther down the road, a 135mm f/2L lens is a great lens (my favorite lens).
All of these you can find on the buy and sell forum here, great community!
You have already gotten some excellent advice, and I have little to add to what has already been said. I do want to clarify something, though. You are really asking about three different lenses. A walk around lens, an indoor sports lens, and an outdoor sports lens. To me, even the hallowed 70-200 2.8 is not great at any of those particular uses.
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and while I can't say if it is equivalent to the Canon, it is a very good lens and I don't regret buying it at all. It is bigger than I like to carry for a walk around, though. It is not great for indoor sports, as the places I have shot had terrible light. It is not as long as I'd like for outdoor sports. Still, I have used it for all those purposes, I just don't think it is the best for any of them. Especially a walk around lens.
Here is what I would recommend, on a budget. The Canon 85 1.8 for indoor sports. Great lens, not expensive for the quality it provides. For field sports, the more reach the better and if playing in the daytime, 2.8 is not normally critical. The problem is that it is not easy getting to 400 or more without spending a good bit of money. If you can afford it, the Canon 100-400L would be my first choice. For less money, and less reach, the Sigma 100-300 F4 would be my next choice. For even less money, I would get the Canon 70-300 (not the 75-300!). You could get the Canon 85 1.8 and the Sigma 100-300 for less money I think than the 70-200 2.8.
Now, the walk around lens is a whole other discussion.
A lens will cost $1000+-...A kit with body + 18-55/55-250mm will cost $1000...I understand that the lenses in the kit will not be f2.0 but will they be enough? I will continue to read the forums for advice ...thanks again...Cowski54