telephoto sports lens

[Alex_Galea]

I am looking for a good sports lens for my rebel. im thinking that a 300mm should be enough because it will act like a 480mm or something on my camera. i was just wondering how much it would cost for one with a low enough aperature to take indoor pictures without flash.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

for 300mm? The only lens with a fast ap at 300mm would be the 300 2.8L IS, and it's about $4,000. 300mm seems pretty darn long for indoors. What sport are you shooting? NBA?

If you can go with 200mm, your price drops significantly. You can get a 70-200 2.8L IS (if you want IS) for about $1600, or the non-IS version for about $1,100. You can get the sigma version, 70-200 2.8 EX DG for about $750. That's about it for fast lenses in that range. This is assuming you go by the general rule that fast=2.8 or less.

[Alex_Galea]

actually im kinda new to photography and im only 15 so i dont really have that kinda money, but thanks for putting it in perspective for me. i was looking at the basic 200 dollar canon 300mm. should i reconsider? i was looking to take pictures of hockey, paintball, and soccer maybe. the reason i would want the 300mm would be so i could also use it for nature photos.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Price range would be helpfull,.
As Ron mentions,. the 300mm f/2.8 IS is the "Ultimate Sports Lens" ©

If cost is too much,. this list is essentially descening in cost,.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon 300mm f/4L IS
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM
Canon 200mm f/2.8L

For indoor work,. often 200mm is enough, so you might do well with one of the 70-200mm zooms.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

actually im kinda new to photography and im only 15 so i dont really have that kinda money, but thanks for putting it in perspective for me. i was looking at the basic 200 dollar canon 300mm. should i reconsider? i was looking to take pictures of hockey, paintball, and soccer maybe. the reason i would want the 300mm would be so i could also use it for nature photos.

It might work alright for paintball and soccer, as long as it's on sunny days, but the maximum aperture at 300mm is f/5.6, which means that inside, you won't be getting proper shutter speeds to stop action. Give it a try if you like. You can always return it.

[grego]

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM


Best compromise for all thigns taken into consideration as far as getting that 480mm, which are mentioned.Best bang for your buck 300 2.8 lens, I'd say.

[BigBlueDodge]

Well, it seems the Sigma 120-300 is WAY out of his budget (witness by his desire to get the $200 300 mm variant). I suggest that a prime (85 1.8 or 100 2.0) would be a nice start. For his needs, he needs speed, and a prime is the only way to get there for the amount he is looking to spend.

[liza]

The 85 and the 100 are both good lenses for indoor sports, though still out of your price range. You might consider a used lens, also, from individuals who post in the classifieds on this forum or the Buy and Sell forum on www.fredmiranda.com. And www.keh.com is another good reseller with a wide variety of prime lenses in stock. I have several primes now and wouldn't consider a zoom at this point for indoor sports.

[grego]

^Whoops, my bad, i was just piggy backing off cyber's post.

[CyberDyneSystems]

And I started typing that before the budget post came up...

Ahh well :)

Personally I can't recoemnd any lens in that price range... I just don't have any experince with them.
If your ever in a position to though,. you could do well with the 70-200mm f/4L

[grego]

If you could, Sigma has a 100-300 f/4. Although its still high up there, it'll give you a quality 300mm. It's tough in the 200 dollar range to pick up anything that will give you consistent results and speed for that little amount of money.

That Canon for 200 will leave you wanting a lot more.

[cbock]

i'd recommend the sigma 70-300 apo sm II. it's in your range ~$200. but, don't expect a big keeper rate for outdoor sports like football. completely forget about indoor sports. unfortunately, sports photography is not cheap to shoot.

[tptram]

the "pocket rocket" 80-200 is a very good value for the money
http://www.google.com/search?hs=7tB&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=canon+ef+80-200+pocket+rocket&btnG=Search

tak

[afviper]

You can get the Sigma 70-300mm, it would be in your price range, but only useable outdoors, although it is very sharp for the money. If you can strech your budget a little, a used 85mm 1.8, or 100mm 2.0 can be had for under $300 with a little searching. These lenses would give you the speed you need for indoor sports, but they would lack the versatility of the Sigma zoom.

[DavidEB]

can't think of too many indoor sports that would require such a long lens, assuming you can get a ringside seat. I agree with BigBlue, get a prime. 100mm f2.