Looking at buying new lenses for my EOS XT

[psychowarden]

I have an EOS XT, and although it is a great camera, the kit lense leaves something to be desired. So I am looking at purchasing 3 different lenses. Now, take note that I'm not trying to choose between these 3, I am looking at buying all 3, I'm sort of on a limited budget, but these seem like good lenses. I just wanted some experienced input as well as suggestions.

Standard Zoom lense, for more general picture taking is what I'm hoping.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442

Telephoto Zoom lense, for sport photography.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7444

Standard Telephoto lense, hopefully be decent enough for portraits.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7306

[Rhinotherunt]

Have you read the stickies? What budget are you working with? What kind of things do you want to take images of?

[psychowarden]

Yup, I read the stickies, I wouldn't have posted if my question had been answered :P

My budget is about $700 total. I will mostly be doing sports, but would also like to have a lense capable of taking good portraits as well. Being a Senior in high school, I know that alot of people are looking for Senior Photos photographers, and I know that there is money in it, so I would like to be able to do that if needed.

As for sports, I will be doing all of our school sports as well as paintball tournaments.

I also would like your input on a camera bag. I would like a backpack style, it would be nice if it could hold at least 3 lenses, and would like to keep it under $100,

[Jim_T]

Did you read the stickies in the LENS forum :)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33

[Rhinotherunt]

Hmmm... I would get the Canon 85mm 1.8... It is about $330.00 and is highly respected and considered as good as L glass. It is a little long for some people's style of portrait work on a crop body, but fits mine. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is also a great one for portrait work. It is $320.00. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a great "normal" focal length for crop bodies.

Zooms... 17-40L F4 nice , but too slow and short for sports. Tamron 28-75 2.8 is good for decent lit sports, but it is a little short for some. Sigma 70-200 2.8 is a sweet out door lens and great for portraits, but is heavy and $100.00 more than your budget. Canon 70-200 F4 L is a nice lens but will eat up your budget, and too slow for most sports.

So, maybe the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and Canon 85mm 1.8...

[unix04]

50/1.8 is a great portrait lens on a crop body

70-200/4 L costs around the same as the 70-300 IS, and you get a full stop at the long end. before you decide on either of these, see if you really need the 200-300 focal range. i'd say IS is negligible if you're taking sport photography with this lens, as IS cannot freeze motion. both lenses take sharp photos, but the L will do better overall than the IS at the common focal lenghts.

buying those two will leave you with 625~650 spent, and very little for the third. considering you already covered the 70~105 range with the L/IS, and the 50mm with the 50/1.8, the only real decision you need to make is how to address your wide/standard focal range issues.

at this point, the difference between kit lens and the 28-105 USM isn't worth the upgrade IMO. you're paying $200+ for USM and maybe slightly better IQ over a slim focal range (28~70, but more like 28~50 since u have the prime), and getting good shots in that range can be fixed with some foot-zoom (step forward/behind with the 50 prime or forward with the tele lens.)

i think the kit lens should suffice in most conditions and the benefits of the 28-105 USM will be minimal. if you really want to do away with the kit lens, perhaps you should consider the tamron 28~75/2.8. i think it's the best zoom portrait lens that's not an L lens. with the current tamron rebate, you can buy it for ~$360 and can almost cover for your 50mm prime. so in place of the 28-105 USM and the 50 prime, you can purchase the tammy 28~75 and the canon 70-200L (or the 70-300 IS) at just about ~$800, which would be the total if you bought the 3 lenses you originally planned on getting.

side note: Ryan's suggestion for the 85mm is also a great idea, but only if you know you will be taking sports photography from the sidelines/front-section with relatively limited playing areas (anywhere within a reasonably close range, but not too close). as the nature of sports photography goes, people will be moving all around and across great distances (football and soccer come to mind). however, for sports like basketball, baseball or volleyball or even swimming/polo, the 85mm should suffice (IMO). plus, if you have the 50/85 prime combo, it should cover most of your portrait needs :D

[liza]

The lenses you've chosen won't do the job. I shoot sports commercially and for the yearbook and two area newspapers, and I will tell you that lenses for sports are not cheap. There are also different lenses for the variety of situations you will encounter. Some less expensive options are as follows:

For gym sports, such as basketball and volleyball: 85mm f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 50 f/1.8
For night football: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 200L
For daytime field sports, such as baseball, softball, and soccer: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 200L, or Canon 70-200 f/4L

I would steer clear of lenses slower than f/2.8 for sports so you can shoot in lower light and achieve higher shutter speeds to better capture the action. You will find the slower autofocus of the XT to be somewhat of a hindrance at times, also, especially when the action is very fast.

[unix04]

The lenses you've chosen won't do the job. I shoot sports commercially and for the yearbook and two area newspapers, and I will tell you that lenses for sports are not cheap. There are also different lenses for the variety of situations you will encounter. Some less expensive options are as follows:

For gym sports, such as basketball and volleyball: 85mm f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 50 f/1.8
For night football: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 200L
For daytime field sports, such as baseball, softball, and soccer: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 200L, or Canon 70-200 f/4L

I would steer clear of lenses slower than f/2.8 for sports so you can shoot in lower light and achieve higher shutter speeds to better capture the action. You will find the slower autofocus of the XT to be somewhat of a hindrance at times, also, especially when the action is very fast.

do you find getting the 200L very limiting on your shot selecting when shootnig football? i was interested in it, but seems like i might be running as much as the players on the field trynig to take shots...

[liza]

It can be if you aren't accustomed to shooting with primes. I use two bodies with the 200L on one and the Sigma 70-200 on the other. Works for me.

[unix04]

It can be if you aren't accustomed to shooting with primes. I use two bodies with the 200L on one and the Sigma 70-200 on the other. Works for me.

hmm...perhaps i should purchase a used XT. sounds like a grand idea

[Brodog2525]

My budget is about $700 total. I will mostly be doing sports, but would also like to have a lense capable of taking good portraits as well. Being a Senior in high school, I know that alot of people are looking for Senior Photos photographers, and I know that there is money in it, so I would like to be able to do that if needed.

As for sports, I will be doing all of our school sports as well as paintball tournaments.

I also would like your input on a camera bag. I would like a backpack style, it would be nice if it could hold at least 3 lenses, and would like to keep it under $100,

I own the 28-105 and the 50mm 1.8 and i use the 75-300mm often but i do not own the lens personally.

since i am about 1 year older than you, i do not think you need L glass like many people on this forum will say that you need. IMO you DO NOT need L glass, you probably want it like i do but you do not need it.

I think what you have already selected is a good set of lens. I did use the 75-300mm lens on saturday afternoon and it is very difficult to use with low light. which is probably the biggest problem with the lens for your personal use.

however if you are mostly doing sports, you might want to get a nicer telephoto lens and get the 50mm 1.8 and forget about the 28-105mm.


this is just my thoughts and am in no way a pro but i am in the similar situation as you.

[Billginthekeys]

the 75-300 series just doesnt cut it for sports PERIOD. and i dont care who you are, when i was in high school last year i shot a 75-300 IS for sports and it sucked, only in the best of outdoors conditions can you manage even getting enough light for the lens. you should look at the 70-200 F4. pair that up with the 50 1.8 (great for the money), and mabye a sigma or tokina 17/18-50 2.8 and you should have a good setup for a bit over your budget.

[psychowarden]

I own the 28-105 and the 50mm 1.8 and i use the 75-300mm often but i do not own the lens personally.

since i am about 1 year older than you, i do not think you need L glass like many people on this forum will say that you need. IMO you DO NOT need L glass, you probably want it like i do but you do not need it.

I think what you have already selected is a good set of lens. I did use the 75-300mm lens on saturday afternoon and it is very difficult to use with low light. which is probably the biggest problem with the lens for your personal use.

however if you are mostly doing sports, you might want to get a nicer telephoto lens and get the 50mm 1.8 and forget about the 28-105mm.

this is just my thoughts and am in no way a pro but i am in the similar situation as you.

Everyone else had very good answers, but considering you are at a very similar situation as I am, that was very helpful, thank you very much.

[braduardo]

OK... I typed up a review on all your lens picks... Then it went away, so here I go again...

I own the 28-105 USM. Pretty good lens. It has a much nicer feel than the kit lens, marginally better IQ, faster focusing, and MUCH better build quality. The f3.5 on the (not so) wide end isn't all that fast, but it's not too terrible either, since at 28mm you don't need as fast of shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake. While I would *LIKE* a better lens in this range, this one is sufficient as an all-around lens. Just keep your kit lens to handle the WIDE stuff.

The 75-300mm f4-5.6 is a decent lens, but not as good as the Sigma version I have heard. I got some really good shots with it, and have had them printed up to 16x20 without many issues. It is pretty pathetic in poor light. Let me define poor light, because it's not exactly what you might expect. Poor light is pretty much anything that isn't sunlight, or rather intense indoor light. Comfortable light levels for indoors won't cut it. If you have good light, it's a good lens. The reach is nice, and it is very light. It isn't a very good build quality, but it will do the job.

The 50mm f1.8 is without a doubt the best bang for the buck lens that Canon makes. It's light, it's fast, and it's sharp. You will get shots with this lens that you just wouldn't get with the kit lens.

SO... After typing it all twice...

Buy the 50mm f1.8 right away.
Consider the other two, but consider carefully. Either will serve you well as long as you know and accept the limitations of your equipment. What you really have to ask yourself if you have out-grown your equipment to the point where it is your gear limiting you, and not your knowledge. At the risk of causing an earthquake from jaws dropping to the floor all around the world, buying better gear is no replacement for knowing how to use the gear you have. You will see a bigger improvement if you are already pushing the limits of what you have.

One thing you haven't listed, that might be more important that any one of those peices of gear, is a flash. If you want to do senior portraits for people, or any type of posed shots, you will benefit a lot from having a flash and knowing how to use it.

Honestly, you should consider very carefully what you want to do with your photography. Decide if it is something you are serious about, or just kinda like it. It is a very expensive hobby. You will do well to decide if you want to put a lot of money into it, then carefully consider what you want to use your gear for. That way you can get high quality gear to cover the majority of your shooting, and then work more slowly on getting good gear for the rest of your shooting.

Carefully consider what you want to do. As a senior in HS, $700 is a lot of money for a hobby. If you want to though, those lenses aren't a terrible place to start. I would recommend the Sigma over the Canon for the 75-300mm (based solely on what I have heard from others) but the other two are pretty good picks. Consider a flash. Sigma makes a decent one for about $200.

[psychowarden]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/psycho_warden/Football/IMG_0737.jpg

You can tell that the pictures are a little dark. I took this with a 70-300mm with the ISO at 1600 and the shutter speed at 200. So I think I'm going to look at a different lense.

Thanks for the very elaborite response Brad.

I have decided against getting both the zoom lenses, as I don't think they will sufficiently meet my needs. The kit lense will work fine for me now as far as a regular zoom lense goes.

But I am definatly getting the 50mm f1.8. I have a flash already. It's an older Sunpak flash that my dad used while he was in highschool, but it works well, and I use it for crowd shots at night games.

I am now more interested in this lense:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345
It seems like it should cover my needs fairly well.

[Billginthekeys]

I am now more interested in this lense:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345
It seems like it should cover my needs fairly well.
this lens will fit your needs much better than the 75-300. should do very well in day field sports, and still do decent with the ISO higher for night games. and for indoors the 50 1.8 should do you well.

[Bob_A]

Liza gave you the best advice so far, and it was NOT for an L lens, it was for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. You'll get great IQ at close to the price of the Canon 70-200 f/4L. I have the f/4L because it is a great compact lens ... but it is too slow for the kind of sports images that you posted.

I have the 28-105 that you are looking at, and it is a decent lens between f/8 and f/11, but too soft for me outside that range. And yes, I have a good copy. Just look at the MTF curves for this lens and you can see that it is supposed to be soft wide open. Given the choice you would be better off with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a much faster lens that has better image quality that the 28-105.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a good budget lens that you won't cry about if you break it or decide to upgrade to the f/1.4 at a later date. If you're on a budget, buy it and have a ton of fun with it.

[psychowarden]

Bob, could you get me a linnk to that Sigma lense, I can't seem to find it.

[unix04]

Bob, could you get me a linnk to that Sigma lense, I can't seem to find it.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3306&navigator=3

pay no attention to the retail value listed on the site. the price goes for much less

[psychowarden]

Alright, thanks alot, I think I will be picking up that lense.

I have a couple questions though, someone mentioned "IQ", may I ask what that is?

And secondly, what is that thing that juts out from the bottom? Is that the tripod collar?

[unix04]

Alright, thanks alot, I think I will be picking up that lense.

I have a couple questions though, someone mentioned "IQ", may I ask what that is?

And secondly, what is that thing that juts out from the bottom? Is that the tripod collar?

1. IQ = image quality
2. yes, it's the tripod collar

[liza]

Here's one with the Sigma zoom I mentioned:

http://EMPhotography.smugmug.com/photos/103543296-L.jpg

It's not quite L glass, but it will do in a pinch for night football.

[psychowarden]

I was able to find the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for about $750. So it's gonna take a while to save up, but I'm gonna try to pick one up.

[Billginthekeys]

definitly, if you can stretch your budget for it it will fit your sports needs great.

[psychowarden]

May I ask, what is L Glass. I know that the "glass" part is kind of slang term for lense, but whats the "L" stand for?

[liza]

Luxury

[Bob_A]

L=Luxury. It's Canon's designation for their high-end line of lenses.

[Tareq]

Wish to get better lens soon

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/4397/img943201ly5.jpg

70-200 f2.8L IS, 1/500s, f2.8, ISO 1600 (1D MarkIIN)