Need a little lense advice

[slyone]

Hello everyone!:) I need to get a bit serious with my photography (to many crap pics) I started using a pro1 (28mm-200mm f2.4L) to capture the kids sporting events in HS a couple months ago since the point and shoot/AUTO mode wasn't even close to producing acceptable results with many night games outdoors(low light) There is of course Huge field lighting but I'm up in the stands. My pics are usually darker and many OOF or lacking real punch? I may be acquiring an XT with a kit lense and wondering if this will be any improvement from the pro1 using either the standard 18-55 kit lense or maybe the EF 75-300 mm f/4 - 5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens which seems to be priced very low? I am on an extremely tight budget currently. Your knowledgable opinions were be greatly appreciated!:D

[canonloader]

Low light. You need a camera that allows you to set a high ISO number. Up to at least 1600. The only other thing that is going to help is flash.
My personal feelings about it are that even f/4 is not good enough. F/2.8 would be that much better.

[slyone]

Low light. You need a camera that allows you to set a high ISO number. Up to at least 1600. The only other thing that is going to help is flash.
My personal feelings about it are that even f/4 is not good enough. F/2.8 would be that much better. Yea, I read that the pro1 has a great lens and does produce very nice pics but is weak in the area of low-light situations. I have read the XT doesn't produce the graininess as the pro1.

[canonloader]

I never had an XT, but have had a D30, D60 and now a 30D. The 30D is exceptional. Has new software in it to read the sensor and even at ISO 1600 is exceptionally clear. I haven't even used the 3200 setting yet.

But the lens is just as much a part of it as the camera. A bigger objective lens will gather more light and let you get within action stopping shutter speed range in low light more often than a smaller size objective lens.

[Rhinotherunt]

The XT should look pleasing at 800 I know 800 looks fine on my 300D. What focal lengths do you tend to use the most on the 28-200? I would then get a fast prime in that FL.

[slyone]

The XT should look pleasing at 800 I know 800 looks fine on my 300D. What focal lengths do you tend to use the most on the 28-200? I would then get a fast prime in that FL. I'm usually at full zoom. "I would then get a fast prime in that FL.?? I'm unclear as to what you mean.:confused:
canonloader, what is a bigger objective lens? Do you mean faster, probably not:confused:

[Rhinotherunt]

I'm usually at full zoom. "I would then get a fast prime in that FL.?? I'm unclear as to what you mean.:confused:
canonloader, what is a bigger objective lens? Do you mean faster, probably not:confused:
Normally people use 30, 50, 85mm the most. For those FL it is better to get a prime because of image quality, speed, and bang per buck. It would not be cost effective to get a fast prime in that FL.

[formula4speed]

A prime lens is a lens that has a fixed focal length, meaning you can't zoom in or out. The plus sides to primes are they generally have better image quality, are smaller and lighter, are generally faster, and cost less than their zoom counter parts. Keep in mind high end zooms can compete with primes for image quality. When people here refer to "fast" lenses, we are referring to the maximun aperture of the lens which determines how much light the lens can let in. The lower the number the better as they are actually fractions such as 1/2.8, 1/4 so f/2.8 is larger than f/4. The max aperture is the number listed after the focal length on the lenses (i.e. 70-300mm has a max aperture of f/4 on the short end and f/5.6 on the long end) and lenses with a max aperture of 2.8 or lower are considered fast lenses.

Now for low light sports you need a fast, longer lens to keep up shutter speeds and have enough reach for a decent picture. Fast and long is an expensive recipe. To get similar reach to what you Pro1 has, you'd need about 135mm of focal legnth, but for sports longer would be better 200mm would be the shortest I would personally use. At 135mm you could pick up a Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens, just switch off the soft focus which would run you just under $300 new. At 200mm you can look at the Canon 200 f/2.8L, not cheap at over $600 new, probably around $550 for a mint used copy but is just a fantastic lens all around. A used Sigma 70-200 2.8 could also do you well, probably around $600-$700 used.

[slyone]

Thanks! Very well-explained too:) I'm guessing I'm 100ft to 250ft from the action but fail to capture clean/crisp photos. My best are shot at full aperture and 1/160 ISO200 cause 400 is too grainy. That's why I thought "I need another platform/body hence XT" The real problem of course is a loooooow budget (and my inexperience-haha). I'm thinking under the low-light and far away conditions, one improvement might be a cleaner/better/higher ISO-hence DSLR. I want to at least be better than the existing Pro1. I'm starting to ramble.....:o

If my assumptions are correct, the XT w/ the 200f2.8L wont bring me any closer than the Pro1 but will allow more light and much better crisp/sharp photos correct?
p.s. then the question might be...is it worth an additional $1200.00 expense :confused:

[formula4speed]

The XT does handle noise pretty well, I shoot up to ISO 800 without hesitation, even 1600 is good if you hit the exposure correctly. Underexposing an image (image comes out to dark) really brings out the grain at any ISO. The 200 2.8L is a prime lens, if you are set on a zoom I'd suggest looking for a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, or the now discontinued Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L. The zooms will cost you a bit more than the prime, and probably will be a touch less sharp, but still very good.

[Rhinotherunt]

The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a great suggestion. It weighs 3 lbs however. You being a young person still in High School it should not be a problem. I can hand hold mine for about 2 hours, but not much longer than that. It is why I recommend primes. ;)

[Billginthekeys]

first, as everyone has said you need to bump up your ISO. also, for sports, especially night sports, neigher of the lenses you mention (kir or 75-300) are going to cut it. you should look at the sigma 70-200 2.8 at the least. also, ask about standing on the sidelines, this will give you much better shots.

[Billginthekeys]

The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a great suggestion. It weighs 3 lbs however. You being a young person still in High School it should not be a problem. I can hand hold mine for about 2 hours, but not much longer than that. It is why I recommend primes. ;)
and then they invented the stick. monopods are a wonderful thing :p

[Rhinotherunt]

and then they invented the stick. monopods are a wonderful thing :p
True... true... I do not like to use one when I am hiking though. A mono-pod would make it easier to use. :p

[canonloader]

canonloader, what is a bigger objective lens? Do you mean faster, probably not
The objective lens is on the big end. The bigger, the faster the lens will be, meaning, it will have a lower f number. For instance, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens has an objective lens size of 67mm, while the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens has an objective size of 77mm. This gives it one full f/stop over the smaller one, or, the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 800. ;)

[slyone]

Thanks for all the information, I'm currently thinking of cancelling my xt kit and to just get the body (why waste $75.00) maybe get a 50mm 1.8 as people state for the same money just to get me going? and then worry about better lenses later? Footballs' finished, soccer ends soon, then we go indoors for basketball which should be so much better with lighting. By the way..I'm the Dad, my kids go to high school:lol:

[Rhinotherunt]

Thanks for all the information, I'm currently thinking of cancelling my xt kit and to just get the body (why waste $75.00) maybe get a 50mm 1.8 as people state for the same money just to get me going? and then worry about better lenses later? Footballs' finished, soccer ends soon, then we go indoors for basketball which should be so much better with lighting. By the way..I'm the Dad, my kids go to high school:lol:
LOL! Got ya! You are the dad. For basketball... I would highly recommend 85 1.8. It is a much better lens. It will be about 135mm on a 1.6 crop body like the XT. A lot of basket ball shooters use this lens. I like it for outdoor portraits. :)

[slyone]

LOL! I actually will be photographing my daughter's cheerleading squad.

[runninmann]

I know that Liza swears by the 85-f/1.8 for basketball coverage.

[Rhinotherunt]

Groups or individuals? 50 for groups and 85 for individuals. Also go ahead and get the 50 1.4 insted of 50 1.8. It will hunt much less in AF. I would also get a SpeedLight. I have a 580 and LUV it. Gyms may not seem dark, but they are. Shoot in RAW as well. The lighting will look nasty green and can be fixed easily in RAW.

[Billginthekeys]

hmm. well for a group shot you should probably just hang onto the kit lens, unless you are prepared to drop some money on a better lens. a group shot with the 50 is going to require a lot of space. the kit lens isnt THAT bad, as long as you use it and realize its limitations, that said it would be horrible for action shots indoors, but outdoors, stopped down, it can do a fine enough job, especially for the price.

[slyone]

Just like anything I guess, the more you find out/ the harder it gets!:confused: so maybe I should just use the kit lens afterall and worry about a 135-200-? next spring?

[Rhinotherunt]

Just like anything I guess, the more you find out/ the harder it gets!:confused: so maybe I should just use the kit lens afterall and worry about a 135-200-? next spring?
That is the best. Use the kit and find out exactly what FL you want. If you stick with the kit... I would highly recommend getting a SpeedLight and a book on Understanding Exposure.

[slyone]

Thanks!;)

[jra]

Be careful here....these guys won't hesitate to spend all your money for ya ;)

[slyone]

Be careful here....these guys won't hesitate to spend all your money for ya ;)
:lol: on the contrary, a good discussion with experienced users. I enjoy sharing opinions on the topic. and find their opinions to be invalueable. Look at the last entry "use the kit lens" no cost whatsoever;)

[slyone]

Why is it my 28mm x 200mm lens shows 50mm when fully zoomed in?

[Rhinotherunt]

Why is it my 28mm x 200mm lens shows 50mm when fully zoomed in?
Just a guess, but it may be due to it being an older lens?

[slyone]

I guess either a prime 200L f2.8 or a 70-200 (L?) on an XT would be worth the cost/upgrade from my Pro1 28-200L f2.4-3.5 camera?
If yes, how valuable is the IS if I just use "the stick":lol:

[liza]

I know that Liza swears by the 85-f/1.8 for basketball coverage.

I use that one, the 100 f/2, and the 50mm f/1.8, actually. And I'd recommend the 20D or 30D over the XT. The 5fps makes a difference when shooting fast paced sporting events. I use both the 20D and the XT at our basketball games and prefer the 20D not only for the extra fps, but also the 3x faster autofocusing and the command dial for those on-the-fly adjustments.

[liza]

I guess either a prime 200L f2.8 or a 70-200 (L?) on an XT would be worth the cost/upgrade from my Pro1 28-200L f2.4-3.5 camera?
If yes, how valuable is the IS if I just use "the stick":lol:


One thing you have to keep in mind when you shoot sports. It isn't cheap.

IS really isn't that valuable for sports shooting with the exception of panning. It's designed to allow handholding at lower shutter speeds, and you want a fast shutter speed to freeze action. And while the f/2.8 apertures are great for field sports, you'll need a faster prime for shooting indoors. High school gyms are often lighted like dungeons!

[canonloader]

Get a decent flash.

[liza]

Get a decent flash.

Not for sports. You need higher shutter speeds and high ISO instead. Most schools discourage the use of flash and IHSA forbids it. The exception would be stand or ceiling-mounted strobes, which are expensive.

[slyone]

My main reason for the whole Dslr is to get very good shots of my kids when their playing HS football and soccer. The season has ended now but most games held late in the season are at night. Therefore, never having used any...f4 would be fine for daytime but not nighttime. f2.8 would be required for night games and work fine for day as well correct?

[Billginthekeys]

f2.8 would be required for night games and work fine for day as well correct?
correct. it also is preferable for day games because it helps give a thinner depth of field to isolate the subject, since sports often has unsightly distracting backgrounds.

[slyone]

Thanks! I'm trying to simplfy wher/what I want to be at. It also sounds like I want 200mm focal length for "these conditions" whether it be a prime or zoom (70x200). now what would be the next question? L or not- or IS or not, I "assume" an L is more important than IS? Again, just trying to see realistically the best choices since a 70x200L IS just seems so very far away from where I am money wise.

[Billginthekeys]

Thanks! I'm trying to simplfy wher/what I want to be at. It also sounds like I want 200mm focal length for "these conditions" whether it be a prime or zoom (70x200). now what would be the next question? L or not- or IS or not, I "assume" an L is more important than IS? Again, just trying to see realistically the best choices since a 70x200L IS just seems so very far away from where I am money wise.
IS is unimportant for sports. you are going to be trying for high shutter speeds (1/500th and up perferably) so 2.8 is MUCH more important than IS. of course if you can afford both then there is no down side to it. but the 70-200 2.8 L is a fine lens and i love it for sports (after my 300 2.8 of course).

[slyone]

Great, we're narrowing it down! As far as the L verses non-L glass? Does the additional cost make the difference with IQ?

[Billginthekeys]

Great, we're narrowing it down! As far as the L verses non-L glass? Does the additional cost make the difference with IQ?
well the only other lens out there thats really worth compairing it to is a 70-200 2.8 sigma. im sure its a fine lens, but i think the canon has slightly faster AF and IQ.

[liza]

I used the Sigma 70-200 and the 200L on the sidelines of the football games this year. Both are excellent lenses, though the prime has much better image quality and autofocus.