I have $1600, what do I do? HELP ME, still new photography

[morenoar]

OK, I have $1600 to spend on camera equipment. Some of you know why I chose DSLR over film. To take MANY, MANY pictures of my daughters playing sports (soccer primarly). I have the DREBEL, with the 18-55 lens and a 75-300 USM 4-5.6. This zoom lens works good, but not very sharp when I zoom in on pictures. I have a 15 year old that plays competitave soccer (club soccer, year round). She is not playing high school soccer this year, so no night shots are needed (this year). She will play next year (she did not make the team cause of GRADES). I have a 4.5 year old starting this year, also. So, I need a lens that I can use on both ends. Meaning, my 15 year old plays on a field the size bigger than a football field. She plays both Goalie and field player. As a goalie, I don't have to move around to much, but when she is on the field I wll have to move. I have a Manfrotto tripod, bought this for when I purchase a heavy lens. Traded in the monopod because I did not like the feel of it. My 4.5 year old will be playing on a size field of maybe 40y X 40y. So know that I have eplained what I need a lens for, help me decide on a GREAT LENS, within the above mentioned budget. Action pics would be helpful to see if you have links to some of your shots. Sorry to ask this over and over again. But I am LAZY and searching thru the forum takes a long time. ALL HELP IS APPRECIATED. Thanks

[scottbergerphoto]

I think it's a safe bet that with your budget many on this forum would recommend the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L and the Canon 1.4x Extender II. It's just about one of the sweetest lenses there is.
Scott

[Morden]

many on this forum would recommend the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L
Indeed; it is a superb zoom lens. I haven't used Canon's 1.4x converter so I can't comment on that, though the 70-200 dose work well with Canon's 2x converter.

[Tapeman]

I agree about the 70-200 2.8L

Go for the IS version especialy if you will use it with a converter.

[GenEOS]

Ditto. 70-200 f2.8L IS. That is going to be the best bang for your buck.

[fishingjts]

I do indoor sports in some of the worst lit gyms imaginable! :wink:

So for me I wanted f2.8 and wanted a shot zoom and an mid... I ended up with:

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Xr Di
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO
and don't forget the handy Canon 50mm 1.8! :wink:

All total about $1100 or so...

Here's some pictures (wrestling was with the Sigma and the green cast is the STUPID reflection from the mats! :x ) Very happy with the results I'm getting! :D

http://www.tammyandjohn.com/PhotoAlbum/Sports/Gym_010904/index.htm
http://www.tammyandjohn.com/PhotoAlbum/Sports/Gym_Flytz_04/index.htm
http://www.tammyandjohn.com/PhotoAlbum/Sports/Wrestling/index.htm
http://www.tammyandjohn.com/PhotoAlbum/Sports/Wrestling_01_15/index.htm

[Scottes]

I agree... 70-200 2.8 L and the 1.4 TC. Sweet stuff.

[Canuck]

I'm wondering if you tried the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX and what u thought of it?

[ChrisNardone]

I haven't used it, but I agree with Canuck. If I had $1600 to spend I'd get the 120-300 f/2.8.

[Andy_T]

You don't HAVE to spend US$ 1600 ... you might also consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Regards,
Andy

[morenoar]

Canuck, last time I said I was going to try and rent the Sigma 120-300, then I found out the 2 stores that I know of, only rent out canon lenses. I was bummed. I do love the shots you made with the 120-300. But that is another $400 and a few more months of saving. But I do like the f2.8 at 300 and then 5.6 at 600mm.

[davekone]

70-200 L f4 non IS lens. F4 because it lighter, and your probably shooting these during the day, if not then go for the f2.8. NON IS because IS when taking sports photos does not work well.

David

[droosan]

For action in a gym, the best value for money is the Canon 200/2.8L.

[Canuck]

Canuck, last time I said I was going to try and rent the Sigma 120-300, then I found out the 2 stores that I know of, only rent out canon lenses. I was bummed. I do love the shots you made with the 120-300. But that is another $400 and a few more months of saving. But I do like the f2.8 at 300 and then 5.6 at 600mm.

I really don't know what to tell you. That's all I can think of...I have given all the advice I can for now without some more extensive research.

[Canuck]

I haven't used it, but I agree with Canuck. If I had $1600 to spend I'd get the 120-300 f/2.8.

The only reason I mentioned it is because I have it and it rocks! The down side is that it is 5 3/4 lbs. However, what 300mm F2.8 lens isn't heavy? The best part is that if you like AF, you can stick a 2x tc and get a 600mm @F5.6 and still have AF. It is a 960mm F5.6 if you factor in the 1.6x crop of the 10D. Not too shabby.