What lens do I want/need for cycling pics?

[Angy]

So my hubby bought me the XTI last year to take some good pics of his bicycle racing. It's a hit and miss whether I get them. Mostly my focus is always off and that's what kills the shots, well and they're not super sharp like the pros have.

I've got a new lens on my wish list and again hubby is up to buying me a lens (and lessons). He loves the pro shots and know we can't afford the pro lenses, but figures there has to be something semi afforable we can get to get me taking some nice sharp pics.

I don't take any other sport pictures except cycling, which include road, mountain bike and cyclocross racing. So I shoot in bright sun, shade and snow, all sorts of weather conditions. Not sure if that matters to the lens, more so the camera I guess.

I like being able to have a longer zoom, but would like to have an all in one lens for close and far so I don't have to change lenses in the bad conditions, nor take multiple stuff through the woods.

So does anyone have any suggestions on a lens that might help me out? I'm going to talk to my local photo store, but I don't think any of them know bike racing, so they can't direct me to maybe something I should be looking at.

Our budget is looking to be around $600 or so. If something higher priced is better we can save a bit longer, but I like instant gratification :)

Thanks so much!!!

[S-S]

youre gonna want fast accurate autofocus, prolly low max aperture, and reasonable zoom range... how about 70-200 f/2.8 IS

but - you cant get that for $600 - so its going to have to be a compromise somewhere. decide which factor you can live without for now and sacrifice it so you can afford the rest

[primoz]

For sport, IS is something what you spend quite lot of money on it, and it's completely useless. So if you have around $600 to spend, take a look at Sigma 70-200/2.8 (probably used one, since new one is around $700-800 if I remember right), and later on, you can add 1.4x converter. For cycling mostly used lenses for me are 300/2.8 or 400/2.8, unless you are on motor of course, but with 200mm you can also do just as well.
But there's one thing... it's not gear which makes great photos, it's person behind the camera. I'm sure I can give you all my gear, and I somehow doubt you will get same photos ;) So count on this, that you both won't be disappointed after spending all that money, and photos still won't be much better.

[eigga]

sigma 70-200 is a good option

or

70-200 f/4 ( $600 new around $500 used)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1226150965&sr=8-2

[Dan-o]

First off you don't need a long lens for cycling. Cycling at the local level is about the most accessible sport there is. As you know you can get inches from the riders as they go by. It would help if you told us what lens you have as you don't need expensive lenses to get results. A medium zoom and shoe mounted flash is a great way to get clean shots. These were with 24-105 and 580 flash:

http://dmunson.smugmug.com/photos/412492471_sVdmW-X3.jpg

http://dmunson.smugmug.com/photos/412492442_7XChX-X3.jpg

The 70-200 is a great lens if you have the money but it is not necessarily for cycling.

[Angy]

Oh yes I know the lens won't take the great pics, but it can help me when I learn how to use the camera and it's functions properly! That's why lessons are on my list as well!

I'll check out the couple lenses recommended at the camera store here and see how they feel and such. Although I see neither of the local ones carry the sigma, hum might have to do some online shopping and see what I can find then.

As far as the zoom I'm asking for it's because with some of the races (like cyclocross) I can stand in one spot and see most of the race course, so if I have the zoom I can get more shots. With road racing it won't be necessary you're correct, but the other races I like to stand back a bit.

Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM lens is the lens I currently have as well as the kit lens. The 75 is still a little too much zoom for me at some times and the 28 would be great, but I think a 28-200 or so would be way too $$.

[eigga]

Maybe the 55-250 IS ... not sure about the focus speed on that lens but it gets good reviews

The lens you currently use is one of the worst Canon makes so an upgrade probably will help your images ...at least offer you more consistency so you can improve faster

[Angy]

Yeah I know now the one I have is not good at all! Bought it without really knowing, shame on us!


What about the AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC (Vibration Compensation) LD Aspherical (IF) Macro ? Saw it in a add and I like the zoom it has, seems I won't have to really change lenses. But not sure how well it might work for the cycling pics.

[mikeb540]

great info on this thread, i am using a xti as well and have been using the 78-105 USM for the past year or more and i do think my AF is slow. i like getting close to the action when i can so i hope someday to get a wide angle but i think my problem now is needing a faster AF. i am barrowing a 430ex flash for the cross race this weekend so i hope it helps weather is looking to be not great.. my shots tend to look off to me before processing. you can see my last race here:
www.mbphotos.exposuremanager.com (http://www.mbphotos.exposuremanager.com)

thanks for the info
mike

[skywalkerbeth]

How about 70-200 F2.8 NON-IS?

[Dan-o]

That works fine for shots of the riders coming right at you.

http://dmunson.smugmug.com/photos/302614006_Zyu9K-L.jpg

[primoz]

Works fine. That's what I have and I never had any problems because IS would be missing. Otherwise personally I prefer 300/2.8 for cycling, unless I'm on motorbike. Then 17-40 and 70-200 are best choice.

[Erich in Az]

Maybe the 55-250 IS ... not sure about the focus speed on that lens but it gets good reviews

The lens you currently use is one of the worst Canon makes so an upgrade probably will help your images ...at least offer you more consistency so you can improve faster

I took the shots in the following gallery with the 55-250 and a 430EX to help fill and freeze the action. The lighting was not perfect by any means, lot's of strong sun and heavy shadows and although I got a couple of keepers, I had a LOT more scrap than keepers. Most of the shots in the gallery are a bit OOF or blurry when you really peep.

I think my biggest issue was the focusing speed. It just couldn't keep up with the riders coming at me. I like the lens for family stuff, but I've fought the focus speed a lot. I just bought a 70-200 2.8L non-IS (couldn't pass up $840 with $200 back for live.com for a total of $640 ;) ) and I'm hoping it will dramatically increase my number of keepers. After using my buddies 70-200 (his is IS) I was shocked by the focus speed and tracking vs. the 55-250.

http://www.gilaphotos.com/galleries/Events/2008%20Holualoa%20Tinfoilman%20Triathlon/

-Erich

[emtp563]

Check out my cycling photos. 99% of them were taken with the Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS. I specialize in cycling photography and my ideal lens setup would be the 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, and 300mm prime (preferably the 2.8, but the 4.0 will do).

For you, the average Joe, I highly recommend the Sigma 70-200.

http://www.cyclingcaptured.com/photos/418019706_9ywA2-XL.jpg

[tomd]

emtp563,
(info from your sig line)
I see (gallery data) many of your shots are with the 30D. I assume you purchased the 40D to replace the 30D.

Do you prefer the 40d over the Mark 1d body?
Tom

[emtp563]

emtp563,
(info from your sig line)
I see (gallery data) many of your shots are with the 30D. I assume you purchased the 40D to replace the 30D.

Do you prefer the 40d over the Mark 1d body?
Tom

Tom, I should have specified. My 2008 galleries are 99% 1D shots. In 2007, I was using the 30D in the beginning of the year, then the 40D in the latter half. I actually purchased the 1D to replace the 30D to have a 40D/1D combo, with the 1D as backup. It wound up to be the other way around with my 1D as my primary camera for sports and the 40D is my backup camera.

I prefer the 1D over the 40D, no question. Weather-sealing, pro AF, and 8fps trumps the 40D, despite all the cons I listed about the 1D.

Now for portraits and landscape stuff, i use the 40D because I'm not using AI-Servo AF and I prefer the larger resolution of the 40D.

1D Pros (compared to the 40D)

1.) weak AA filter resulting in razor-sharp shots
2.) weather-sealing
3.) pro-grade AF
4.) pro-grade body construction
5.) integrated grip/vertical controls
6.) 8fps

1D Cons (compared to the 40D):

1.) EXTREMELY poor battery life
2.) small buffer
3.) only has a 4MP resolution

40D Pros (compared to the 1D):

1.) larger resolution (8MP)
2.) easier to navigate menu system
3.) larger LCD
4.) better high-ISO performance
5.) excellent battery life
6.) larger buffer

40D Cons (compared to the 1D):

1.) ****ty AF performance in AI-Servo mode
2.) cheaper construction
3.) add-on grip/vertical control is cheap as well and loosens on it's own
4.) stronger AA filter resulting in softer images in all AF modes

[tomd]

thanks for the response. You have a great gallery! thanks for sharing.

Tom