What Len's to get????

[Alan Dye]

OK, Here's the deal. I'm gonna save my coin and get the ONE lens that'll do everything I need.

If you've seen my pix in the sports section, you know I need help. I mainly need it for indoor ice hockey and basketball. I already have a Tamron f2.8 28-105, but it doesn't give me the reach I'm looking for. I may sell it to help fund another lens, or I may keep it depending on how much I spend.

Mainly looking in the 70-200mm(300mm), f2.8 range. But will always listen to alternatives. I know the cream of the crop is Canon "L" glass, But I'm not able to afford that just yet.

Budget will be about $700 -$1000 depending on if I keep the Tamron.

So let me hear all your suggestions. BTW, I'll be using this on a 300D (Digital Rebel). Or do you think I'd be better to ditch the Reb and start over???

Thanks!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Take a look at the -=Top 10=- recomended lens thread stickied further up the EOS page,.

There are now 4 lists of top ten lenses in the section and a host of good advice along with them.

Of particular interest may be the "Starter" lens poll,. but also take a good look at the "Wildlife Zoom" poll,. as you allready have the wide end sort of convered and are looking at longer lenses,. perhaps pick up where you leave off,. say 100mm? The 100-400mm turns out to be one fo the most highly recomended lenses on the forum. And it's right in your focal range. (a little pricey though :( )

[Deckyon]

OK, Here's the deal. I'm gonna save my coin and get the ONE lens that'll do everything I need.

Never gonna happen. The "do everything" lens does not exist cheaply. For a zoom that takes you from super wide to super telephoto will either cost a lot of money or have less than desireable results. Sigma makes a 50-500mm lens (f/3.5-f/5.6 I think) but when compared to using my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with the 2x teleconverter, the Sigma was not worth the extra 100mm.


If you've seen my pix in the sports section, you know I need help. I mainly need it for indoor ice hockey and basketball. I already have a Tamron f2.8 28-105, but it doesn't give me the reach I'm looking for. I may sell it to help fund another lens, or I may keep it depending on how much I spend.

If you need this for sports, keep the Tamron and get a 400mm lens used. Even the Canon 400mm f/4 L is affordable and I can guarentee that the lower the f-stop (faster the lens) the better off you will be for indoor sports. I have seen that lens for less than $1000 used in a local store and once, once, on adorama.

Mainly looking in the 70-200mm(300mm), f2.8 range. But will always listen to alternatives. I know the cream of the crop is Canon "L" glass, But I'm not able to afford that just yet.

This is an excellent lens I swear by. I use it more than anything else I have.

Budget will be about $700 -$1000 depending on if I keep the Tamron.

Again, keep the Tamron and get a larger prime lens. The "do everything" lenses just are not worth the saving in money for image quality.

So let me hear all your suggestions. BTW, I'll be using this on a 300D (Digital Rebel). Or do you think I'd be better to ditch the Reb and start over

I cannot see why you would need to "ditch the Reb" and start over, especially on the budget listed above. The 20D has a nice AI Servo and AI Focus with 5 fps, but with already owning the Reb, I cannot see where it would make up for the $600 difference even if you got top dollar for the Reb. And the 1D Mark II with 8 fps and great AI Servo the price difference is even greater by a longshot. I would keep what you have and invest in fast glass first.

All my personal opinion and findings - all subjective.

[Paul_B]

Mainly looking in the 70-200mm(300mm), f2.8 range. But will always listen to alternatives. I know the cream of the crop is Canon "L" glass, But I'm not able to afford that just yet.

Same boat here. After much research here and everywhere. I'm getting the Sigma Telephoto 70-200 F2.8 EX (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=148317&is=USA) $799 American

It's not Canon L glass, but many are happy with this lens. Read into it some.

[Andy_T]

Two very good options to get some of Canon's cream lenses within your budget would be the 135/2.0 L and the 200/2.8 L primes.

See if you need the flexibility of a zoom lens or if the primes might be right for you. They will definitely rock at low light sports photography.

Best regards,
Andy

PS ... Len's is a completely new variant :lol: I've gotten used to lense

[cactusclay]

Just get one of each, then all you have to worry about is which one to use. Smile, giggle, chuckle, uncontrolable laughter, choking, coughing, eyes watering and finally a potato chip comes up and I realize that Gawd just punished me for being sarcastic. Sorry about that. It's a tough choice.

[Alan Dye]

Not looking for a Single lens to do all. I have several that cover a wide spectrum. What I'm looking for is one that'll be specifically for indoor sports. The Tamron works well, but I can't always get to the ice (or even real close). Something in the 200mm-300mm range in either a prime or zoom would be ideal.

I've checked into the Sigma's, but still leary about compatability. (Heard it's hit or miss). Not sure if a Canon f4 would still allow enough light (especially in some of the arena's I shoot. Gotta remember, this is High School and they are not always well lit).

Been checking on Ebay and found some that are interesting. Just wanted to see what the majority of you felt was the best way to go.

Thanks!

[MrChad]

Ilove the canon 70-200 f2.8 worth every penny IS or not, you'll be amazed at how fast the AF will work.

[Jon]

Yes, for indoor sports the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L is the ticket. Unless you already know what focal length you want/need to work at most of the time, I'd steer clear of a prime at this point; whichever one you choose (Murphy's Law) will be the wrong focal length for your subject matter. If the Canon's too much (and I think the non-IS version is within reach of your upper limit), then consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

[scc1266]

For shooting sports inside you need a 2.8 . I have had the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS and I sold it to get the Sigma 120-300mm2.8. The pictures from the Sigma are just as sharp as the Canon's were and I have a longer reach. 200mm always seemed just a bit too short. I have had no compatability problems with my 1D Mk II.

Steve

[Alan Dye]

Thanks to all who replied. It seem like the Sigma 70-200 might be what I need. I could go with the 120-300, but that would be over my budget.

One last question. Anyone have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO IF HSM they want to move?? I can offer the Tamron SP AF 28-105 f2.8 as partial trade bait! (plus $$$)

Thanks again

[nosquare2003]

One last question. Anyone have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO IF HSM they want to move?? I can offer the Tamron SP AF 28-105 f2.8 as partial trade bait! (plus $$$)



PM sent.

[Alan Dye]

PM sent.

Replied,

Thanks!