Zoom lens for Sports

[red_dragon]

I am about to purchase a 20D and have decided on a Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens as my 'walkabout' lens.

However, I also want a second lens to photograph sports from a distance (so it must be quick) as well as animals from a safe enough distance, so something going to 300mm.

I am looking to spend in the region of $400 but all the reviews I have read for lenses in that price range have some negative points e.g. too slow, poor quality, rotating lens.

Canon don't seem to have a great product in this price range for what I want. Should I look elsewhere, compromise on requirements or both ?

Thanks.

[cactusclay]

From past experience with inexpensive telephoto zooms, my 2 cents would be to save up and get a good one in the first place. I think Sigma has a decent 70-200 2.8 for a few hundred more than what you have and with the crop factor it is like 320 mm.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hi Red Dragon,. welcome to the forum :)

Check out the tow -=Top 10=- Sports Lenses stickies at the top of the page and see what others are recommending.

Bare minimum I'd try to get either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or the afore mentioned Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX

[red_dragon]

Thanks for the advice.

Do you think that the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens is a good 'walkabout' lens for the price?

[Mike Panic]

in your price - 70-200 f/4

[Motorsports Photo]

My recomendation is the 100-300 4.5-5.6.

Light weight and works very well despite some of the naysayers.

AND fits in the budget you specified.

-Pete

[tpinchback]

Save your money and get a 70-200 2.8 or the sigma 120-300 2.8

[ScottE]

I have a 20D and two lenses I use most of the time for sports. For low light conditions I use a Canon 70-200/2.8. Outdoors, when the light is good I switch to a Sigma 50-500. Some people complain the 50-500 is too heavy, but I prefer to think of it as solid.

You are not going to be able to get either of those lenses for $400 unless you get lucky in the used lens market. I am not aware of any $400 lenses I would consider adequate for sports if you want to make big enlargements.

I use a small camera bag and two lenses for my "walk around" outfit. The lenses I use are the Canon 28-235 IS and a Canon 17-40/4. I don't fine the 17-40 to be quite wide enough and am considering replacing it with the new 10-22.

I have always considered the 28-135 to be a very good lens for the price, but recently the technician at my local camera stores showed me examples fro two lenses she sent back to Canon. They were both unacceptably soft at the corners and edges. Perhaps Canon keeps the price down by slacking off on quality control. It appears you may have to send several 28-135's back before you get a good one, or you might be lucky on the first attempt like I was.

Scott