Lens for Beginner?

[Bowtie_guy]

Hey everybody,

I have a quick question. I have a Canon Rebel XTi and was curious what lens you would recommend for an amateur to shoot major league baseball.

My season tickets are in the bleachers 5 row from the field so I am at a pretty far distance away from home plate and even the bases.

I'm not looking to spend 1000+ on a lens so what lens would meet my needs at a reasonable cost?

Thanks in advanced!

[Joe Cyr]

Sorry... There is no lens that fits your budget that will give you any kind of decent results. About the only thing you will be able to take pictures of from the bleachers will be a play in the outfield (unless you are willing to spend considerably more than $1,000).

Do not waste your time on the 70-300 ($200) canon lens, it's crap. The 75-300 ($500) is decent) and the 70-200 f4L ($550) is exceptional. But neither of these will meet your needs.

You would need something at least 400mm to shoot anything on the basepaths. Forgot about home plate.

[polarbare]

you could look for something like a sigma 70-200 f2.8 (used around $550-600) and a 2x TC (used around $250).
alternately the canon 400 f5.6 is around $1100 used.
Unfortunately there is no cheap solution. Although, you could shoot wider (300mm f4 - used around $700), crop down and use something like Alien Skin Blow Up 2 to upsize the photos which typically yields excellent results.

[SkyW]

Do not waste your time on the 70-300 ($200) canon lens, it's crap. The 75-300 ($500) is decent)

Im guessing you meant the 75-300 is crap...and the 70-300 is decent

[clarence]

Do not waste your time on the 70-300 ($200) canon lens, it's crap. The 75-300 ($500) is decent) and the 70-200 f4L ($550) is exceptional. But neither of these will meet your needs.

Interesting.

I've owned all 3. My opinions are much different...

Do not waste your time on the 70-300 ($200) canon lens, it's crap.
The 70-300 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=2) is a very nice lens. But it sells for ~$400-$500.

I have a Canon Rebel XTi and was curious what lens you would recommend for an amateur to shoot major league baseball.

My season tickets are in the bleachers 5 row from the field
Being in the outfield bleachers might make it pretty tough.

We sat in the upper deck:
http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/nationalspark.jpg

I took these last year from the upper deck (our seats are marked with an arrow above) using an XTi and the 70-300...

http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/2008-04-12_9524.JPG

John Smoltz pitched:
http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/2008-04-12_9549.JPG

http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/2008-04-12_9798.JPG

Safe at First...
http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/2008-04-12_9824.JPG

http://crtforum.com/xti-gallery/images/2008-04-12_9827.JPG

The 75-300 ($500) is decent)
IMHO, the 75-300mm (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&cat=27&page=2) is by far the cheapest, and it shows. But it's a fun way to get 300mm for low money (~$150 used)

the 70-200 f4L ($550) is exceptional
All four of the 70-200mm L lenses are great. I started with the f/4L (non IS) (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2) which sells for ~$500. But then I upgraded to the F/4L IS version and, to me, it was well worth it. Image Stabilizer (IS) isn't essential for daytime sports, since you'll have fast shutter speeds to mitigate lens motion, but for other shooting off the field, it's really nice to have. I also considered the f/2.8L and f/2.8L IS versions, but they are twice the size, much heavier, and much older. The 2.8 aperture would be nice to have, but several testers say that you need to bump the f/2.8 lens up to f/4 for that lens to be as sharp as the newer f/4L version anyways.

[DC Fan]

Hey everybody,

I have a quick question. I have a Canon Rebel XTi and was curious what lens you would recommend for an amateur to shoot major league baseball.

My season tickets are in the bleachers 5 row from the field so I am at a pretty far distance away from home plate and even the bases.

I'm not looking to spend 1000+ on a lens so what lens would meet my needs at a reasonable cost?

Thanks in advanced!

From actually having used one of these lenses with a Rebel XS film body in the 1990's and then a D30, using the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169267-GREY/Canon_6473A003AA_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_Autofocus. html) is a good way to start telephoto shooting for a pleasantly low price. Also, Tamron sells a similar 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423725-REG/Tamron_AF017C700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html) for a similar price.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/scind32407a0054.jpg

This image is not baseball, but it comes from a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and a Digital Rebel 300d. From having actually used this equipment, the combination always worked well and gave no trouble.

Both the Canon and Tamron lenses mentioned sell for less than US $200. They're good choices for those who prefer keeping as much money in their own pockets as possible. :)

[DDCSD]

Going a bit higher on the price scale, there is the Sigma 120-400 OS (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-120-400mm-4-5-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0015453NO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231600390&sr=1-2) for about $745 new and the Sigma 150-500 OS (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150-500mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001542X6E/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231600347&sr=8-2) for $895.

[clarence]

Going a bit higher on the price scale, there is the Sigma 120-400 OS (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-120-400mm-4-5-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0015453NO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231600390&sr=1-2) for about $745 new and the Sigma 150-500 OS (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150-500mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001542X6E/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231600347&sr=8-2) for $895.

The OP doesn't say what MLB ballpark he's at, but the Washington Nationals have a 6" limit on lenses. So that's another advantage of the 70-300 (non L)... it's not as massive as the L lenses or the Sigma superzooms. The 70-300 also comes in a shorter "DO IS" version (green stripe lens)... but it costs a bit more.

My 70-200mm f/4L and Sigma 50-500mm "Bigma" are too large for the baseball stadium (but are allowed at the Redskins games).

[DC Fan]

The OP doesn't say what MLB ballpark he's at, but the Washington Nationals have a 6" limit on lenses.

If length is an issue, consider one of the Tamron superzooms. (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/all_in_one_zooms.asp) Retracted, a 18-200mm lens is 4.25 inches long from lens cap to rear element cover. The other lenses in that product range are roughly the same length.

[Mike R]

You also need to consider that more stadiums are restricting the size lens you can bring in. At some stadiums, you're at the mercy of the person at the gate. If he doesn't want to let you in, he can refuse you entry.

[Bowtie_guy]

Thanks for the responses everybody. I'm going to look into the lens' that were recommended.

I will be in Busch Stadium in St. Louis, MO.
Go Cards!!!!

[Bowtie_guy]

Here's the rule for Cameras/Lenses in Busch Stadium....

Cameras/Video Equipment
Both still and video cameras are allowed in Busch Stadium, as long as they do not obstruct another guest's view. Credentialed professional news crews/cameras are only allowed on the concourses and are not to film any game action unless given permission by the Cardinals.

[DDCSD]

Looks like you should be OK for most anything, but you're still at the discretion of the ticket taker and ushers. Of course be mindful of those around you.

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/ballpark/ballpark_guide.jsp#c
Cameras/Video Equipment
Both still and video cameras are allowed in Busch Stadium, as long as they do not obstruct another guest's view. Credentialed professional news crews/cameras are only allowed on the concourses and are not to film any game action unless given permission by the Cardinals.

EDIT: You beat me to it Bowtie! :)

[Oteck]

i suggest you RENT a 100-400

[Joe Cyr]

Im guessing you meant the 75-300 is crap...and the 70-300 is decent

yeah... I switched it... sorry. :o