Buying a 20D--Needs lens advice

[Little Fish]

I took sports photos as a hobby for a local college last year and I was satisfied with the results considering that I was using a Kodak DX6490 (link to photos is: http://photobucket.com/albums/v283/Millsaps_Majors/ ). I am now ready to significantly upgrade for next year (keeping in mind that I'm looking at this as a serious amateur and not as a pro) and I was thinking of the following:

Canon EOS 20D
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Maybe a 1.4 extender

Add in filters, etc., and I think I'm up to about $2,500 which is just about my limit. My primary use will be sports photography and I'd love the more expensive 2.8L len for indoors but I think I'll have to just compensate with a higher ISO.

Any suggestions to a novice for this level of photography? Thanks in advance.

Frank.

[jojiboy]

Instead of the EF 24-85mm why not take a look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? It's an excellent all-around lens for sports or as a general walk-around. I also shoot sports, mainly baseball and soccer, and found the 70-200mm f/4 w/ 1.4 extender very good but would eventually like to get something with even longer reach.

[Little Fish]

jojiboy--I looked at the Tamron and I had some concerns about it starting at 28mm instead of 24mm, especially in light of the 1.6 multiplier effort of the 20D. Doing the math that is the equivalent of 38 vs 45. I felt like that might come into play when I would be using the camera in non-sports photography. The answer might be a third lens but I tend to like to operate with one zoom lens and not carry the rest (well that's what I did when I was using an A1).

By the way, thanks for the reply.

Frank.

[Bob_A]

The Canon 24-85 is "ok" optically if you aren't very picky. I'd definitely go with the Tamron 28-75 or a Sigma 24-70 if I were concerned about cost. Both are better optically and are faster lenses (continuous f2.8 ) than the Canon. The Sigma is a bit more expensive than the Tamrom, but would give you the extra 4mm you were looking for at the wide end, and I've heard some debate that the Sigma may be just a tad sharper.


Bob

[deedas]

I've used my Tamron 28-75 to shoot some bike races and its worked pretty d4mn good. The speed on it will also be better for indoor candids as well. :)

[Little Fish]

Thanks for the Sigma tip Bob. The two suggestions so far have got me thinking that maybe I should look at a f2.8 lens since I will be shooting indoors for volleyball and basketball. I can get fairly close to the action so I could use a midrange zoom indoors if I focus on the action near me.

Anyone else have a lens they think I should look at--I know it is my job to do the research.

Frank.

[Little Fish]

deedas--You experience seems to be confirmation that I'll be glad to have a 2.8 lens available. Thanks.

[mvonditter]

I took sports photos as a hobby for a local college last year and I was satisfied with the results considering that I was using a Kodak DX6490 (link to photos is: http://photobucket.com/albums/v283/Millsaps_Majors/ ). I am now ready to significantly upgrade for next year (keeping in mind that I'm looking at this as a serious amateur and not as a pro) and I was thinking of the following:

Canon EOS 20D
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Maybe a 1.4 extender

Add in filters, etc., and I think I'm up to about $2,500 which is just about my limit. My primary use will be sports photography and I'd love the more expensive 2.8L len for indoors but I think I'll have to just compensate with a higher ISO.

Any suggestions to a novice for this level of photography? Thanks in advance.

Frank.

Not sure if your budget can handle this, however, KEH camera has a 35-350L Canon lense for $1050. Mine lives on my 1Ds and I love it for all around shooting. Ad the 1.4 Tc and you are set for just about anything. That's what I would do anyway.:)

[Little Fish]

At that price I could probably be talked into a lens with that kind of range. I will definitely check into it and like you, if I had one of those it would definitely be used a lot and greatly loved. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm about to go out the door but please keep suggesting and I'll check back tomorrow. These have been great and I'll consider them all before making I pull out the credit card and make the big plunge. Thanks again,

Frank.

[deedas]

20D ~$1,300
Tamron 28-75 ~$400 with filter
Canon 70-200 f/4 ~$600 with filter
Two Ultra II 2GB ~$360 (Yes, you will fill those two cards and you're going to wish you'd have more, I know I do each time I fill all of mine :( )
Carrying case ~50 bucks.

That totals $2710 not counting tax and shipping. You can probably find some deals on some of the stuff and possibly bring the price down somewhere close to you limit.

I still think you're going to have to compromise somewhere. My suggestion would be the CF cards. Maybe buy 3 1GB cards for about 240 bucks. You can always buy more later.

[mvonditter]

At that price I could probably be talked into a lens with that kind of range. I will definitely check into it and like you, if I had one of those it would definitely be used a lot and greatly loved. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm about to go out the door but please keep suggesting and I'll check back tomorrow. These have been great and I'll consider them all before making I pull out the credit card and make the big plunge. Thanks again,

Frank.

Here is the link. Sorry, it's $1079. http://keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=11155339&SKID=CE07009038585J6&SID=NewUsed&BID=CE&CID=07&SOID=N&ISPRICE=1079.0&dpsp=0&curpic=0
Someone has one on ebay as well, not sure that I would go that route though.

[mvonditter]

Link for your grip. http://www.canogacamera.com/e/env/0001uDJgYGfI080qvg2E7A4/searchresults.html?link=-DD-/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:60028:)

[dennykyser]

I like primes alot and the 50 f 1.4 and 85 f 1.8 could be great and very reasonable in price. You will love the 70-200, great lens and very sharp. I tried some of the lower priced zooms but with the digital slr's I was not pleased. I went with the primes instead.

One more way to go would be the 17-40 f/4 and a 50 1.8 would give you alot of range to go with your 70-200. A little more money but then you have from 17-200 basicly covered. I went with that setup for a long time and was pleased with the quality of images.

[Bob_A]

Not sure if your budget can handle this, however, KEH camera has a 35-350L Canon lense for $1050. Mine lives on my 1Ds and I love it for all around shooting. Ad the 1.4 Tc and you are set for just about anything. That's what I would do anyway.

The 35-350L looks like a great lens, but wouldn't it be a bit slow for taking indoor sports photos? If Frank can get close to the action 70mm may be long enough, and something with a constant 2.8 would seem better to me. The 70-200 4L USM on his list is one of the best bangs for the buck, although is also a bit slow for indoor sports. If it were me, I'd buy something in the 24-70 f2.8 range first then save up and get the 70-200 f2.8L.

Bob

[Medic1]

20D + 70-200 f4 + 1.4TC is a great combo to start. For outdoor sports I would say thats your best bet for the money. Indoor sports, I think its a little too slow. I am soon going to the 100-400 to give me a little more reach and the 28-135 IS to replace my 28-105. As for the other lens you are pondering...I don't have much experience with it, so I will let you take others opinions.

The 2.8 would be nice, yes. I would love one as well, but its simply not in my budget as I need the focal length more than I need the lens speed. If you are shooting alot of indoor sports, I think maybe it would be worth it to save a little and get the 2.8.

Good Luck...

[Mohawk]

Frank,

Seeing as you are fishing...

If I had your budget, I would go with the Rebel XT and the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. The image sensor on the XT is so darn close, if not identical to the 20D. The extra features are nice on the 20D, but do you really need them? I would seriously look at an IS lens, over a non IS for indoor sports. I can tell you, as I own both the f/2.8L and f/4L version of the 70-200mm that the f/4 version will leave you short. I cannot say the same regarding the XT vs. 20D. It's the GLASS!

Buy the XT kit, you get the cheapo lens, but It will work fine for general use. Mine is pretty darn sharp, but cheap in the construction end of things. But you will kick yourself if you go with the 70-200mm f/4L lens over its f/2.8L IS version, trust me! The 1.4x TC can be had on ebay all day for $275 from 17photo.com, that is where I got mine.

Just my .02

IT'S THE GLASS!

Mike

[Little Fish]

Wow, I really appreciate this feedback. It's the kind of information that one usually gets after they have bought the equipment and then someone starts up a conversation that includes the phrases "did you ever consider", "you could have bought that same lens cheaper at", etc.

The price list by deedas tells me what I have suspected. Namely that if I shoot for $2,500 I'll probably wind up closer to $3,000. I'm not a rich man but I'm single, in my early 50's and I have been saving for retirement. Like many of you, technically I can buy just about anything on the market if I want to dip into my retirement but there is a balancing act of just how much I can justify spending on my hobby.

I have looked at the difference between the 20D and the XT. I've even read a user review that claimed the XT would make the 20D obsolete because it is basically the same camera at a cheaper price. For sports, I think the fps alone in continuous mode is reason enough for me to move up to the 20D. The 20D is 5fps vs the XT's 3fps, not quite twice as fast. In some situations that doesn't mean a lot but it will help you tremendously in getting that perfect shot on a header following a corner kick or a runner avoiding the tag while sliding into home. I know that preparation, knowledge, and experience are key elements of a great shot but often so is lucky timing and it's easier to be lucky at 5fps than 3. But, your point is well taken about the quality of the lens and maybe I could consider the better long zoom first since football, soccer and X-country are all outdoor sports with volleyball and basketball coming later.

Mvonditter, thanks for the link and thanks to everyone for your suggestions. They are really helping me out and I'm sure that there will be many future 20D buyers who will find this link and will appreciated your input. Please feel free to offer more suggestions--these have been great.

Frank.

[Little Fish]

I'm starting to lean towards the Canon 35-350 lens. I started looking at my photos from last year and I realized that the 10X zoom of the Kodak DX6490 was awfully handy and I used the full range when photographing a game. This camera also has a 3X digital if you really must reach out that far but the quality goes way down when you get into the digital zoom. I know this is a slow lens but maybe I can get by with a 2.8 lens in the 24-70 range for my indoor sports. I am able to shoot from courtside and I can rely on cropping a bit if I have to.

By the way, for the money (and lets face it, a lot of people won't/can't spend thousands on camera equipment) the Kodak camera can produce some fairly good photos--just not good enough in my viewpoint: http://photobucket.com/albums/v283/Millsaps_Majors/Mens_Soccer_2004/?action=view&current=100_0464B.jpg
http://photobucket.com/albums/v283/Millsaps_Majors/Baseball_2005/?action=view&current=100B2812B.jpg

Frank.

[ScottE]

I would get a Sigma 50-500 before I got the Canon 35-350. I don't think either lens is really fast enough for indoor sports though.

For indoor sports, the fast f/2.8 zooms are great. That gets you back to the 24-70 and 70-200 Canons or Sigma or Tamron equivalents. Sigma also has a 120-300/2.8 lens if you want to get closeups.

You will also want to use high ISO to get a faster shutter speed. I believe the 20D has slightly less noise at high ISO than the Rebel XT/350D.

Scott

[Little Fish]

Scott--On your suggestion I checked out reviews and photos for the Sigma 50-500 and they all looked pretty good, plus the price certainly was lower. But, I think the 35-350 range is better for the shooting situations I'll be in since I am usually on the sideline. The 35mm end would give me the ability to take shots on the sideline without having to back up a great distance and the 350mm will cover most of the playing field in all sports, especially if the megapixals and quality is good enough for cropping.

I'm starting to see that I may need to go to Plan B. All of these excellent suggestions have given me a craving for more than I had intended to buy so I guess I'll have to look at earning photo money to pay for the equipment. I've shot youth sports photos for friends and other people have indicated an interest in having me photograph their team. I didn't feel comfortable doing that with my limited equipment but I think I could do a pretty good job with this upgrade and then I could put the money into purchasing better equipment.

Thanks again to everyone and I'm still open to any and all camera suggestions.

Frank.

[Little Fish]

One final post on this thread to thank everyone on their input. There is a tremendous wealth of knowledge on this website and I plan on absorbing a lot of it in the coming months. My final decision was basically to put off the decision. I ended up with the following to start:

Canon EOS 20D with the 18-55mm starter lens
Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens
72mm UV filter
Two 1GB Sandisk Ultra II

Once I take off $130 of rebates that will come to about $1,720. Based on my original budget, that leaves me about halfway towards the Canon 35-350 lens which seems like the perfect lens for my situation. The Tokina lens might not be the greatest but it will be an upgrade from what I've been using and if/when I get the Canon it will be nice to have the Tokina as a ligher, smaller option when "average" quality is all that I need. Thanks again,

Frank.