New To The Game - What lens do I start with?

[Sonya]

Hey All! I'm a new member to the forum, and a new owner of the Canon Rebel D-SLR. I've been a hobby-photographer for the past ten years, mostly my kid's sports events, but am in the midst of starting an action sports photography business. I take good shots, but I'm SO new to the lingo and hardware - I've always just grabbed a camera and shot the shot. My question is: What telephoto lens would you all suggest for my new Canon Rebel? I'm focusing (no pun intended) on minor sports action.

Thanks
Sonya
Prince George, BC Canada

[DaveG]

Sonya wrote:
Hey All! I'm a new member to the forum, and a new owner of the Canon Rebel D-SLR. I've been a hobby-photographer for the past ten years, mostly my kid's sports events, but am in the midst of starting an action sports photography business. I take good shots, but I'm SO new to the lingo and hardware - I've always just grabbed a camera and shot the shot. My question is: What telephoto lens would you all suggest for my new Canon Rebel? I'm focusing (no pun intended) on minor sports action.

Thanks
Sonya
Prince George, BC Canada

Either the canon 70-200 f2.8L IS or non IS. Then the Canon 1.4 Extender.

[openspace]

The Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8L is a great choice. If you can't afford it, then check out the equivalent Sigma EX or Tokina ATX-Pro. Both are good choices.

The Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is a great choice as well. It certainly is a bit slower (largest aperture lets in less light - longer exposures) but you can compensate for this by shooting at a higher ISO. Shoot at ISO 200 if you can, 400 if you have to.

[Longwatcher]

The Canon 75-300 is also a good choice for outdoors/daytime sports. The 70-200/2.8L IS is a better choice, but is significantly more expensive.

The 75-300 IS is a good lens that will produce good results, however since you will be shooting sports, the IS will probably not help, so you may not need to get the IS version.

If you can afford it go with the 70-200/2.8, if not consider the 75-300.

Just my experience and opinion,

[Sonya]

Thanks for the replies - I'm going to go with the 300, I think, I have to get started and $$ is always a motivator. The local hockey club is really excited about having me come in - what a challenge it is - distance, poor lighting and super fast action...

[Andy_T]

Hi Sonya,

there are also other (presumedly) good lenses out there from 3rd party manufacturers.

E.G., the Tamron XR and Sigma EX lens series are both considerable less expensive than Canon 'L' lenses and - according to some here on the forum - also produce good quality.

According to others, they are not as good as Canon 'L' lenses, and the image quality might be good in one lens and not so good in another.

You might take a look at http://www.photozone.de for their lens guide that rates many lenses.

Regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

If 300mm is your target focal length.. do take a close look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX.

It has been getting rave reviews from all who handle it.

The above link has a chart that rates the Sigma 100-300 higher than any other 300mm zoom @ 4.18 out of 5 (which also happens to be rated higher than the best 200mm zoom which is Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" at 4.07!!!

...whereas the Canon 75-300mm IS is all the way down in position 12 with a rating of 2.62

[ITMaster]

I too, like the originator of this post am new to "quality" digital photography. I have been reviewing this site and notice during the reading of the posts that your comments seem to be based upon knowledge gained from experience and respect your opinions.
My photographic experience is limited to 35mm, Minolta SRT 101 in VietNam 69-70, followed up shortly thereafter with Nikon EM. I use the Nikon 50mm lense with f-stop range of 1.8 to 22 and then several generic 28mm and 135mm lenses with a 2 power converter.
I recently acquired my Rebel EOS 300 Digital ( or whatever the nomenclature is) after giving consideration to the EOS 1D, then the 10D. Although cost was a consideration, for the near perfection quality I desire, I was willing to pay the near $8000 for the 1D. I am very pleased with the Rebel and hence can afford to pass my savings on to the purchase of lenses.
With the intial purchase of the Rebel, the shop sold me the Sigma Autofocus Telephoto Zoom with Macro that you refer to in this post. Several days after my purchase I returned the 2 Sigma lenses and indicated to the shop keeper that I desired refund, (which he did provide); that the movement of the zoom did not seem to be as fluid and free moving as the Canon 18-55 zoom that came with the camera, and that I wanted to get the Canon 75-300 Zoom with the Image Stabilization. Have found one on the net new for $375US, shipping and handling included. I read the review posted at the link and see how much better the Sigma is rated than the Canon. I guess my question is this: Is the Sigma that much better of a lense than the Canon? Perhaps could it be possible that the Sigma that I had could have had a flaw that made the movement of the zoom seem "jerkey" and maybe another Sigma might have a more smooth movement like the Canon. I would appreciate and respect your comment. Thanks, Tom

[defordphoto]

I also shoot sports. From motorsports to sprint boats to kids soccer games. While in the middle of the sprint boat season my 100-400L died and while it was being repaired at Canon (which took three trips) I bought the 70-200L f2.8 IS and the 1.4TC.

The 70-200 is a sweet lens. Add the 1.4 and you get 280, but I sure missed the reach of the 100-400 in a huge way. There were many shots that were missed just due to the fact that I was missing 120mm and didn't have the reach.

Shooting soccer games was a waste of time unless they were pretty much on my side of the field. Once I got the 100-400 back then the wow-factor jumped back into my sports photos.

The 100-400L doesn't have the best build quality and I knew that going in, so I did get the Mack warranty on it. If I were to replace this lens it would be with a 400 prime, but I'd sure miss the ability to zoom back and would have to shoot with two cameras, which I prefer not to do.

And yes, you could get the 2.0TC, but I haven't heard many good stories using it, so I went with the 1.4.

Anyway, something to think about...

[CyberDyneSystems]

ITMaster wrote:
.....the shop sold me the Sigma Autofocus Telephoto Zoom with Macro that you refer to in this post. Several days after my purchase I returned the 2 Sigma lenses and indicated to the shop keeper that I desired refund, (which he did provide); that the movement of the zoom did not seem to be as fluid and free moving as the Canon 18-55 zoom that came with the camera, and that I wanted to get the Canon 75-300 Zoom with the Image Stabilization. Have found one on the net new for $375US, shipping and handling included. I read the review posted at the link and see how much better the Sigma is rated than the Canon. I guess my question is this: Is the Sigma that much better of a lense than the Canon? Perhaps could it be possible that the Sigma that I had could have had a flaw that made the movement of the zoom seem "jerkey" and maybe another Sigma might have a more smooth movement like the Canon. I would appreciate and respect your comment. Thanks, Tom

I'm not sure which Sigma lens you are referring to. Sigma makes some fantastic lenses and some dogs. Most of Sigma's great lenses bare the "EX" stamp with a gold ring on the front to set them apart.

The Sigma lens I was referring to is the 100-300mm f/4 "EX" HSM seen here;

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29

It is pretty much in a class by itself currently.

A totally different caliber of lens from the large numbers of 75-300mm and 100-300mm lenses available with varying maximum apertures.

Thus the $700.00 or so price tag.

Most 75-300mm are around $200.00- $350.00

Probably the best 75-300mm is indeed the Canon 75-300mm IS.