Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Apr 2014 (Wednesday) 15:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .

 
ddk2001
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 02, 2014 15:36 |  #1

Hi all - new here.

For a couple of years now - I've been taking pictures of all of my kids sporting events - many times taking them of the entire team (2-300 pictures per game).

I've got a Canon T2i - with one of the standard Canon lens packages that included a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. That's what I use most of the time. It takes pictures that are pretty decent in good (outdoor) light.

So - I'm thinking about a lens upgrade and would love some advice. I'm going to continue with the T2i - just upgrade the lens. When I shoot - I typically use a monopod.

I'd love to keep this upgrade below $1000. Way below if I can help it . . .

I'm considering a used lens (local) - a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens (non IS) that I can get for a bit over $1000. Supposed to be in excellent condition (still talking with seller).

In my search - I also saw the Cannon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - that I can pick up for around $700 new (maybe cheaper).

What about something in the 300-400mm range - f/5.6?

In other words - am I better of with less zoom and lower f? Or - because I'm outside most of the time - should I go with more zoom?

Too many options . . .

Thanks!
Dan




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
yeamans17
Senior Member
Avatar
647 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1324
Joined May 2007
Location: Simsbury, CT
     
Apr 02, 2014 15:43 |  #2

My vote would be the 70-200, even if you decide on an f/4L lens vs. the f/2.8 since you'll be outside. Most times I'm using my 70-200 outdoors I'm shooting at f/8 or above. If you wanted to you could spend a few hundred more down the road for a lens extender.

As for wanting something longer, I'd take a look at your files and see where the majority of your shots are taken, if they're at 250mm then I'd consider buying a longer lens. That said if they're under that focal length then you'd likely be fine with the 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,229 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1472
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 02, 2014 15:45 |  #3

Going longer than 200 gets darned expensive. So unless you are willing to go above $1,0000 you probably cant get a great longer lens. As for the difference between the two 70-200's you are talking one stop of light. Take any of your current lenses and step outside during your most often used shooting time and see if you can get away with f4 or will 2.8 be needed?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cicopo
Goldmember
Avatar
3,485 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Likes: 525
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
     
Apr 02, 2014 15:47 |  #4

I'll also recommend researching the 70-300 L IS for it's very fast AF & great IQ. I do not own one because I have that range covered with other L's but I'd buy it otherwise (used most likely)


A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,087 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 02, 2014 15:49 |  #5

Just pick you up a new/refurb/used 70-200 F4 non IS. This will cost you around 500-650. This lens will completely out perform your 55-250.

If you use the lens in outdoor good light MOSTLY then you could consider something longer. Nothing wrong with the Sigma 50-500 either if your in good light.

Lots of options you don't need to go for the best.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Apr 02, 2014 16:07 |  #6

i've actually been using my 150-500OS quite a bit recently for my nephews sports...i have been sort of looking at getting some sort of 70-200mm f2.8 though...i think the f2.8 would be useful for blurring out the background, i'm not sure if it's the same case with you...but for me it seems like there's always a ton of distractions behind the kids


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Apr 02, 2014 17:30 |  #7

ddk2001 wrote in post #16804803 (external link)
Hi all - new here.

For a couple of years now - I've been taking pictures of all of my kids sporting events - many times taking them of the entire team (2-300 pictures per game).

I've got a Canon T2i - with one of the standard Canon lens packages that included a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. That's what I use most of the time. It takes pictures that are pretty decent in good (outdoor) light.

So - I'm thinking about a lens upgrade and would love some advice. I'm going to continue with the T2i - just upgrade the lens. When I shoot - I typically use a monopod.

I'd love to keep this upgrade below $1000. Way below if I can help it . . .

I'm considering a used lens (local) - a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens (non IS) that I can get for a bit over $1000. Supposed to be in excellent condition (still talking with seller).

In my search - I also saw the Cannon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - that I can pick up for around $700 new (maybe cheaper).

What about something in the 300-400mm range - f/5.6?

In other words - am I better of with less zoom and lower f? Or - because I'm outside most of the time - should I go with more zoom?

Too many options . . .

Thanks!
Dan

Two potentially useful lenses.

The Tamron 70-300mm vibration control lens (external link), used for this image.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …0320a0080_zps2d​ec74cb.jpg (external link)



And the non-stabilized Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (external link), used for this image.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …11012b000_zps1d​fb94f9.jpg (external link)


Both units are among the least-expensive useful lenses for capturing action. That makes them attractive for those who find that no one else will buy them equipment.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ddk2001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Apr 2014
Location: East of Sacramento . . ,
     
Apr 02, 2014 17:33 |  #8

Thank you all for the quick responses. I'm still confused . . .

Maybe I need to be schooled in the pros / cons of the various lens. For example - what do I give up (if shooting outdoors) going from the 2.8 to the 4 (if anything)?

Why will the 70-200 F4 outperform my 22-250 - assuming I'm shooting in good outdoor light?

Let's say I'm also considering a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (used - around $1,000). Other than better zoom capability - how is this different from my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? Is the "L" a better lens all around?

Too many variables . . . .

Thanks again -




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdalrt
Goldmember
Avatar
1,672 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 642
Joined Aug 2008
Location: The Great White North
     
Apr 02, 2014 17:42 |  #9

I think this is pretty straightforward. If you are outside in good light all the time, then the 70-200 f/4 non IS (~$500 used) or the 100-400 (~$1100 used) would be a fine upgrade from the 55-250. Although the push/pull zoom of the 100-400 takes some getting used to.

If you are going to be shooting at night or indoors, then 2.8 is definitely needed. The 70-200 f/2.8 non IS (~$900 used) is what you need.

And yes, any of the L lenses are better all around than the 55-250. Much faster focusing, better colors/contrast and build quality.

I always recommend staying with Canon lenses. My experiences with third party lenses and their focusing inconsistencies has not been good.


Just Sports Photographyexternal link
My Junk ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 02, 2014 17:44 |  #10

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Thank you all for the quick responses. I'm still confused . . .

Maybe I need to be schooled in the pros / cons of the various lens. For example - what do I give up (if shooting outdoors) going from the 2.8 to the 4 (if anything)?

Why will the 70-200 F4 outperform my 22-250 - assuming I'm shooting in good outdoor light?

Let's say I'm also considering a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (used - around $1,000). Other than better zoom capability - how is this different from my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? Is the "L" a better lens all around?

Too many variables . . . .

Thanks again -

yes, the 70-200 will be better than the 55-250IS in most situations.
The 100-400 is good for outdoor sports in day time, faster AF, sharper with better image quality


60D
Canon 100-400
f5.6
160mm

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/10496977494_cb073f8522_c.jpg


250mm

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7192/13194714393_c1d2e7fccf_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aressem
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:02 |  #11

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Canon EOS DSLR Cameras. (external link)

This meets your budget and will produce some beautiful images.


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lilkngster
Senior Member
721 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:02 |  #12

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Thank you all for the quick responses. I'm still confused . . .

Maybe I need to be schooled in the pros / cons of the various lens. For example - what do I give up (if shooting outdoors) going from the 2.8 to the 4 (if anything)?

Why will the 70-200 F4 outperform my 22-250 - assuming I'm shooting in good outdoor light?

Let's say I'm also considering a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (used - around $1,000). Other than better zoom capability - how is this different from my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? Is the "L" a better lens all around?

Too many variables . . . .

Thanks again -



Better build quality, certain L lenses have varying degrees of weather protection, with more metal/high quality plastics. Better quality glass, better optical coatings, better IS leading to shaper images with less aberration. With the 50-250, it has a rotating front element, so a circular polarizer cannot be used easily. Better internal mechanism with zooming. With the prime lenses, tend to have wider open aperture compared to the consumer grade lenses. L lenses also include a lens hood.

Is it worth the 3x to 6x to a lot more than a non L lens? Thats up to you, your budget, and other factors (i.e. wife). Be forewarned, sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

Edit: I would vote for a f/2.8 zoom, if you can deal with the weight and size

Edit: Keh.com is selling the nonIS 2.8 EX quality for 1079. THat would also include a warranty. If your local copy is not EX quality, I would use that to negotiate into the sub1000 range.


6dII/80d/1dIII|8mm to 400mm|Pro-10/100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:15 |  #13

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Thank you all for the quick responses. I'm still confused . . .

Maybe I need to be schooled in the pros / cons of the various lens. For example - what do I give up (if shooting outdoors) going from the 2.8 to the 4 (if anything)?

Why will the 70-200 F4 outperform my 22-250 - assuming I'm shooting in good outdoor light?

Let's say I'm also considering a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (used - around $1,000). Other than better zoom capability - how is this different from my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? Is the "L" a better lens all around?

-

To answer your questions:

With a f2.8 lens: the extra stop would allow you to shoot in poor light (evening, indoors) without raising your ISO as much as you'd need to do with the f4. If you're going to be using the lens outdoors in daylight, this aspect is less important to you. The f2.8 will also, in some situations, allow you to blur out backgrounds a bit more. The price you would pay for this is a lot of extra weight and bulk: the f2.8 lenses are very large beasts, much more so than the f4 lenses.

The f4 lens has much faster focusing than your 55-250. Your keeper rate should go up accordingly. The price you will pay is the loss of the extra 50 mm of reach, so you might have to crop more (the same applies to the f2.8). If you choose the version without IS, that's another loss that you need to consider.

I used to own a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, which I bought for sports, but I sold it for two reasons: weight (I hated it) and lack of IS. I replaced it with a f4 IS and was much happier. For outdoor sports during daytime, the f4 IS does an outstanding job, and the IS makes it a more versatile lens for other uses. Having tried it, I would not now buy another lens in this focal range without IS.

Regarding the 100-400: the build is better, the lens is weather-resistant, and you'll get better colour and contrast rendition (the same applies to the 70-200s). The focusing is also much faster than your 55-250. The price of this is weight and bulk (this is a large, heavy lens, although hand-holdable), and also a push-pull zoom mechanism instead of a twist mechanism.

One lens not on your list is the 70-300L, which can be found used for around $1000. It's an outstanding lens in every respect. It will give you quite a bit more reach than the 70-200s, without the bulk of the 100-400, and the IS on this lens is just outstanding.

Bottom line: there's no perfect lens. You need to decide what features you want, and what you're willing to compromise on. Have fun with your choice!


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:17 |  #14

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Maybe I need to be schooled in the pros / cons of the various lens. For example - what do I give up (if shooting outdoors) going from the 2.8 to the 4 (if anything)?

Some blur. Definitely helpful for blurring out the soccer moms on the other side of the field, but the difference isn't as much as you would expect.

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Why will the 70-200 F4 outperform my 22-250 - assuming I'm shooting in good outdoor light?

Faster to achieve and re-achieve focus. Better tracking once locked. Sharper pictures especially wide open.

ddk2001 wrote in post #16805065 (external link)
Let's say I'm also considering a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (used - around $1,000). Other than better zoom capability - how is this different from my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? Is the "L" a better lens all around?

This would be a great choice. See above comments which would apply here too.

I decided to go with the 70-200/4 IS to upgrade my 55-250 and its great for that. The 70-300L used, Sigma 70-200 HSM or better OS HSM (if you can find one used or stretch the budget) would also be picks. A used Sigma 100-300/4 might work very well.

Aressem wrote in post #16805115 (external link)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Canon EOS DSLR Cameras. (external link)

This meets your budget and will produce some beautiful images.

I've not heard good things about the AF speed with that one. If we were talking about the new VC model it would be different but also slightly beyond budget. Maybe used might be hitting the budget at least a little closer.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aressem
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 02, 2014 18:24 |  #15

How about the Canon 80-200mm f/2.8 L "MAGIC DRAINPIPE"

Here's one for $575!


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,671 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help me pic a lens to shoot kids sports . . .
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is heflerbj
894 guests, 302 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.