Limited Budget - need suggestions

I have a friend that has 6-700$$ to spend on a cam/lens. They son plays soccer and hockey and they want to be able to get the best shots w/in their budget.

I'm not familiar w/ the T series of EOS and am looking for suggestions. First thought is the T3i w/ a 28-135 lens.

Help me help them.

For soccer the best bet on a budget would be a T3i with a 55-250EFS. The 28-135 is going to be bit on the short side. The good news is that the t3i was bundled in a some instances with the 18-55 and 55-250 in a package. But if your friend is not opposed to buying used then perhaps a 40D and the 55-250 would be a good option, the body is a bit older but has a faster frame rate and easier controls.

If I were on a tight budget shooting sports, the used market would probably be where I would look. I'm thinking 50D for a camera body.

They could definitely get more bang for their buck if they went used.

I'd also go with a 50D and then look for a Canon 70-210mm f3.5-4.5. For sports it will be better than the 55-250mm lens.

+1 for the 70-210 I picked mine up for <$100 and it is one of my favorite lenses nowadays. That and a 50d would be fantastic.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #16270149
If I were on a tight budget shooting sports, the used market would probably be where I would look. I'm thinking 50D for a camera body.

HaroldC3 wrote in post #16270209
They could definitely get more bang for their buck if they went used.

I'd also go with a 50D and then look for a Canon 70-210mm f3.5-4.5. For sports it will be better than the 55-250mm lens.

I agree with the above, the only other thing I would suggest is to have serious look at a 40D.
A 30D isn't a bad option either, although not as good as a 40D

I'm not sure you want to shoot hockey with anything less than F4, no? Those arenas can be pretty dark and you will want to keep shutter speed up to capture the action.

Maybe a used T1i or 40D and a used 200 2.8 mk1 for about $700 out the door?

Given the price difference the 50D really isnt that much of an upgrade over the 40D and some say it has more noise. The frame rate slipped a bit on the 40D to the 50D as well.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16270248
Given the price difference the 50D really isnt that much of an upgrade over the 40D and some say it has more noise. The frame rate slipped a bit on the 40D to the 50D as well.

After owning a 40D and two 50Ds, I respectfully disagree. The 50D is a considerable upgrade. Off the top of my head, some of the upgrades over the 40D were: 50% resolution boost, micro focus adjustment, MUCH better LCD, improved LV function, Digic V. High ISO performance is at least on par with the 40D.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #16270294
After owning a 40D and two 50Ds, I respectfully disagree. The 50D is a considerable upgrade. Off the top of my head, some of the upgrades over the 40D were: 50% resolution boost, micro focus adjustment, MUCH better LCD, improved LV function, Digic V. High ISO performance is at least on par with the 40D.

Of the so called improvements you mention, high ISO being "at least on par" isn't a great improvement, the bigger LCD screen won't make the images any better, the 50% resolution boost is arguable, the improved live view isn't going to be all that useful for sport - how often do you see anyone other thn a MWC or PWC using a P&S in LV for sport - which only leaves the micro focus adjust feature which isn't really a "must have".
There's nothing there that really screams 50D.

Remember, the OP is on a budget and wants to get the bang for buck, not the best camera.

Of the choices presented so far, I think the best is 50D/70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM. Avoid the 70-210 f/4; it is not as good.

Spend that money on someone who shoots sports as a pro and get nice shots and print them big.

bobbyz wrote in post #16270396
Spend that money on someone who shoots sports as a pro and get nice shots and print them big.

Not a bad idea.

Most staff shooters at local papers are grossly underpaid and have the right lenses+bodies to shoot sports like a pro. The learning curve for shooting low-light sports can be as steep as the cost of the equipment.

bobbyz wrote in post #16270396
Spend that money on someone who shoots sports as a pro and get nice shots and print them big.

I find this suggestion a tad odd in a forum for photographers of all skill levels.

The guy wants to shoot shots of his own kid playing. Nothing wrong with that. Its a hobby of a lifetime if you want it to be.