Best Canon lens for fast action

thekid24 wrote in post #2204209
So would this lineup be a good one to start out with?
-EF 50 f/1.8
-EF 85 f/1.8
-EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
-Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5
-Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

For gym based stuff, the 50 and 85 would excell. Outside stuff, you need 200mm and up. I'm generalizing, but for the most part, that's what it will need. Sports is not cheap, especially with harsher lighting conditions.

Sorry to the OP for going off topic...

BradT0517 wrote in post #2203945
well im typically at 1/100 200mm 1600 ISO and its ok

I would be surprised if any of those pictures are sharp.

The general law for eliminating camera shake is '1/focal length' as a minimum speed. At 200mm, assuming a 1.6 crop sensor, your focal length would be 320mm. That means you would need a shutter speed of at least 1/320 to eliminate camera shake.

Also, 1/100th won't stop action.

Back on topic...
At 200mm, that lens (75-300 f/4-5.6) is f/4.5. At about 260mm, it goes to f/5.6.

When compared to the f/2.8 that the Canon and Sigma lenses mentioned have, the f/2.8 allows more light to reach the sensor. This means you can get a shorter exposure to capture the action, or you can have a slightly longer exposure and turn the ISO down.


Andrew.

Well the 17-85 appeals to me because im not at a fixed focus.Although I know a 200 would get closer to the action,its getting up there in price.Im not a pro,yet,so therefore Ill just have to sacrifice zoom for price.The 17-85 will stretch the seams on my pocket.Might even cause a few bill to be late.But then again I have read some reviews on the 17-85 and it not being as nice as the 85.

Edit:I also hear that the 50mm isnt up to expectations as far as build quality goes.

For the budget people (me) I think the 85 1.8 and 100 F2.0 are two fantastic lenses for sports of any kind. I use them to shoot all sports inside and out. They can handle anything that moves and are great in low light.

I've used the 85 1.8 for years to shoot high school football. It's great for just roaming around and getting shots of the crowd, cheerleaders, players and the game.

The only drawback to these lenses for you may be the reach. When the action is away from wherever I am, I can still get nice shots, but not that "in your face" up close and personal photo. Not a problem for me, because the action usually does get close and I take what I can get. If I'm sitting in a large stadium far away and can't move, I'm stuck with distant photos.

I'd say for the local elementary, middle, and high school stuff of all kinds these are two excellent action lenses. They work for "kidstuff" of any kind, inside and out.

Neither of thses lenses will break the bank and are two of the best values for indoor/outdoor activity shooters. They produce outstanding results. Your only concern is, "are they long enough for me"?

Yeah,right now they are about as close as im going to get on the budget im on.I will be doing some photo shoots here soon,and after i do that for a while,save up the money,ill then upgrade.

Depending on where do you live, maybe you might consider renting a lens?

-D

Dumale wrote in post #2205343
Depending on where do you live, maybe you might consider renting a lens?

-D

Oklahoma City

Throwing myself headlessly into the debate ...

In my opinion, the 17-85 IS is a nice everyday lens. It has a decent build quality, capable of sharp pictures if treated correctly, a wonderfull range, full time manual focus and most importantly; IS. The main drawbacks I find in it is that its not very fast, in some situations it shows a distinct CA and it has a pronounced barrel distortion at 17-20mm. The distortins is rarely something I'm bothered with in my pictures, and the few times I am, its easily fixed in photoshop. People tend to either love this lens, or hate it, just search the forum and you'll find plenty of posts from members of both camps.

If you think IS is important to you (I know it is for me) and you can live with its optical flaws, I'd say this is a good choise. If not, I would look at the faster sigma or tamron equivalents with f2.8. And if budget allows it, the canon EFS 17-55 IS f2.8.

As for the fifty 1.8. Yes, it's built like plastic toy and I was pretty dissapointed when i first got it, but then again I'm spoiled by the metal-barrel lenses of my old konica SLR. However, it takes sharp pictures, it's fast and it is dirt cheep. For taking portraits with a 1.6 crop camera on a budget or taking pictures in low light, it is well worth its price. It wont be leaving my camera bag for any forseeable future.

For lens reviews, you may want to check out eg
http://www.photozone.d​e/8Reviews/index.html

/andreas

thekid24 wrote in post #2205345
Oklahoma City

Sorry, I don't know what options are availabe out in Oklahoma.
If you search the threads you can find something on lens rentals.

Here's one of many links that reviews lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

good luck,
-D

[QUOTE=lederK;2205594]​As for the fifty 1.8. Yes, it's built like plastic toy and I was pretty dissapointed when i first got it, but then again I'm spoiled by the metal-barrel lenses of my old konica SLR. However, it takes sharp pictures, it's fast and it is dirt cheep. For taking portraits with a 1.6 crop camera on a budget or taking pictures in low light, it is well worth its price. It wont be leaving my camera bag for any forseeable future./quote]

He brings up some good points. I had a 50 1.8 for about a week and was dissapointed as it kept focusing inaccurately. It's a good lens considering you pay very little for it, but don't expect miracles either, after all, you get what you pay for. That's why so many of us have empty wallets and only L's to show for it.

thekid24 wrote in post #2205084
Well the 17-85 appeals to me because im not at a fixed focus.Although I know a 200 would get closer to the action,its getting up there in price.Im not a pro,yet,so therefore Ill just have to sacrifice zoom for price.The 17-85 will stretch the seams on my pocket.Might even cause a few bill to be late.But then again I have read some reviews on the 17-85 and it not being as nice as the 85.

Edit:I also hear that the 50mm isnt up to expectations as far as build quality goes.

17-85, not a good lens for low light stuff, especially if its low light action.

85mm f1.8 for sure, tack sharp and an L of a lot cheaper

Borderfox wrote in post #2206186
85mm f1.8 for sure, tack sharp and an L of a lot cheaper

That is what Ive read,its a L in disguise,which is appealing to me

grego wrote in post #2205918
17-85, not a good lens for low light stuff, especially if its low light action.

No its more for the zoom in better lit areas.Im really wanting 3 types of lenses for right now.A good macro,good zoom,and a good action lens.
Even though the 85mm isnt an impressive zoom,from what ive learned here and read it is very quick at focusing.which is a plus for action.the others ill learn as i go.

thekid24 wrote in post #2206385
No its more for the zoom in better lit areas.Im really wanting 3 types of lenses for right now.A good macro,good zoom,and a good action lens.
Even though the 85mm isnt an impressive zoom,from what ive learned here and read it is very quick at focusing.which is a plus for action.the others ill learn as i go.

85 1.8 + 70-200 f2.8 (Sigma Macro version if you want macro) and extension tubes for some more macro capabilities?