Need a little lense advice

Hello everyone! I need to get a bit serious with my photography (to many crap pics) I started using a pro1 (28mm-200mm f2.4L) to capture the kids sporting events in HS a couple months ago since the point and shoot/AUTO mode wasn't even close to producing acceptable results with many night games outdoors(low light) There is of course Huge field lighting but I'm up in the stands. My pics are usually darker and many OOF or lacking real punch? I may be acquiring an XT with a kit lense and wondering if this will be any improvement from the pro1 using either the standard 18-55 kit lense or maybe the EF 75-300 mm f/4 - 5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens which seems to be priced very low? I am on an extremely tight budget currently. Your knowledgable opinions were be greatly appreciated!

Low light. You need a camera that allows you to set a high ISO number. Up to at least 1600. The only other thing that is going to help is flash.
My personal feelings about it are that even f/4 is not good enough. F/2.8 would be that much better.

canonloader wrote in post #2229260
Low light. You need a camera that allows you to set a high ISO number. Up to at least 1600. The only other thing that is going to help is flash.
My personal feelings about it are that even f/4 is not good enough. F/2.8 would be that much better.

Yea, I read that the pro1 has a great lens and does produce very nice pics but is weak in the area of low-light situations. I have read the XT doesn't produce the graininess as the pro1.

I never had an XT, but have had a D30, D60 and now a 30D. The 30D is exceptional. Has new software in it to read the sensor and even at ISO 1600 is exceptionally clear. I haven't even used the 3200 setting yet.

But the lens is just as much a part of it as the camera. A bigger objective lens will gather more light and let you get within action stopping shutter speed range in low light more often than a smaller size objective lens.

The XT should look pleasing at 800 I know 800 looks fine on my 300D. What focal lengths do you tend to use the most on the 28-200? I would then get a fast prime in that FL.

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2229491
The XT should look pleasing at 800 I know 800 looks fine on my 300D. What focal lengths do you tend to use the most on the 28-200? I would then get a fast prime in that FL.

I'm usually at full zoom. "I would then get a fast prime in that FL.?? I'm unclear as to what you mean.
canonloader, what is a bigger objective lens? Do you mean faster, probably not

slyone wrote in post #2229558
I'm usually at full zoom. "I would then get a fast prime in that FL.?? I'm unclear as to what you mean.
canonloader, what is a bigger objective lens? Do you mean faster, probably not

Normally people use 30, 50, 85mm the most. For those FL it is better to get a prime because of image quality, speed, and bang per buck. It would not be cost effective to get a fast prime in that FL.

A prime lens is a lens that has a fixed focal length, meaning you can't zoom in or out. The plus sides to primes are they generally have better image quality, are smaller and lighter, are generally faster, and cost less than their zoom counter parts. Keep in mind high end zooms can compete with primes for image quality. When people here refer to "fast" lenses, we are referring to the maximun aperture of the lens which determines how much light the lens can let in. The lower the number the better as they are actually fractions such as 1/2.8, 1/4 so f/2.8 is larger than f/4. The max aperture is the number listed after the focal length on the lenses (i.e. 70-300mm has a max aperture of f/4 on the short end and f/5.6 on the long end) and lenses with a max aperture of 2.8 or lower are considered fast lenses.

Now for low light sports you need a fast, longer lens to keep up shutter speeds and have enough reach for a decent picture. Fast and long is an expensive recipe. To get similar reach to what you Pro1 has, you'd need about 135mm of focal legnth, but for sports longer would be better 200mm would be the shortest I would personally use. At 135mm you could pick up a Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens, just switch off the soft focus which would run you just under $300 new. At 200mm you can look at the Canon 200 f/2.8L, not cheap at over $600 new, probably around $550 for a mint used copy but is just a fantastic lens all around. A used Sigma 70-200 2.8 could also do you well, probably around $600-$700 used.

Thanks! Very well-explained too I'm guessing I'm 100ft to 250ft from the action but fail to capture clean/crisp photos. My best are shot at full aperture and 1/160 ISO200 cause 400 is too grainy. That's why I thought "I need another platform/body hence XT" The real problem of course is a loooooow budget (and my inexperience-haha). I'm thinking under the low-light and far away conditions, one improvement might be a cleaner/better/higher ISO-hence DSLR. I want to at least be better than the existing Pro1. I'm starting to ramble.....:o

If my assumptions are correct, the XT w/ the 200f2.8L wont bring me any closer than the Pro1 but will allow more light and much better crisp/sharp photos correct?
p.s. then the question might be...is it worth an additional $1200.00 expense

The XT does handle noise pretty well, I shoot up to ISO 800 without hesitation, even 1600 is good if you hit the exposure correctly. Underexposing an image (image comes out to dark) really brings out the grain at any ISO. The 200 2.8L is a prime lens, if you are set on a zoom I'd suggest looking for a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, or the now discontinued Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L. The zooms will cost you a bit more than the prime, and probably will be a touch less sharp, but still very good.

The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a great suggestion. It weighs 3 lbs however. You being a young person still in High School it should not be a problem. I can hand hold mine for about 2 hours, but not much longer than that. It is why I recommend primes.

first, as everyone has said you need to bump up your ISO. also, for sports, especially night sports, neigher of the lenses you mention (kir or 75-300) are going to cut it. you should look at the sigma 70-200 2.8 at the least. also, ask about standing on the sidelines, this will give you much better shots.

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2230063
The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a great suggestion. It weighs 3 lbs however. You being a young person still in High School it should not be a problem. I can hand hold mine for about 2 hours, but not much longer than that. It is why I recommend primes.

and then they invented the stick. monopods are a wonderful thing

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2230265
and then they invented the stick. monopods are a wonderful thing

True... true... I do not like to use one when I am hiking though. A mono-pod would make it easier to use.

The objective lens is on the big end. The bigger, the faster the lens will be, meaning, it will have a lower f number. For instance, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens has an objective lens size of 67mm, while the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens has an objective size of 77mm. This gives it one full f/stop over the smaller one, or, the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 800.