Lens suggestion

Hi. I just ordered a 50d kit that should be here later this week. I'd like to look for a lens to shoot HS lacrosse, what do you suggest? Budget is about $1000-1200.

Thanks

The 70-200 f4 would probably be a good fit.

300 F/4 L IS or 100-400L, possibly used?

If you can get away with a shorter lens, any of the 70-200s.

Kind regards, Wim

Check out a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX. You could find one used probably these days for around $650 USD. It's got very fast AF and the IQ approaches (possibly rivals) the 300 f4 IS.

Jump on the canon 70-200 2.8 with the rebate going on right now it would be within your budget. It is a great sports lens.

LightRules wrote in post #6953618
...the IQ approaches (possibly rivals) the 300 f4 IS.

Joke, right?

jr_senator wrote in post #6953908
Joke, right?

Only a joke for someone whose sig says "Lenses (all Canon)." Evidence doesn't help anyone who presupposes one brand always reigns.

But for those willing to openly examine the evidence, one example http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6616713​1/original

Photozone seemed to find it tremendous too: http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

It is indeed one of Sigma's very best. It rivals the 300 f4 IS, yes. And this comes from someone who currently owns/uses both the 300 f2.8 IS and 300 f4 IS.

All of this shooting is during the day, right?

LightRules wrote in post #6953941
Only a joke for someone whose sig says "Lenses (all Canon)." Evidence doesn't help anyone who presupposes one brand always reigns.

Since many members who list their lens descriptions with brand as well as focal length and maximum aperture, I chose to also. I guess I could had put "Canon" in front of each lens or after each lens, but I chose to identify all the lenses in one mention of the brand. I'm open minded to your suggestions of how to do this without appearing to presuppose one brand always reigns.

And let me add, that when Ziess offers their 21mm f/2.8 I hope to sell my 16-35L, add a bit more and buy one. I just don't know what the Ziess lens will cost or how much a lens like mine will bring. That would give me a third party lens, correct?

LightRules wrote in post #6953941
Only a joke for someone whose sig says "Lenses (all Canon)." Evidence doesn't help anyone who presupposes one brand always reigns.

But for those willing to openly examine the evidence, one example http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6616713​1/original

Photozone seemed to find it tremendous too: http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

It is indeed one of Sigma's very best. It rivals the 300 f4 IS, yes. And this comes from someone who currently owns/uses both the 300 f2.8 IS and 300 f4 IS.

Please note the Photozone tests are for the older model, not the current model. Current model adds lens coating, I believe, and Photozone assumes it would be as good as original.

jr_senator wrote in post #6955093
And let me add, that when Ziess offers their 21mm f/2.8 I hope to sell my 16-35L, add a bit more and buy one. I just don't know what the Ziess lens will cost or how much a lens like mine will bring. That would give me a third party lens, correct?

Yes, that will give you a non-AF'ing 3rd party lens. Go for it.

beepclick wrote in post #6955145
Please note the Photozone tests are for the older model, not the current model. Current model adds lens coating, I believe, and Photozone assumes it would be as good as original.

I have used both DG and non-DG models of various Sigma lenses and I have never seen any meaningful difference in imaging quality (sharpness, contrast, flare, CA, etc). But regardless, the 100-300 is one of their best, and one of the best telezooms for Canon mount.

LightRules wrote in post #6953618
Check out a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX. You could find one used probably these days for around $650 USD. It's got very fast AF and the IQ approaches (possibly rivals) the 300 f4 IS.

+++++1

Veeery good lens for daytime field sports.

Edit:
I will go so far as to say that it is better than the 300 f/4 IS (which I currently use). the 300 f/4 IS is a little sharper, but the Sigma is a zoom and doesn't need as much cropping, therefore negatingany sharpness advantage the Canon may have. AF goes to the Sigma, imo, and I've owned and used both extensively.

twoshadows wrote in post #6956436
...the Sigma is a zoom and doesn't need as much cropping, therefore negating any sharpness advantage the Canon may have.

I guess I can't grasp the concept. If you were comparing the 100-300mm to a lens with a focal length less than 300mm I would understand, but how does this statement hold up when the maximum focal lengths are the same?

Question on the Sigma - is there any conflict between the Canon camera "reading and managing" the Sigma lens? Would IQ and AF be better than a 70-200 w/1.4x? (I shoot my girls soccer games)

jr_senator wrote in post #6957123
I guess I can't grasp the concept. If you were comparing the 100-300mm to a lens with a focal length less than 300mm I would understand, but how does this statement hold up when the maximum focal lengths are the same?

I guess the way to think of it is this: It is easier to get well framed shots with the zoom between the 100-300mm FL's. With the prime things are often too close or are further away than optimum and need to be cropped.

Or, put another way, good plays rarely happen at the 300mm range.

Also, the Sigma takes a (Sigma) tc better than the Canon when it comes to AF response.