Noob help! buying a lens for amateur kids sports

Hi, folks.

I am driving myself nuts over the purchase of a new lens for my Rebel Xsi. I have been tinkering around taking shots of my kids at birthday parties for the last few years with a point and shoot until I finally decided to upgrade to a DLSR a few months ago. I have the Rebel Xsi, the kit lens, a "nifty fifty", and the EF 75-300 4-5.6 III.

My oldest son (almost 6) started playing tee-ball this year and I've been taking a ton of pics at the playground with my current equipment. I have gotten some good shots with the 75-300. I know that I'm getting tons of bad shots with that lens, especially late in the evening when it starts to get dark. I've sold some small packages and individual prints of other children and I know that I'm limited by my lenses, as well as my lack of experience.

I've read plenty of reviews on the Canon 70-200L f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I'm torn.

Seems the Canon is about $600 and the Sigma is about $700.

I have a real interest in doing some on location candid kids photos and continuing the sports action shots as a small business.

I would also continue shooting pictures of my boys (6, 4, and 2 years old) at parties, swimming lessons, the zoo, etc.

I understand that for the most part, the Canon is the sharper and of a higher quality. I just don't want to have that regret that I will need the f2.8 and have to sell and purchase something else down the road, as I have a limited budget. I don't currently shoot indoors, save the one time my oldest son had an indoor event with very low light and my current setup was rendered practically useless. I'm sure I'll do more indoor stuff if I have the right equipment.

Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice.

LSUsportsfreak

LSUsportsfreak wrote in post #8109977
I have gotten some good shots with the 75-300. I know that I'm getting tons of bad shots with that lens, especially late in the evening when it starts to get dark. I've sold some small packages and individual prints of other children and I know that I'm limited by my lenses, as well as my lack of experience.

I've read plenty of reviews on the Canon 70-200L f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I'm torn.

The 75-300 is horrid, so no matter what you get, you'll love the upgrade.

The 70-300 IS is a nice step up, also in the ~$500 range, but it's too slow for low light situations.

I have the 70-200 f/4L IS... absolutely love it. But I wouldn't recommend it in your scenario... you don't need the IS for sports (because you'll want to keep SS faster than ~1/1000" so IS won't really help). So the f/4 non-IS version should be OK... but again... not really fast enough for low light.

Have you considered the Canon 200/2.8L prime? The Mk1 sells for ~$500.

Get the 70-200mm F4L now and if you are serious about sports photography you may need to look at an upgrade on your body. Last year I shot youth football with my XTi and Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6 with good results. I upgraded to the 40D for the 6.5 FPS due to the fact that I missed alot of great shots with the slower 3.5 FPS XTi. http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=sDi18pPFyaU

Get the 2.8. You won't regret it.

For T-ball I would get the 300 f/4

200mm is just the bare minimum especially for the little guys. When I cover T-ball the 300 is always attached 100% of the time. If that is out of your price range then stick with the 70-300 IS and move towards faster glass when you can.

I do agree than anything mentioned will be a major improvement from that piece of junk your using

Go for it. I shot my daughter's lacrosse season, and upgraded to the 70-200 F4/L in time for the last game. I originally had the 75-300 USM III.

The shots were much better, especially in full daylight. The 75-300 gave a color fringe/aberration. Images from the 70-200 look good, even at 100% magnification.

You are preserving memories, might as well make them sharp.

Don't fool around, get the Canon 70-200L F/2.8 Non-IS. It should hold you for a couple of years when you will need the 300. I have both the Canon and Sigma and the Canon is definatly a step above. As the saying goes, pay me now or pay me later because before your done you will buy the Canon F/2.8.

I had the canon 2.8L non IS and sold it and I am going to get the 4L IS. I found it very very hard to get very many keepers out to 200mm without IS. If it were me I would not buy a zoom without IS.
Just my experience and I hope it helps.

Sorry going to have to disagree with that comment IMO its a bad advice. Adding the IS on such a short lens for sports will not make a difference. Now if you plan to shoot under 1/320 for other things then it becomes a great tool to have... however 1/500 is typically the bare minimum for sports and IS is not needed at all.

On the 300, 400, 500 + then it is a different story at certian shutter speeds but still in most cases not necessary.

eigga wrote in post #8112933
Sorry going to have to disagree with that comment IMO its a bad advice. Adding the IS on such a short lens for sports will not make a difference. Now if you plan to shoot under 1/320 for other things then it becomes a great tool to have... however 1/500 is typically the bare minimum for sports and IS is not needed at all.

On the 300, 400, 500 + then it is a different story at certian shutter speeds but still in most cases not necessary.

+1

The 70-200 is one of my primary lenses and the keeper rate is over 95%. If you are having trouble at 200mm either you have a bad copy or you need to work on your technique. The 70-200 is every sports shooter staple lens. I never go to an event without it.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is a terrific lens with many uses.

What about IS? If you are strictly sports, you won't need it as was mentioned. However, in your post, you say: "I would also continue shooting pictures of my boys (6, 4, and 2 years old) at parties, swimming lessons, the zoo, etc." The IS is very nice in lots of low light situations. Those include candid shots of kids where you don't want to draw attention with flash.

Consider the type and amount of non-sports shooting that you will do and then decide.

id go Sigma 2.8 over the Canon 4

love my Sigma, very sharp

+1 for what bobster wrote. the sigma is not the canon 2.8, but for the money, it is a better lens for what you describe needing. my copy is very sharp, too.
B

I would get the 70-200 2.8 and also get a 2x teleconverter this way on the bright day you can zoom in a little closer. Also shoot in AV mode with the lens wide open this will get you the fastest shutter with any lens. It will also give you great DOF

Canon 70-200/2.8 non IS and a 1.4TC. The 2X TC is just too much for the zoom. Too slow, AF really suffers as does sharpness and contrast.

Gene