Zoom lens recommendation?

[68camaro]

Hopefully some camera buff can help this novice and family out.

Santa brought our family a Canon Rebel SL1 camera for Christmas. We used it for our sons wrestling tournament yesterday and realized we need a zoom lens.

Not knowing anything about cameras I am reaching out to the forums camera gurus for recommendations for a zoom lens that would work well out to 100 feet. The camera came with a EFS 18-55mm lens with image stabilizer and macro .25m/0.8ft but I honestly have no idea what these mean.

We place hight priority on something that can take quick action shots.

Thank you in advance.

Chuck

[rolio]

First of all, I am in no way a professional photographer, though there are many here on the forum. I am simply a little man with a camera, hoping the next shot comes out better than the previous one. If the Canon you just got has an 18-55, then it is standard kit lens. It comes with most packaged cameras. The Canon should have a Sports mode on the dial, which is intended for the action shots, like running, baseball, football--team sports. It is programed, so it should take care of everything else. The telephoto lens is a great idea. I would go with a 55-200 or 55-300. If you move up to 18-200 or 18-300, so moves up the price. I believe the crop factor for the Canon is 1.65; 1.5 for the Nikon. So, the 200 would actually be a 330, and the 300 would be a 495 telephoto; at least, this is what they tell me. You would be well advised to speak with some of the "real" photographers here on the forum. They would know much more than I do. Good luck!

[dualcarb]

Quick action shots depends on the camera body, which is how fast your camera can lock focus on a fast moving object. Which is why all the huge professional ones are so expensive. Lenses do not play that big of a factor on AF speed. Of course you can depend on it for image stabilization for images that have relatively less "blurry"...as for the lenses that you wish to purchase, do you wish to work on a budget or you have carte blanche to buy whichever you fancy?

DC

[ocabj]

Actually, a lens can factor in AF speed since lens motors differ from lens to lens, and in some cases, the more expensive version of one lens (e.g. Canon 85 f/1.2L II) focuses slower than the cheaper counterpart (e.g. Canon 85 f/1.8, respectively).

That being said, a zoom lens is a lens that has variable focal lengths in the same lens where as a telephoto lens is a lens that has a long focal length for better reach (less field of view).

A zoom lens and a telephoto lens do not necessarily go hand in hand. It's possible to have a zoom lens with very little reach (e.g. 16-35mm zoom).

That being said, you'll probably just want to get the Canon 70-200. They make four different versions, and the cheapest version (70-200 f/4L) goes for about $700 whereas the most expensive version and the most ideal for sports (70-200 f/2.8L IS II) goes for ~$2200.

When shooting sports, the most important thing is shutter speed because you'll want to be able to shoot fast movement without motion blur. This will require faster shutter speeds. For something like wrestling, you can probably get away with 1/250 or 1/320sec.

Now the problem is that at 1/250-1/320sec indoors, you will begin to have issues with available light. In most cases, indoor gyms are going to have less than stellar lighting. Faster shutter speeds mean less light hitting the sensor. This means you'll need a larger aperture lens. That means f/2.8 or larger (e.g. f/2, f/1.8, etc) will be greatly appreciated. Then after that, you begin relying high ISO performance of your camera.

I suggest renting a lens from lensrentals.com to try out (or if you know someone with Canon lenses, borrow from them) for your intended sports events.

Also, IS or Image Stabilization will be 'useless' to prevent motion blur caused by the subject, since the subject is moving. IS is meant to stop motion blur caused by movement of the camera itself. Since this type of blur is usually a result of using a slow shutter speed, IS won't play a factor (usually) in sports since you'll be running a faster shutter speed anyway.

[68camaro]

Thanks all, it will take reading these posts several times and doing some looking up of terms to fully understand the wisdom you share.

I was thinking under $1,000 to get a good lens, I wouldn't go over due to lack of use and need I think.

I'll look at the Canon 70-200 series and 55-200 or 300. Indoor lighting is a problem and we will be getting an external flash as well. It looks like Santa's gift will cost us 2-3x cost of camera:)

I will check out lensrental.com first and see what they recommend and have. We would like to have zoom lens for next weeks tournament so I'll report back.

Thanks again.

Chuck

[AAP8]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

Thanks all, it will take reading these posts several times and doing some looking up of terms to fully understand the wisdom you share.

I was thinking under $1,000 to get a good lens, I wouldn't go over due to lack of use and need I think.

I'll look at the Canon 70-200 series and 55-200 or 300. Indoor lighting is a problem and we will be getting an external flash as well. It looks like Santa's gift will cost us 2-3x cost of camera:)

I will check out lensrental.com first and see what they recommend and have. We would like to have zoom lens for next weeks tournament so I'll report back.

Thanks again.

Chuck

I would suggest that you find your local store that the pro's deal with ... in Cleveland we have Dodd Camera, other cites have their own. These places usually have all of the high end stuff available for you to see and play with. I usually rent from Dodd locally before I buy a lens, its a small investment to rent at times when you need a lens for a specific situation.

I would personally look into this: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...200mm_f_4l_usm

Its the "base" model in the 70-200 range, it's a good starter lens, there is also an IS version of this which can be found for a good deal at times online. The f2.8 is best, but it will cost.

Also, check out the price guides at: http://www.canonrumors.com they are up to date on a lot of the best deals from reputable online shops.

And one thing you and everyone getting into the SLR camera's need to understand, the CHEAPEST part of your collection of equipment will often be the body. I have the Canon 5D Mark 3, the body is only 25% of the cost of my lenses ... 50%+ of the speed of taking a photo is in the lens ...

[ocabj]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

I will check out lensrental.com first and see what they recommend and have. We would like to have zoom lens for next weeks tournament so I'll report back.

Lensrentals is legit. I rented twice from them (specific lenses that I didn't have nor any of my friends) and purchased a used lens from them. Solid service.

[james1787]

I would look for something like a 55-200 or 55-300 (or 70-200 or 70-300... not too familiar with Canon lenses). Make sure if your camera body does not have an AF motor in it, that the lens does. Get image stabilization if you can. Something I've always heard... invest in the glass... camera bodies come and go.

[tinger]

Unless you reallllllly need that extra fstop, dont buy the 2.8 zoom (even if money isn't an issue). Its huge/bulky and heavy. Walk around with it for a day and you'll wish you left your camera home.

[2careless]

If you need something to fill your frame at 100ft away, you will need a 300mm-400mm lens and since it looks like the venue is indoors, you need a fast lens with something like F/2.8 or worst case F/4. Those are heavy and expensive lenses (approx $6-7k easy).

I'd go rent a 300mm F/2.8 lens and see how it goes first, before really investing into those real telephoto lenses.

P.S. forget about putting on a flash. No flash will be powerful enough to light up the subject 100ft away. If money is not an issue and you really want the shot, I would go get a Canon 1Dx (with machine gun mode of > 11 frames per second) - that camera body is like $6k (I think) and combining with a 400mm F/2.8 telephoto you will get your shot. Note that you'll need a tripod with gimbal head to support these heavy lenses...

[AAP8]

Originally Posted by tinger

Unless you reallllllly need that extra fstop, dont buy the 2.8 zoom (even if money isn't an issue). Its huge/bulky and heavy. Walk around with it for a day and you'll wish you left your camera home.

I agree with this ... the 70-200 f2.8 is one heavy beast.

[68camaro]

Originally Posted by tinger

Unless you reallllllly need that extra fstop, dont buy the 2.8 zoom (even if money isn't an issue). Its huge/bulky and heavy. Walk around with it for a day and you'll wish you left your camera home.

Well here is where I am at, I was considering the Tamaran SP AF70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) or step up to the more expensive Canon 7-200mm f/2.8i due to better quality, less issues and just a better overall lens.

But, and here's the but, they are so heavy. I tried out the lens at camera store and my arm got tired very quickly. My wife will not appreciate it as she will be doing a lot of pictures, we will use tripod for video, but probably not for pictures.

So new question, if I don't want the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 what size lens would be good for lower light with fast autozoom. I'll give up zoom distance but really need way to deal with dim light. Would f/4 work in high school gym with not greatest light?

Any ideas?

Thanks

[donas]

Originally Posted by AAP8

I agree with this ... the 70-200 f2.8 is one heavy beast.

Amen! I use the Canon 28-300L......whew, that think is like carrying a cannon barrel by the end of the day.

For those that due carry a camera for hours on end, I highly recommend the Black Rapid straps; that thing saves me.

[ocabj]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

But, and here's the but, they are so heavy. I tried out the lens at camera store and my arm got tired very quickly. My wife will not appreciate it as she will be doing a lot of pictures, we will use tripod for video, but probably not for pictures.

So new question, if I don't want the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 what size lens would be good for lower light with fast autozoom. I'll give up zoom distance but really need way to deal with dim light. Would f/4 work in high school gym with not greatest light?

Now you're seeing the issues in sports photography. Most people just live with the weight and hand hold. Others use monopods (especially with the 300 and 400mm f/2.8 beasts).

If you want large aperture with fast *autofocus* and a decent telephoto focal range in a fairly lightweight lens, you can try the 135mm f/2L. It's popular for head shots due to the midrange telephoto focal length, but it has fast AF and at f/2, is going to let in a lot of light. It's actually inexpensive compared to other L-series lenses at around $900 USD. Or you can even get the 200mm f/2.8L II. That's also under $900 and it's a superb lens. I actually had that lens for a while before I got the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Of course, with both the 135 and 200, they're both prime lenses, so you're not going to have zoom and will need to move to and from your subject for different composition in frame, instead of being able to stand in one place and zoom to adjust the crop in frame.

f/4 is going to be cutting it close. Odds are you're going to need ISO 1600 or even 3200 to get decent shutter speeds. But it's easy enough to test out. See what your exposure settings where on your previous shots in the same environment via the EXIF data, or go back and run some quick test shots with your existing lenses at f/4 and see what ISO you need to maintain ~1/320sec.

[68camaro]

Originally Posted by ocabj

Now you're seeing the issues in sports photography. Most people just live with the weight and hand hold. Others use monopods (especially with the 300 and 400mm f/2.8 beasts).

If you want large aperture with fast *autofocus* and a decent telephoto focal range in a fairly lightweight lens, you can try the 135mm f/2L. It's popular for head shots due to the midrange telephoto focal length, but it has fast AF and at f/2, is going to let in a lot of light. It's actually inexpensive compared to other L-series lenses at around $900 USD. Or you can even get the 200mm f/2.8L II. That's also under $900 and it's a superb lens. I actually had that lens for a while before I got the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Of course, with both the 135 and 200, they're both prime lenses, so you're not going to have zoom and will need to move to and from your subject for different composition in frame, instead of being able to stand in one place and zoom to adjust the crop in frame.

f/4 is going to be cutting it close. Odds are you're going to need ISO 1600 or even 3200 to get decent shutter speeds. But it's easy enough to test out. See what your exposure settings where on your previous shots in the same environment via the EXIF data, or go back and run some quick test shots with your existing lenses at f/4 and see what ISO you need to maintain ~1/320sec.

Great info all thanks. I am going to rental place today to try and maybe rent a lens or two to test out.

Chuck

[tinger]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

So new question, if I don't want the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 what size lens would be good for lower light with fast autozoom. I'll give up zoom distance but really need way to deal with dim light. Would f/4 work in high school gym with not greatest light?
Any ideas?
Thanks

You can get away with a slower lens by increasing the asa(think they call it iso now?). Depending on the camera sensor the more you increase the iso, the more the image deteriorates. Also keep in mind that the longer the lens the faster the shutter speed you'll need to use to avoid 'shutter shake' ..so yeah, every stop counts.

While I haven't used it myself, I understand the current/new Tamron is very competitive image wise.
If you are going to get the 2.8 zoom or rent a 300 2.8. buy yourself a nice monopod.

[68camaro]

Hey all, just wanted to give quick update. We actually bought two lens, the first is the Canon 50mm fixed ($110) lens, it works great for closeups in the house and around town.

The second lens we bought specifically for taking action shots in high school gyms, after looking at several we settled on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM without IS ($1,400). Even though we are novices we were able to get great upclose pictures of our sons in action shots. The lens in conjunction with our Rebel EOS SL1 takes great pictures, low lighting is no problem.- our learning curve is steep but very fun.

Chuck