# Canon Sports Lens Suggestions for Beginner Please



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

Hello.  Well I have decided on my camera, a used Canon EOS Xti in excellent condition I'm getting tomorrow for $300.  I'm also getting a used Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens that is also used/excellent condition for $100.

I'm now looking for an economical fast/low light lens.  I am a beginner, looking to shoot youth sports.  I have 6 children ages, 4-14, so I am not looking to shoot extremely fast paced college/pro action.  Can anyone with Canon lens experience, lead me in the right direction of a fast/low light lens that is economical?  Just a decent lens that can capture some action that is fair priced and would allow me to take decent photos, that I would not be embarrassed to give to other parents or possibly sell.

I thank you ahead of time for your help!


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 7, 2010)

Any 2.8 zoom will be better. If cost is a factor look at the Sigma line. Even though Sigma is not a "brand" name lens, you can get good quality shots for the price. I would recomend the 70-200 2.8


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 7, 2010)

85mm f/1.8

Faster than the f/2.8 zooms, generally sharper, and a hell of alot less expensive.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Mar 7, 2010)

^^^^^^ +1




If you don't mind it being a prime lens you are using, the 85 is a great lens.


----------



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

The 70-200 suggested is much out of my price range at this time, as well as the 85mm 2.8.  I do appreciate the suggestions.  I know it was a hard question for me to ask, and hearing "cheap but good" probably makes most cringe here.

i have been looking at this lens.  Might this get a beginner by for shooting some action on the youth level for starters?

*Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II*

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/]Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Camera & Photo[/ame]


----------



## philaw123 (Mar 7, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> Any 2.8 zoom will be better. If cost is a factor look at the Sigma line. Even though Sigma is* not a "brand" name lens*, you can get good quality shots for the price. I would recomend the 70-200 2.8



While I agree on his recommendation that a 2.8 zoom will be better, I have to disagree with the statement that Sigma is not a "brand" name. Sigma is one of the biggest sellers of lenses and have built an excellent reputation. Others you might look at would be Tokina and Tamron. I'm sure you'll find the prices in their pro lines very nice compared to Nikon or Canon and the quality not too far off.

If you're looking for a low light zoom shooter, you'd probably want to look at the mid-range (70-200/2.8) zooms. Sigma's EX mentioned above is quite good. Look also at AT-X PRO 80-200 of Tokina.

If you want an ultrazoom, Sigma has a couple, the 50-500 and 150-500. I haven't used either but seen some pics taken by others of kids playing soccer. They should cost around a grand to a grand and a half, depending on whether you want optical stabilisation (OS) or not. If that's out of your budget, the Tokina AT-X 80-400 can be had for less than $500. Check reviews of this lens for confirmation but one advantage of this lens is that it's comparably light (considering its reach) so you can handhold it when taking your kids to their games.

Oops. the ultrazooms I mentioned don't go down to 2.8.

Good luck in your quest and hope our recommendations help


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 7, 2010)

Only problem with the primes is you have to be right on top of the action. They are good lenses, but very limited on reach with sporting events.


----------



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

i have been looking at this lens.  Might this get a beginner by for shooting some action on the youth level for starters?

*Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II*

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/"]Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Camera & Photo[/ame][/QUOTE]

I guess I should add, that when using this prime lens, I will be fortunate enough to be close enough to the action, and wouldnt need a prime zoom.  And YES, everyone has been very helpful...and thats an understatement!


----------



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> Only problem with the primes is you have to be right on top of the action. They are good lenses, but very limited on reach with sporting events.




May I ask what range (in yards) would take me too far away for these primes to be useless?  Thank you.


----------



## BKMOOD (Mar 7, 2010)

I shoot college sports, indoors and out.  Before you start running around buying this lens or that lens, you need to determine where and when are you shooting. If you are shooting outdoors on Saturday afternoons at 1pm, you really don&#8217;t need a 2.8 anything right now. A 5.6 will do. If, on the other hand, you&#8217;re shooting in the evening or in school gyms, that&#8217;s a whole other set of lenses. You&#8217;ll need the 2.8s and 1.8s and so forth. When are you shooting? Where are you shooting?


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 7, 2010)

boucher28 said:


> DRoberts said:
> 
> 
> > Only problem with the primes is you have to be right on top of the action. They are good lenses, but very limited on reach with sporting events.
> ...


 
You can figure a 5' tall subject at 10 yards (30') distance would require a 133mm (135) lens...for a good detailed shot.

This link will help you understand the marriage of angle and focal lengths. It also has a calculator that can help you determine your needs

Understanding Camera Lenses


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 7, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> 85mm f/1.8
> 
> Faster than the f/2.8 zooms, generally sharper, and a hell of alot less expensive.



This

Another great lens i can praise enough is the tokina 50-135mm 2.8. At about 500 bucks brand new its sharp as hell and is alot smaller and lighter then 70-200's. BTW 50-135 is the equivalent to 70-200mm on a film camera.


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 7, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> Only problem with the primes is you have to be right on top of the action. They are good lenses, but very limited on reach with sporting events.




Yeah i wish my 400mm f/2.8 Wasnt so limited in reach


----------



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

BKMOOD said:


> Before you start running around buying this lens or that lens, you need to determine where and when are you shooting. If you are shooting outdoors on Saturday afternoons at 1pm, you really dont need a 2.8 anything right now. A 5.6 will do. If, on the other hand, youre shooting in the evening or in school gyms, thats a whole other set of lenses. Youll need the 2.8s and 1.8s and so forth. When are you shooting? Where are you shooting?



My kids play indoor/outdoor/day/night sports so I'm trying to put together a few lenses that would suit all needs.  Im getting the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto today and now trying to decide on faster lens for indoor/evening.


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 7, 2010)

JimmyO said:


> DRoberts said:
> 
> 
> > Only problem with the primes is you have to be right on top of the action. They are good lenses, but very limited on reach with sporting events.
> ...


 
Yeah I know what you mean.


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 7, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> JimmyO said:
> 
> 
> > DRoberts said:
> ...



I understand you were prolly refering to 50mm's


But both nikon and canon make primes in medium tele lengths that are cheaper and faster then their zoom counterparts


----------



## boucher28 (Mar 7, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> boucher28 said:
> 
> 
> > DRoberts said:
> ...


----------

