jr stevens Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>Hi all ,i am looking for a fast zoom lens to shoot indoor sports, hockey primarily. I am on a tight budget so the canon 24-70mm lens is out of the question.that basically leaves the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and sigma 24-70mm f/2.8.has anyone had any experience using either/both of these lenses and if so, how are they for indoor sports (autofocus , etc)?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>Why not the 85/1.8. Faster, sharper and faster focusing. Of course it's less versatile than a zoom, but then you can't get everything you need if your budget is limited (and you can't get an f1.8 zoom even if it isn't).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>I second the 85 1.8 suggestion, its a great lens. I used to own the Tamron 28-75 and that is a pretty good lens as well but the extra stop + 1/3 of the 85 will come in handy indoors with no flash. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>If you are shooting ice hockey you will need a longer lens than 24-70. On a crop body (7D) I can shoot the game with just a 70-200 F2.8. On a full frame body shooting from the bench I can do most of the game with the 70-200 f2.8 but occasionally need a 300mm lens. Needless to say I generally shoot with the 7D these days. In terms of speed - the faster the better. I generally end up shooting at ISO 1600 or 3200 depending on the arena as most are quite dark. Typical shots have EXIF data such as ISO 3200 1/400 and F2.8. Unless you are on the ice you will find 70mm or 85mm too short.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstephenson Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>I own an EF 100mm f2.0 and I have found this to be an incredible indoor sports lens. I was an L series snob until I used two lenses, this one and a 50mm f/1.4. I use the 100 on a 40D for indoor sports (including hockey and indoor soccer) and have found this little jewel to be fast focusing and very sharp. On my 5D2 it makes a wonderful portrait lens. Before you buy a zoom or any other lens, read Roger Cicala's take on this lens at Lensrentals.com, rent the lens along with an 85 f/1.8. I think you will find yourself forgetting about a zoom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 <p>The 85mm f/1.8 is a good suggestion. I you really want a zoom, you could get the 70-200mm f/4. The 2.8 version is nice, but out of your budget and with the brightness of the ice, you can probably get decent results with the f/4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_green4 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 <p>suggest 3rd party zoom not great option. you're looking for the 'low cost + high performance' formula. sorry, but no free lunch.<br> if it were me i'd get a 100 or 200 and save up for a high-end fast zoom later. 200 f2.8 (canon) runs about $600. the 85mm-100mm family is less. they are sharp, fast, good pop, etc.<br> (less expensive 3rd party optics are okay if you're not looking for high performance)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 <p>Nathan - the F4 zoom will be marginal in many of the arenas I shoot in. Most arenas are quite dimly lit (as the ice is quite reflective). Most arenas I shoot in are around 7 to 8 EV and you generally have about 2/3 to 1 stop of exposure compensation set due to the brightness of the ice. Thus you typically shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200, 1/250 to 1/500 and f2.8. Alan's suggestion of the 200 F2.8 is a good one - especially if you shoot full frame. On and APS-C sensor a 135mm lens may be more useful. On my 7D the bulk of shots are taken at focal lengths between 135mm and 200mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_lee4 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 <p>85mm f/1.8<br> amazing amazing lens</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_espinosa Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 <p>With a tight budget, I'd say you have to stick with the shorter 85mm f/1.8 or slightly longer 100mm f/2. Both still awesome lenses if only not long enough for your needs.</p> <p>If you can step up to the $750 range, I'd recommend the 200mm f/2.8 which I believe is supposed to be even sharper than the 70-200mm. The bonus with the 200mm is that you could add a teleconverter to it to make it more versatile at either 280 mm f /4 or 400 mm f /5.6.</p> <p>Finally there's the 135mm f/2 L at $1000. I've heard this lens is the thing of legends, especially at this price. You can also add a teleconverter to it and extend it as well to make it either 190 mm f /2.8 or 270 mm f /4.</p> <p>Just in case you are unaware, the canon brand teleconverters can only be added to prime lenses 135mm and above, and L zoom lenses that start at 70mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now