Best Sports Lens for Under $600

[bbarbiere]

I recently purchased my first DSLR, the EOS Rebel XT. Started with a Canon

50/1.4 for indoor family photography and the Canon 28-135/4-5.6 IS for general

family outdoor and sports (youth football, baseball, golf, and (indoor)

basketball). I had read an awful lot of opinions on other sites before deciding

on those two with the Rebel within my $1,500 budget. I've since been turned on

to this site and have begun reading great information from its members and now

question whether I purchased the proper two lenses. I'm in fact more concerned

with the 28-135 as for no more than $150 in some cases I could have gone with a

Canon 70-200 L/4 (no IS), a Canon 70-300/4-5.6 (with IS), or a Sigma 150mm f/2.8

EX DG APO.

 

I would appreciate all of your feedback on what you think the best lens for an

amateur sports photographer/family guy with a $600 budget is. Thanks in advance!

 

Bob B

[StephenElia]

85f/1.8 - Best bang for the buck.

[davyjo]

If you have access to the endline in basketball games the 50 f1.4 is a great lens. I use the 50 f/1.8 with good results. I just set up at the right distance to get the image I want. In brighter gyms I can stop the lens down a bit and still shoot @ 250 with no flash. I don't think you could have gone wrong with either the 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 IS but indoors in a darker gym you'll need a real flash. I also have the 28-135 IS which does a nice job on a great range of shots. You could also find a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is a good option for indoors

and really shines when closed a bit outdoors.

Of course the moral of this story is. Think before you buy. And that is from the voice of experience!

[kbroderick]

Unfortunately (for your budget, at least), the most useful focal lengths for field sports will

differ significantly from basketball (assuming that you have the same level of access in both).

If you can make the 50/1.4 work as a basketball lens, I'd seriously consider a used Sigma

70-200/2.8 HSM to get a little bit of reach involved. You'll probably find that you'll want

more reach for field sports, but getting beyond 200mm in a lens that's still fast enough to

use for sports gets expensive quite quickly. The 70-200/2.8 probably won't be fast enough

for indoor sports use (unless you've got a particularly well-lit gym), while the 85/1.8 would

be quite limited in usability on a football field or a baseball diamond.

[ray_tribendis]

Bob:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

 

All of these photos were taken with the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS:

 

http://rtstrikers.smugmug.com/

Good for OUTDOOR photos.

Ray

[dangoldman]

70-200 F4 is an amazing all around lense. That is my sugestion.

[mark u]

As others have commented, your 50mm makes a good basketball lens (though you need to get courtside, not at the back of the bleachers to get good basketball shots). Use it at f/1.4-f/2 to get action freezing shutter speeds at 800-1600 ISO.

 

For your outdoor sports, rather more reach is needed. Roughly speaking, to fill the frame with a near adult sized teenager in portrait orientation you will need about 65mm of focal length for each 10 yards of subject distance. Smaller children require longer lenses for the same distance, inversely proportional to height - but often they play on smaller pitches/diamonds, helping to offset some of the extra length that would otherwise be required.

 

Additionally, if you expect to be able to shoot in anything other than good daylight, you will find an f/2.8 lens is required to get the shutter speeds and avoid having to bump up ISO to noisier levels - and under floodlights you will need f/2.8 and 1600 ISO. F/2.8 also helps to blur distracting backgrounds and makes the subject "pop", and even when it isn't strictly needed to get an adequate shutter speed, it's an advantage to shoot at a higher shutter speed anyway. Because you are aiming to shoot at high shutter speeds, IS is more of a luxury that helps with framing your shots, rather than a necessity to avoid camera shake. Even so, if you get a heavier lens, you will find that a monopod is useful for taking the weight and avoiding aching arms long before the bottom of the ninth or the fourth quarter.

 

I think the suggestions made above for a second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 70-300 IS USM are the right choices to make at your price point, and hopefully the additional considerations I have pointed to will allow you to select between them to best fit your circumstances. One other point worth bearing in mind is that the Sigma will work pretty well with a 1.4x TC to give you an effective 98-280 f/4.

[bbarbiere]

Thanks for all the suggestions, please keep them coming. Here's a couple of questions I would have based on the responses.

 

1 - A number of you have suggested the Sigma 70-200/2.8 . Is there any problem with camera shake that I am not seeing currently because my Canon zoom has IS?

 

2 - Is there any way to shoot a decent indoor shot at f4? A lot of people seem to love the Canon 70-200 f4 but the only one in the $600 price range does not have IS. As a dad at a game I don't expect I'll be using a tripod, will that create problems?

 

3 - I spend quite a bit of time editing and cropping in Photoshop Elements. Can I get away with less zoom and make up for it in editing?

 

4 - Is there a great $500-$600 fixed lens alternative? Maybe something like the Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM?

 

The more feedback the better!

 

Thanks

 

Bob B

[mike_hodson]

Keep in mind that IS will only help to freeze blurriness from camera shake...it will not help to freeze motion by the subject (sports). Sure it will help, overall....but what you really need for sports is a fast shutter speed...which means a wider aperture. That's why the F2.8 zooms get so many recommendations.

[w_t1]

"4 - Is there a great $500-$600 fixed lens alternative? Maybe something like the Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM?"

 

Canon 200 2.8. You'll need to work a few hours of OT to cover the new cost thought. I love mine.

[mark u]

1) If you try shooting with a long lens at too slow a shutter speed without IS or a tripod (or at least a monopod) then you will see camera shake. For shooting sport, where you are targetting shutter speeds of 1/500th or faster to freeze the action, this should not be an issue with the lenses under consideration.

 

2) I wouldn't recommend trying to shoot at f/4 indoors for sport (or at all for floodlit sport outdoors) unless you have access to a $$$$ ceiling mounted pro strobe system wirelessly triggered from the camera that will light the gym as if it were daylight. Nor would I recommend trying to use a 70-200 for basketball in the first place - if you wanted to add a lens to your 50mm for basketball, it would be the 85mm f/1.8 - no longer, and no slower.

 

N.B. I suggested you might want a monopod (not a tripod) if you went with a heavy lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 for shooting outdoor sport. It's not unweildy, and easy to move along the sidelines. Believe me, your arms and neck will be grateful.

 

3) You can answer this one for yourself. Take a picture that fills the frame with your subject at 135mm. Then zoom out to 28mm without changing your position or your subject's and shoot another image. Crop the 28mm picture so it shows exactly the same view as the 135mm picture, and print both the crop and the 135mm picture at a reasonable size (at least the biggest you can on a letter or A4 size paper. Digital zoom is a poor substitute for optical zoom - and I guess that's why you are dissatisfied with your current setup and asking for advice in the first place.

 

4) Your son is at first base, and you're by the dugout. You are going to want to be able to fit him in the frame. He makes a break and steals second. Three pitches later, he's round at third, bases loaded, ready to make an RBI, but with two out in the inning already. You want to capture the expression of anxious anticipation on his face as he waits to see when he should make a dash for the home plate. You aren't going to cover the different situations without a zoom or a second body and lens. The Sigma 150 is a very fine lens (especially as a macro), but it isn't the right tool for the job.

[John Crowe]

THE best autofocus OUTDOOR sports lens for around $600 USD is the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L. If you can afford to keep your 28-135 for general photography then this is the perfect lens to go with it.

 

 

When you have to have more length and you can afford it, either the 1.4x or the 2x to go with it.

 

 

P.S. Since I am a manual focus fan I must at least mention that the best manual focus outdoor lens for your XT, for around $600 in well used condition, is the Nikon 300mm f2.8 ED AIS with a cheap Nikon to EOS adapter. I shoot lots of Nikon lenses on a Canon DSLR body. Very heavy though!

[kahudson]

If your budget is ~$600, I'd suggest that you use the 50mm from the edge of the court for basketball and get the Canon 70-200 L f/4 for the outdoor sports. While I have used the Canon 85mm f/1.8 exclusively for college basketball this season, I am seriously considering using a Canon 50mm f/1.8 at least for a portion of the game on Monday. I'm permitted to sit at the edge of the court and in many cases the 85mm is just too long for shots around and under the basket. The 50mm f/1.4 should be fine for near court shots in indoor basketball. You can then purchase a zoom for the outdoor sports. Even on cloudy days, the f/4.0 should be OK and you'll be able to adjust very quickly from infield to outfield shots. (I don't think that the f/4.0 aperture will be serviceable for indoor basketball unless you use flash.) BTW, as college baseball/softball season is approaching I'm also deciding between the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 L f/4.

[lee_brown3]

Bob,

<br><br>

I'm a dad shooting sports with a Rebel XT that I've owned since May 2006 also. I would echo John Crowe's comments on the EF 200 f2.8L. For baseball and football it's the best for the price. I found a used version of this lens for $425 at a local camera store. I used it to take all the photos on <a href="http://www.ridgeleyrams.com">this site</a> for my sons team. The kids loved it and I raised about $200 by selling snapshots as a fundraiser for the team. Obviously I still need work on technique, but the lens does an amazing job when you get it right.

<br><br>

Although I'm sure the 70-200 4L takes great pictures, I personally wouldn't buy it for football or baseball. Sooner rather than later your child will get older and games will start later and you'll quickly be out of adequate light. I was concerned about using a prime for sports, but found that only on rare occassions did I miss a shot because I couldn't zoom far or fast enough with my feet. For me, the $800 I saved in not buying the 70-200 2.8L was worth sacrificing a few shots (I took about 500 per game anyway).

<br><br>

I came to this thread looking for advice for basketball lenses. The 200mm is ok if your shooting from the opposite end of the court, but not so hot under the basket unless you're looking for a great closeup of your child's eyeball. However, I suspect the 50/1.4 that you already have should do the trick as several others have mentioned. I've been using a 50/1.8 and it just doesn't focus fast enough most of the time.

<br><br>

Don't be shy about getting up close. If you take pictures of all the kids and share them (don't just give them away or you'll be inundated), people are more than happy to give you good access.

<br><br>

Enjoy,

Lee