Help! Need a good telephoto!

[michaelfranz]

My daughter just made the high school dance team. She will be performing during half time shows of football and

basketball games. Can anyone recommend a good fast telephoto that i could buy. Price is a concern. I looked at the

new tamron 28-300 for around $500. WHat are everyones thoughts? I use a Canon 400D.

[swilson]

I have the Canon 300mm F/4, which is very nice but a bit pricey.

 

My wife uses the Canon 70-300 f/w-5.6 IS, which is also very nice and cost around $550.

 

I would go for an images stabilized lens.

 

You might also look at renting a lens to see how you like it before buying.

[jeff_higdon]

I have shot a fair bunch of dance rectials over the years (many thousands of photos). My current best friend is the 85 f/1.8 but I sense you feel this won't get you close enough. To which I would reply, try to get closer. The half time dance shows I have shot at basketball games are the toughest (I assume some of your football games will be during the day and even if they are at night I assume they'd be under rather bright lights). I have the 70-300 f/4-5.6 also and it has done well but when the dancers are moving you are going to have some difficulty. I just don't find it fast enough unless the stage lights are super bright. I would look at renting something with f/2.8 or faster. Perhaps the 135 f/2 or one of the 100 primes. I assume you either won't be allowed to use a flash (or won't be close enough to use a flash) but if you can then your possible lenses are much greater in number. The new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 seems to have received pretty good reviews (I assume you don't want to spring for the Canon version with or without IS). The Canon 200 f/2.8 is reasonably priced but, of course, lacks the flexibilty of a zoom. Definitely invest in a good monopod. If you can get very close or want just group shots, the 50 f/1.8 will be a nice choice as well and it's less than $100.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "I looked at the new tamron 28-300 for around $500."

 

Michael, the Tamron 28-300 is a super-zoom, not a dedicated telephoto. Due to its very long FL range, you won't get best image quality for the price.

 

Please let us know how much you're willing to spent. (not sure whether you really meant $500 is the budget) Telephotos could be either zooms or primes, not too long (such as 85mm) or very long (such as 400mm). For starters, zooms are more versatile; while long primes such as the canon 300 f/4l may require more experience and planning to get shots with good composition. How far you will be away from the subject and how tight you want to compose your shots will determine what FL will be adaquet. Telephoto lenses generally falls into 2 "categories": #1 fast telephoto #2 slower telephoto with good reach for the price or long zoom coverage (tele-zooms).

 

The 70-200 f/2.8L, 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, and 400 f/2.8 are few of the examples from the "fast" category. Their large max. aparture will help you freeze the motion of moving subjects and allow them to remain usable under chanllenging conditions. But they are generally heavy and expensive.

 

The 75-300, 70-300 IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, 400 f/5.6 and several others fall into the second catagory. They are cheaper and lighter than large aparture lenses, and the zooms generally offer greater coverage; while they lack the fast lenses' low light and motion-freezing capabilities.

 

The 70-200 f/L is more like something in between.

[christopheroquist]

I have a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. At f4, it's not fast, but it's not slow, and is very sharp wide open. The constant f4 value means if you're zooming around you won't have to constantly be adjusting your exposure. The upper ranges of its zoom range should get you close enough, although the only thing I would worry about is that it lacks any kind of image stabilization. It hasn't been an issue for me, but in venues without a lot of light, this might be an issue. Having said that, it takes incredible photographs. The lens will probably run you about $600.

 

I agree that the Tamron won't yield amazing results.

 

Chris

[mike_stemberg]

Have a look at the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS too. I think it is not bad at all for it's price.

[eric merrill]

Michael:

 

How close can you get? If you want fast and (relatively) cheap, you should look at a prime lens.

 

www.keh.com is a reliable source for buying used.

 

You can buy a Canon 100/2 for $364; 135/2.8 for $245; 200/2.8 for $525 (although I would spring for $546 and get the II model).

 

If you want to buy new, www.bhphoto.com is very competitive and reliable. (If you find a new price significantly lower than B&H, run the other way and avoid that seller.)

 

What lenses do you already have? That could help you decide what focal length you need.

 

 

Eric

[joseph_martines]

As a user of the 28 - 300 mm Tamron with VC I would highly recommend the lens. It is one of the best bangs for the

buck out there. I will gladly match picture for picture to anyone who wants to compare for an equivalent lens. It is

extremely flexible. I have taken dramatic close ups / macro and used it on BIF. It is fast in focus and the resulting quality

of images is more then satisfactory.

 

If your pocket is deep then go for L lenses.

 

Look at the price of the Canon 28 - 300 mm with IS / L.

[michaelfranz]

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far.

Here is a list of my lenses.

Canon 18-55mm Kit lens.

Canon 50mm f/1.8

Sigma 70-300mm DG Macro

[michaelfranz]

Eric, to finich answering your questions above, I am about 50-75 yards away from the girls during their half time dance. They are mid field and I am about halfway up the stands with an elevated view. I could get gloser and I will certainly try that suggestion, but I really like the elevated view that the stands provide. I originally thought that the stadium (if you want to call it that) would have sufficient lighting but I was incorrect. At 300mm f/5.6 and ISO1600 and a zero exposure I am still at 1/6, 1/8, or 1/13 on my shutter speed. I guess I could have gone down to about a -1 exposure but I have doubts that would really help.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Here is a list of my lenses. Canon 18-55mm Kit lens. Canon 50mm f/1.8 Sigma 70-300mm DG Macro"

 

Michael, it seems that among the lenses you have right now, the 70-300 Sigma should be the one that gets the most usage if you're to attend your daughter's dance performance today. Now you should figure out whether the lens is "good enough". If it's not, please determine whether it's because of the lens' small max. aparture (bad performance in low light & inability to freeze motion) or lack of reach.

 

Since you mentioned that there will be performances during basketball games, I suppose that will take place indoors during the winter, which means sooner or later you'll need something fast. In that case it's important for you to figure out how much reach you'll need in a fast lens. Your choice of lens can go anywhere from the 85 1.8 to 200 2.8, or even longer. It all depends how far you're away from the subject.

[michaelfranz]

Shuo, you are correct about the 70-300 sigma.

during basketball season, i will be much closer to her at halftime so i think a 200 prime might be a little much. maybe i can convince my wife to let me get a EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens and a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens..........okay i'm obviously kidding there. I think my wife would immediateley kill me just for asking! So seriously what are your thoughts indoor? Should I follow Eric's advice and maybe buy two primes "You can buy a Canon 100/2 for $364; 135/2.8 for $245; 200/2.8 for $525 (although I would spring for $546 and get the II model)."

[matthijs]

O.K. this might be a silly question:

 

How close can you get?

 

"At 300mm f/5.6 and ISO1600 and a zero exposure I am still at 1/6, 1/8, or 1/13 on my shutter speed. "

 

Those are not good numbers for beautiful pictures.

 

If you can get real close the Canon EF 50/1.4 would be nice. With the same amount of light you could shoot at 1/50 to 1/100 at ISO800. That would be way better. (I'd try this if I were you though 50mm is not terribly long, even on a crop camera. However you can always crop afterwards, 10 MP leaves some room for cropping.)

 

The 100/2 or 135/2 would be the same at ISO 1600 but it would be harder not to get motion blurring.

 

I don't think you want to be slower than F2 with your current body.

 

(Maybe the 50D in a few months? That would make your 300mm fast enough... That camera can go up to ISO 12800!)

 

Hope this helped, Matthijs.

[michaelfranz]

Matthijs, i can probobly get within 30 yards of the girls. (if you took that comment out of context i'd dateline's Chris Hansen on my door step asking a lot of questions.) but seriously, I can probably get right on the side line at the 40 yard line. they dance in the middle of the field. what do you recommend for indoors?

[michaelfranz]

Matthijs

<br>

<br>

"(Maybe the 50D in a few months? That would make your 300mm fast enough... That camera can go up to ISO 12800!)"

<br>

<br>

I think i am going to spend the next near or so buying quality glass. then I will look at upgrading to a FF body

[eric merrill]

Michael:

 

http://www.compumodules.com/image-processing/focal-length-calculator.shtml

 

At 50 yards, assuming you want to take a picture of a 5 ft girl at 50 yards, to fill a horizontal frame, you'd need a 450mm lens. 660mm to fill it vertically.

 

Cut your distance to 30 yards, and then you need a 270mm lens for horizontal. These are all assuming you're using a 1.6x crop camera like the 400D you mentioned.

 

So the 200/2.8 might be good. Of course, that's only going to increase your shutter speed from 1/13 to 1/50. Which probably isn't enough to freeze motion if the girls are moving. And that means maybe look at this from another angle.

 

Can you take pictures at practice during the day? :)

 

If you really want to take pics out on the field, I'd look at the 100/2. That'll increase your shutter speed to 1/100th, and that's getting to the place where you can stop some motion with that focal length.

 

 

Eric

[shuo_zhao]

>> "I think i am going to spend the next near or so buying quality glass. then I will look at upgrading to a FF body"

 

Remember with a FF body, you'll lose the 1.6 crop factor's extra reach.

 

Michael, assume you're going to be shooting outdoors in reasonably good light (before 4:30-5 pm ish) during your

daughter's performances in the fall football season, I think your Sigma 70-300 might be "good enough". Of course there are

better lenses to fullfill that role, such as the 70-300 IS or 70-200 f/4L if you want the best IQ for the money.

 

The situation with the basketball season will be different. In that case you'll need a fast lens (at least f/2.8), and reach might

not be as much of a issue as it is during the football season. You should be able to use your 50 1.8 for certain shots,

although the composition will probably be fairly loose in general. How much reach you'll need exactly will determine which

lens you should get. The list of prime lenses include: 85 1.8, 100 2, 135 2.8, 135 2, 100 2.8 macro (if you want the macro

capability as a bonus), and 200 2.8. The lenses faster than 2.8 will give you somewhat of a advantage over the zooms

(which the fastest available are the f/2.8s).

 

It might be a good idea that you get a 2.8 zoom instead for its greater versatility. The obvious choices are the 70-200 f/2.8

(IS or non-IS), 24-70 F/2.8, and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (if you want more of a normal zoom than a tele). They are not as

fast as some of the prime, and are bigger and more expensive. But they are "more useful" when you have moving subjects,

and want to get good compositions with your own movement restricted. The 2.8 zooms from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are

also good choices. They are the cheaper alternatives.<div></div>

[michaelfranz]

Shuo,

<br>

All of the football games start at 7pm PST. So even last night was considered poor conditions for my sigma.

[michaelfranz]

Eric,

<br>

I think that you're on to something there. I think that the most important thing is going to be having a fast lens. I can crop down if I need to. It's not like I'm a pro and selling them or publishing them. I just want to have some acceptable quality photos for her to have later in life, and for my wife and I to enjoy. Do you think that the 100 f/2 would work well for the basketball court inside during the winter?

[shuo_zhao]

>> "All of the football games start at 7pm PST. So even last night was considered poor conditions for my sigma."

 

That means you'll need a f/2.8 or faster lens as the all-around choice for the events. The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is probably one of the best choices (since it's fast, versatile, and relatively "cheap"). As far as the primes goes, I think for use during the basketball season, the 85 1.8, 100 2, or even just your 50 1.8 would offer enough reach (while being fast). The 135 2.8 is very cheap for what it does, but it's not faster than the zooms, and it's relatively useless (although it has that unique fast-focus feature) if you end up buying a 2.8 tele zoom. The 135 2 and 200 2.8 are good lenses, but you might be better off adding a few hundred dollars and getting the 70-200 2.8 non-IS instead.

[eric merrill]

Michael:

 

Yes, the 100/2 would work well for indoor basketball, too.

 

 

Eric

[michaelfranz]

what if used extention tubes with the 100/2? what are the pros and cons to that?

[shuo_zhao]

>> "what if used extention tubes with the 100/2? what are the pros and cons to that?"

 

You extenders for macro photography to allow you focus closer or TELECONVERTERS that increase the FL of a lens?