sfinkernagel

<p>Consider a few things when you purchase a lens-</p>

<p>1. Bodies will come and go- wear out, become out-dated, etc. Lenses are a lifetime investment. Don't go cheap.</p>

<p>2. One lens won't do everything well. If anyone made an 11-300mm f2.8 lens, the image quality would likely suffer.</p>

<p>As I was accumulating my kit, I made a lot of mistakes- buying lenses because they were cheaper, all purpose, etc. Now that I have a closet full of gear, there are 2 lenses that I reach for all the time- 24-105 f4.0L, and the 70-200 f2.8ii. Both with IS. There are instances when I shoot field sports where I'd like something longer, there are times I will reach for the 85mm or 135mm primes for portraits, but If I could have only 2- those are the ones.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>FWIW.... I am switching to Mac after using Windows 8 for about a year. It may be stable.... but I have found it horribly awkward to run. I've been unable to install my copy of microsoft office that ran perfectly on windows vista and 7. Finding programs that are installed is far too much of an adventure. Shutting down requires a steady hand to make menus appear that don't seem to exist, and ends up with way more clicks and keystrokes than previous versions. Even playing solitaire - which I used to like to do in the background, now takes over the entire workspace, and constantly asks me to log in to an xbox live account that I don't want or need. Closing programs? "Just swipe from the top of the screen down" except..... It's not a touch screen on my desktop.</p>

<p>Sorry- rant is over. I know the OP asked for people with experience with both machines. I've used windows for decades, and never tried a Mac. I'm switching... because it can't be worse.</p>

<p>As a photographer, I attend a lot of seminars- put on by PPA, KelbyOne, and more. It's interesting to note that EVERY presenter- not some, EVERY.... have used Macs. </p>

<p>Don't overlook Canon's 70-300 IS either. For football (soccer over here) I know you will appreciate the longer reach, and the image quality on that lens is excellent. The higher f-stop will work fine for daytime sports. Price is in the ballpark (a little less?) of the 70-200 f4.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of indoor sports with the 40D, and I will suggest to you that 1/500, f2.8, iso 1600 is not usually going to give you a good exposure. In your shoes, I would try the following:<br>

iso 3200- I believe it is a custom function on the 40D, I know I have mine set up to allow it. Noise is not as bad as most make it out to be, <strong>IF</strong> you get the exposure right in the camera and don't try to bump it up in PS later.<br>

1/400th shutter speed- most shots will still be frozen, and you will let a little more light in.<br>

Faster lens- For most indoor sports, I am shooting with a 85mm 1.8 or a 135mm 2.0 lens, either one is always wide open. You should adjust quickly to the primes (I did, at least). Basketball is nice because most of your action is at one end of the floor or the other- put yourself near the corner (preferably past the endline, rather than the sideline) on the end where you son's team is playing offense. With the 85mm, most of the action will be in your range. You will learn where the "sweet spot" on the court is as far as getting a good shot with minimal cropping.<br>

Lighting- I am still working on this one myself, but if you are permitted, the best shots seem to come when some sort of external lights (speedlights, strobes, whatever) are used. Here is a link for some Strobist articles on this topic- <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/search?q=basketball">http://strobist.blogspot.com/search?q=basketball</a> .<br>

I usually just shoot with the ambient light, but with the faster lenses noted above. <a href="http://fotofink.smugmug.com/gallery/7540311_Xfo8Q/1/487047229_uVGhv">This link</a> will take you to some shots from a girls high school basketball game last winter, as an example.<br>

I doubt the 50D will help much, or the newer lens- after all, exposure is exposure, no matter what the camera. You may get different "high iso performance", but I don't think your 40D will let you down in that area regardless. I have the 24-70 2.8, but the only time it is used for sports is when we take team shots, never action.<br>

Good luck!</p>

I shoot a lot of indoor sports (basketball, volleyball) at a local high school, and I have to say that I LOVE the 135 f2.0 that was suggested earlier. In most of the gyms in my area, f2.8 ends up too slow to get good shutter speeds for action shots. I also understand your budget concerns- I would look seriously at the 85 f1.8. Lots of time I find that I am too close to use the 135 and the 85 is a perfect solution.

I shoot a good bit of soccer with a 70-300mm IS lens. Truthfully, the IS is usually off to save battery. The shutter speeds that you need to stop action on the field should be more than fast enough to eliminate camera shake. I do find that I switch it on if I want to get a shot of the fans on the sidelines though, and I think that is the real answer- If you have it, you can always switch it off, but if you don't have it you can never switch it on. With regard to the maximum aperture, you said you shoot bb- is that baseball or basketball? If you are indoors at all with sports, you will want 2.8. Outdoors, you will probably be ok with 4.0.

If you add it to the cart you get a lower price of $152.xx. Less $110, actually about $42 net. Another question though- Is this considered a fast card? I don't keep up with all the latest card tech, but I am told some write faster than others- any input on this one?

After almost a year with the 70-300 IS (on a 1.6 crop camera), here is my take- It depends.

 

If you are shooting sports, where you want a fast shutter speed anyway, it is less crucial. Anything else that requires a slower shutter and it is indispensable. Also note that Canon reccommends that you turn the IS off when shooting from a tripod or monopod- photographers have reported quirky results if it is left on in that situation.

My $.02-

 

I have the 70-300 IS from Canon, and have found this to be a great choice shooting High School soccer matches. I can reach pretty much from one end of the field to the other (100 yds), although there is admittedly a loss of quality at the far end of that reach. Most of the night games that I have tried have been frustrating- can't get a shutter speed fast enough to stop action even wide open (only f4 for that lens) You will probably be further from the action in the stands, but there will undoubtedly be plays close to your seat as well. The lighting is another issue- I am fine during the day, and even as the sun sets I can boost the ISO to get good shutter speeds, but as noted- under the lights was not acceptable. You will surely have better lights than I did at a high school game though- so you may have more success. Also worth noting- I have the same camera, so the 1.6 crop factor is in play here- in other words, my 300mm lens has the equivilent focal length of 480mm.

 

If you check the small portfolio I have on here, those are all soccer shots taken with the equipment noted.

 

Also I just remembered that I have some photos buried in this website of a game last summer- shot from the stands at Giants Stadium with the kit lens only. This was under the stadium lights in the early evening. We were seated close to midfield, but in the 3rd row- pretty close to the action as it came near us.

In short- I can reccommend the 70-300 IS, I think it would work well. Might be a slight jump in cost though.

There was a time I would have agreed about Amazon, but lately this has not been the case. I had many troubles recently, items that showed up on their system as available, then did not ship until weeks past when they were expected. It wouldn't be so bad, except that their online status report was consistently wrong about the expected ship/delivery date. Very very frustrating experiences, the most notable cost my son his most desired christmas gift!

 

I will never again rely on Amazon for anything that is "time critical".