jmorian

<p>Low country South Carolina</p><div></div>

<p>Airborne...</p>

<p>Soccer-not for the faint of heart! Canon XSi 70-200mm IS II f/4, 1/1000, ISO 100</p><div></div>

<p>Ready for the shot...</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Jeff-I have the same type of Canon as you and my daughter has played basketball and soccer for years. It took me quite a lot of reading and learning to figure out what I needed to get the best shots for each sport. I'm just an amateur but I want great shots of my kid and her teams! I followed the advice of many here on the boards and like those above in this post and got an 85/1.8 for basketball. It is a gem! You will not believe the difference in your shots. I stand at the end on the court, under the basket or at the corner to get the best shots. With this lens you have to move with your feet, you can't jsut sit in the stands and expect to get a good shot. No one ever questioned my being there and I have shot in dozens of venues.<br>

I had started out with the 55-250/4-5.6 but it just doesn't cut it for speed or light, either for basketball or soccer. I finally took the plunge and invested some serious money in the 70-200/2.8is II this past summer and I haven't regretted it one bit. Yes, it's a lot of money for a lens. However, my kid is going to be playing sports for 3 more years in high school and I wish I had invested in it long ago and not missed all the great shots I did. I hope that's helpful!</p>

<p>I am shooting mostly soccer these days. My daughter is the goalkeeper. </p><div></div>

<p>My first time shooting a football game.</p><div></div>

<p>My daughter the goalkeeper. She deflected this shot in the the last couple of minutes of the game and it resulted in a win for the team! Canon 70-200mm II IS f/4, 1/1000, ISO 100.</p><div></div>

<p>Canon 70-200mm IS II, F/4 ISO 100, 1/1000</p>

<p>This is one of my favorite pictures of my daughter. She is normally the keeper but that day she was playing defense and I caught her going up for a header. The opposing team photographer was a great guy and offered to let me try out his 100-400mm lens which was a great experience for me, but also why the pic is not super sharp because it was 1. my first time using it and 2. REALLY heavy and my arms were tired my this point (it was handheld). I use a Canon Rebel Xsi, this was shutter priority, 1/640, f/11, ISO 400.</p><div></div>

<p>The other side of the tracks. Literally.</p>

<p>Ok, I swear I am not stupid, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get my pics to post correctly on the forum. I have done it before-and I know it posted correctly at least once, but since then I seem to have a file that is too big and my pics shows up as a link even when I have resized it to the specs. I have LR3, but am not well versed in it. If someone could help so that I can get a pic to post, I would really appreciate it!</p>

<p>I'm late, late, late! trying to make sure I can upload a re-sized photo!</p>

<div></div>

<p>My husband's baby. Well, other than our three girls that is! Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, f2.8, ISO 800, Program mode.</p>

<p>Good points all. I started with the kit lens, then got a 55-250mm because I needed zoom. When I discovered that I also needed low light, I added the 85mm f/1.8. after awhile of shooting I learned that what really needed was low light AND zoom. I was frustrated trying to get that soccer shot when it was getting dark and my 55-250 couldn't go past f/4. I also found myself at the end of the gym with my 85mm missing some shots because I didn't have reach I needed. So I would say it really is about knowing what, or how, you shoot as you say Wouter. Will post some pics when I get time to upload :-)</p>

<p>I just wanted to share my experience with other beginners. I have been an amateur hobbyist for many years. Three years ago I bought my first DSLR, a Rebel XSi and started learning. I read everything I could about f stops, aperture, focusing, lighting, shutter speeds. On this site I read about how to shoot certain subjects better and which lenses to use for which circumstances. All have made me better than I was. When I finally decided to get serious about lenses, I sought input from photo.net members on different lenses and camera bodies. Did I need a better body or better glass? Overwhelmingly the response was better glass.<br>

I read reviews, I researched, then researched some more. I knew that what I wanted was a 70-200mm. I shoot a lot of sports of my daughter's teams. I knew I needed f2.8 as I am often in a basketball gym or dimly lit soccer field. What I couldn't decide was whether the difference in $$ was REALLY worth it to make the jump to my first L lens. I had read so much about the difference in quality and couldn't believe there could be that much difference. I was leaning toward a new Sigma 70-200 OS. After all, new is always better, right?? Photo.net experienced users convinced me otherwise and I finally pulled the trigger and bought a used Canon 70-200mm IS II. I could not believe I was spending this amount of money on JUST THE LENS and it wasn't even new! However, I have to tell you that I am forever changed and do not regret even one bit spending the extra to get the Canon L version. My daughters that know nothing about photography can take a perfect, crisp picture with this lens. It puts all the kit lenses, etc. to shame. If you can only choose one lens, make it an L(there are a number to choose from depending on your needs) and save yourself all the money you would've spent trying to get the "good" picture with other lenses. </p>

<p>That was great-thanks!</p>

<p>I have been waiting a long time to purchase a 70-200mm lens for my Rebel XSi. I already have a 55-250mm lens but I mostly shoot my daughter's soccer and basketball games and it just doesn't cut it when it gets dark. I also like a telephoto for things like graduations and awards ceremonies that are often in dimly lit environments. My dilemma is this: I can't afford to spend that $2500 that I would love to on the IS version of the Canon 70-200. I have read alot about the Sigma 70-200mm OS and it depending on what you read it gets pretty good reviews. It is not, of course, a Canon L lens. I found a used Canon non-is version on for $300 less than the Sigma (currently going for $1400). Given what I usually shoot, do you think I will regret not getting IS down the road if my shooting needs change? I always shoot handheld as I have access to move around the fields and courts and I just prefer it. As always, I appreciate everyone's input!</p>

<p>Spring is in full bloom here in the South! </p>

<p>Hi Sree-I am also an amateur that has learned alot over the past 3 years through trial and error. I can't speak for the 70-300, but I can speak for the 55-250 IS. I bought it for the same reason you are considering-I needed a good zoom but didn't want to spend a lot. I can tell you that I have learned a lot with this lens, but mostly that I wish I had saved and bought the 70-200mm 2.8 IS. The 55-250 "hunts" every time it tries to focus, slowing you down considerably. Have I gotten some great shots with it? Absolutely. But I had to learn to work within the limitations of the lens. I learned to take a LOT of pictures and hope for the best. It is also NOT good for low light situations if that is what you need. I hope that helps!</p>

<p>I don't know how long you are willing to wait, but Sigma just announced a 50-150mm f2.8 stabilized lens in February. There is not a release date for it yet. Here are the specs for it:<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/new-product-announcement-apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/new-product-announcement-apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm</a></p>

<p>This is my first contribution, I hope I'm doing this right! My daughter in her basketball playoff game-a foul I think! Xsi, 85mm, f1.8, ISO 1600</p><div></div>

<p>Hi everyone-I bought my Canon Xsi 3 years ago as my first SLR and have learned a ton with it since then. I have added several lenses as I learned what I shot most and what I needed in a lens. I now have a 50mm 1.8, a 85mm 1.8, the kit lens 18-55mm and the 55-250mm IS. I shoot a lot of sports, mainly basketball and soccer, but also general photography. I find I am frequently limited by low light and reach in gyms or on soccer fields. I am unsure whether it would be better for me to upgrade the body to a 7D for the increased ISO capability or buy a 70-200mm 2.8. I know it's usually better to invest in the glass, but given what I have, what do you think?</p>