Rebel Lense for Sporting Events

[Outlaw94]

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT. Bought it late fall but really haven't gotten a good chance to use it heavily yet. I go to Auto Races, Hockey Games, and Various other types of sporting events and I am looking for a lense that would get me the distance I need so I could get those close up shoots without being close up.

Any suggestions. This is my first DSLR or SLR of any type. I have no Idea how to read the zoom you get on various lenses. Any help would be appreciated.

Also, any suggestions on where any of you buy your camera equipment?

[Jason Dunn]

I'm still learning a lot about lenses myself, but looking at the Canon site,
these look like good possible choices:

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922

EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7443

If you're going to be a fair distance away from the action, 200mm is about as low as you'd want to go. The f/ number is how good it performs in low-light. f5.6 seems to be the standard at the end of the zoom range, which is decent, though not great. The XT should be pretty good in low-light though.

I checked and your Rebel XT is compatible with both of those lenses.

[Outlaw94]

Thank you Jason for the reply. I'll start looking for a lens before racing season starts.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What's your budget? Anything from a $200 75-300mm to a $6000 400mm can do the job, just a matter of how picky you want the photos to be on the side of technical perfection.

[Outlaw94]

They don't have to be prefect or look professional. Just nice looking. I'm new to this whole thing so I'm not expected great pictures, just good ones. At first anyway.

I'm thinking my budget would be around $200 to $400. I'm not a professional so a $1000 is out of the question. Nor could I justify spending that much on a camera lens.

I can think of other new gadgets to spend that kind of money on. :D

[flooder]

I always recommend a Tamron 28-300mm for the casual consumer. It doesn't have the characteristics that a pro wants but it is light, compact and reviews out pretty good for the casual user.

Now remember on the Digital Rebel this lens will become a 42 - 450 mm equivalent.

The price is around low 300s. Just make sure you get the Cannon mount. Cannon glass is great quality but can be expensive for the casual user. Make sure you look at Tamron and Sigma. Sigma makes some great close focus lenses. Great for macro (2:1)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

One of Canon's 70/75-300mm lenses should do. I'd suggest dropping the IS version if you want to save some money; your situation won't make much use of it, and they're all essentially the same glass.

I hesistate to recommend 3rd party lenses for Canon because the EOS system is wholly electronic coupled, save for the bayonet mount itself. That means the AF is driven by a motor in the lens rather than from the body, and thus the lens plays a larger part in the AF speed.

There's always the option of going the manual focus route (which I do from time to time) but I think that's something you probably wouldn't touch. So, get a Canon lens with USM, preferably the ring type (though the 70/75-300s are likely to be equipped with the micro type).

[flooder]

I'll grant you, I am not a Cannon user, so I am not used to EOS system. But I do have several friends with the Rebel and the Tamron Lens. The both really like it for it's versitility, weight and size. It comes down to comfort level and precieved bang for the buck. There are many Cannon users that will never use a third party lens, and there are many Minolta and Nikon users that use tons of third party glass. Just my $0.02 worth.

[Roger Krueger]

What lens do you currently have? The kit zoom?

I'd avoid the really high ratio lenses (the ratio of longest focal length to shortest focal length) like the 28-300. It's hard to make that long a range good, and the expense goes into the tricks to make it work at all, not into quality. Plus, the lower end of that range is covered by your kit lens anyway. Why make all those compromises just to save yourself a few lens changes?

The 75-300 is a better alternative, an at least vaguely decent lens at a really good price. Beyond that, it depends on how long you need/want to go for the motorsports. If you can live with 200mm max, the Canon 70-200/4 is a pro-quality lens that's just a little outside your budget ($550ish). For hockey, where you'll need all the light you can get, this is a much better lens because it's both faster (has a numerically smaller aperture) and actually has decent image quality wide open, something you can't say about ANY of the other lenses mentioned.

If you need to go really long, Sigma has a 170-500/5-6.3 that you can find for about $440 used at www.keh.com. We're back in the territory of merely "decent" though. And it's probably too big to comfortably use in a hockey arena, you probably couldn't even get it past security.

I mostly buy new equipment from www.bhphoto.com and used stuff from www.keh.com. They both offer fairly low prices along with solid reputations. B&H can be brusque bordering on rudeness, but they don't screw you and they seldom make mistakes. Watch out for local camera and electronics stores that will massively overcharge you and try to shove high-margin extended warranties down your throat. Also watch out for no-name lowball online dealers. There's always a catch, and some of them engage in truly frightening tactics. Whoever you buy from, know in advance what you want, and get only that. Even good places like B&H will start trying to upsell you junk like filters and cases if you sound like you're not sure what you're doing. Also always understand that a salesman, no matter how chummy, is trying to sell you what has the biggest margin for him, not what fits your needs best.

If you have any money left over, get the 50/1.8 ($80) for low light situations. It won't get you close, but it's amazing how much better stuff shot with a fast lens in available light looks compared to stuff shot with flash. Plus it's a a little sharper than the 70-200/4, and much sharper than the other zooms mentioned

[Jason Dunn]

If you have any money left over, get the 50/1.8 ($80) for low light situations.

I've heard really good things about this lens - I'm amazed at how cheap it is, but I guess when you simplify things down, you end up with a cheaper price. Nice!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The normal lens is one that's far easier to produce, and hence the price. It also helps that the Canon 50/1.8 is one heck of a cheaply produced lens, plastic mount and all.

[Outlaw94]

I have one more question. What is the difference betwwen the motors that run the lense. I see some are DC while others are USM? I might have seem soom others. Are some better than others?

Thank you all for your responses.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

USM allows for quieter operation, potentially faster AF, as well as a little feature called Full Time Manual Focusing.

Basically after the camera has focused the lens at a point, and you decide you want it to focus at a different distance, you can just grab the focus ring (while holding down the shutter release at half-press) and turn it to focus the lens at your desired distance. Once that is done just push the shutter release down further and the camera will take the photo without refocusing the lens.

Trying the above on a non-proper-USM lens is likely to damage something in the lens. Also note that the above feature is applicable to the Ring Motor type USM, not the Micro Motor type (though it appears the 50/1.4, a Micro Motor USM lens, has FTM available; can someone confirm that for me?).